# The Walnut Heavy Tele Build thread



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Saw some walnut teles online, had a Bunch of walnut lying around, took a shot at one.

Waiting for my bargain 1/2" router to deliver, weighed the body.









7.5 pounds.

Tele bodies, per my research, should be "about 4 pounds" if Alder. Maybe less if pine or something.

How much weight'll it lose after routing? Enough? Is there a way to accurately predict this or does it "all depend" on how dense the wood is etc?

It's 1.75 inches, idk if I can plane it down because I read the control cavity has to be 1.5" depth. I also heard that routing "weight relief holes" won't do "a whole lot" either.

So I mean, I figure I'll rout it to spec and then see what the weight is, and then idk, decide afterwards, but what do you guys think, can I maybe just rout a shallower control cavity? I was thinking that way, I could get my wood supplier to plane it down. I'm putting EMGs on it, if that makes a difference.

As soon as my router gets here, I guess I should be starting an official build thread with pictures and everything to avoid separating these posts. Let me know what's good with this weight issue, if it won't work then I'll buy a lighter body or lighter wood and will use my saved template to make another body, and then I'll turn this into a "serving tray" , my girlfriend's grabbing those every time I make one.

Btw none of this bandsaw work was "touching the line" and even the line ended up a few mm away from the template, so don't worry about the outline. Quite a bit of the border is gonna be coming off during the routing.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

You could add Strat like belly and forearm contours to further lessen the weight. Or semi hollow it with a cap.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

She's gonna be a brick. Neck pocket and control routes gonna get you back what, 1.5 lbs-ish? With contours you should get 'reasonable' but without gonna be a heavy guitar.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Usually Walnut is not that bad for weight, but it can vary from piece to piece.

There's a lot of wood to come out of there yet, I wouldn't panic. And like @JBFairthorne mentioned, there are tricks. Tummy cut, arm contour, double cut Tele, bathtub style route, etc.
Last resort, you cut about 1/2 inch off the top in a bandsaw and hollow out the inside. brb, gotta go weigh my walnut tele body.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Alright here are the EMG specs.









Under the circumstances, do you guys think I could plane to idk 1.3 - 1.5, and see if it hits 4 lbs?

I'll look into how to make a contour, yeah. If it can be done to avoid brickweight, whatever it takes lol I'm not really worried about time or work, doing this doesn't really frustrate or annoy me so I'm down to clown.



> Last resort, you cut about 1/2 inch off the top in a bandsaw and hollow out the inside.


My band saw is more of a large microscope than it is a proper bandsaw, so I didn't think of that idea but it's nice to know I probably don't already have to start planning for that. I'll bet my wood supplier has one, he's always making those large live edge tables and you gotta prep those bad boys with something.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I have a bare walnut tele body, it's all routed and finished. 1-3/4" thick, two humbuckers. It weighs right on 5 lbs.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Lincoln said:


> I have a bare walnut tele body, it's all routed and finished. 1-3/4" thick, two humbuckers. It weighs right on 5 lbs.


I guess the next question to ask then, is how heavy is "too" heavy?

I have a 2013 American tele special, and that guitar ain't heavy. I read a Sweetwater forum and this is what one poster said about the amspec tele:

"The alder body on mine is rather light weight 7lbs. 6oz."

I guess he meant all-in. Do ya figure I'll get to about that with a 5lb walnut body or will it be more like 8-9 lbs?

My PRS torero (for sale on forum) weighs 8lb 14 oz according to reverb. Now it does Feel heavy, but it doesn't feel "too" heavy, I can still stand and sit with it (for now, I'm 34) and play with it just fine for over an hour, as long as I alternate sitting and standing (because of some shoulder ache after standing strapped for more than 20-30 minutes with no break)

I guess 9 lb is "acceptable" , but do y'all think I'd get it down lower than that?


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

That is going to be a boat anchor. 9+ lbs completed. That said, my current #1 is a 9.5 lbs Telecaster. Needless to say I invested in a Well-Hung strap to deal with the weight. It won't be any heavier than a vintage Les Paul or a Banjo.


----------



## DavidP (Mar 7, 2006)

... consider bathtub routing for the neck pickup zone, as well as tummy cut and neck heel contour. Should remove some weight and you can always drop in a middle pickup as desired! 
Nevertheless, I expect the finished product weight will be in Les Paul territory!!


----------



## ga20t (Jul 22, 2010)

I'd _think_ you could get rid of close to 1/3 its weight by slicing and hollowing out either side of the centreline, and also behind the bridge potentially. Maybe even a partial swimming pool route on top of that.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

You could also give it the Firebird treatment and mill down the wings.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I say finish it up with a bathtub route under the pickguard, and find out. If it's still too heavy, then do the contours?
Avoid locking tuners and maybe use plastic Strat knobs instead of domed metal?

I really want a walnut Strat or Tele body one day...heavy or not. I love the look of walnut.
Good luck with your project and good for you to jump right into this.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

tomee2 said:


> I say finish it up with a bathtub route under the pickguard, and find out. If it's still too heavy, then do the contours?
> Avoid locking tuners and maybe use plastic Strat knobs instead of domed metal?
> 
> I really want a walnut Strat or Tele body one day...heavy or not. I love the look of walnut.
> Good luck with your project and good for you to jump right into this.


There is some fake metal knobs that are just faux-chrome coated plastic too. 

My advice is to avoid heavy tuners, and invest in a good strap (Well-Hung Guitar Accessories on here). Then it will feel light enough to enjoy it for its beauty and tone.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I have two tele's that I consider to be heavy. One is padauk and the other is northern ash. Both complete guitars. Padauk weighs 10 lbs, Northern ash weighs 9 lbs.
Both woods are much denser than walnut. 

My normal 2006, mim Tele weighs 8 lbs. My swamp ash tele weighs 7 lbs. 

Looking online, I'm seeing a lot of tele bodies right around the 5 lb mark.

I bet by the time you finish that body, it will be down around the 5lb zone.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

10 pounds of tone!!
Good couch tele. Leg might go numb though. 
Make a side table out of it and start over with a body a couple pounds lighter.


----------



## Cardamonfrost (Dec 12, 2018)

I play a LP, so that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. They say you dont know anything until you do it yourself. So finish that puppy up!
C


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Alright well, here's what I think I'll do... maybe

I'm definitely not starting over, judging by the support I received on here in favour of finishing the walnut build. I'm going to at least try first and maybe decide after the finished body is weighed, before adding stuff.

I'm definitely going to (in order):


Do the edge flush trim routing
Do the edge roundover
Sand this thing glass smooth, moving through all the grits. Hand sanding for the side, and I mean, I heard block sanding is best for the top but maybe orbital sanding if I don't get anywhere with block sanding
Bathtub routing under the pickguard, or maybe smuggler's routing?

Wanted peoples' thoughts on this because it seemed like a rather full-measure approach to weight saving, and as long as it doesn't make the guitar sound "horrible" I'm not going to be able to tell the difference. See below









- And then I'm gonna weigh it. If it's still hopelessly heavy, I will add the arm contour and then weigh it again.

If it's STILL heavy, I am going to have to either do this:









Which would idk essentially make it a hollow body? Except I was planning on doing it in the rear, and then laminating some maple together, planing it ultra thin and then cutting it to match and gluing it on, using every clamp I have.

Or?









Taking my drill press and drilling circular holes in the back of the guitar, and then covering over them with little maple circles that get cut to size with a hole saw and then get glued around the edge, jammed in with a mallet, and sanded flat. That was inspired by this warmoth picture, isn't what the actual work will look like but idk that looks like a Lot of missing wood, may make a crucial 1 pound of difference.

If I want to get this down to FOUR pounds, it'd have to lose almost half its weight. I don't think that's possible, but I think it maaaaay be possible, maybe, to get the finished product to about 8 lbs if I get the body down to FIVE pounds. I'm saying this because I weighed everything, and it all adds to just about 3 pounds. I'm not really counting the weight of the strings here, because come on.
























All the metal together weighs 1 pound. I'd rather keep the tuners and try to shave wood weight than get plastic tuners, just stubborn preference.

That all adds to we'll say 3 lbs, I think 2 lbs 15.8 so okay, 3 lbs. At that weight, to get the product to 8 lbs my tele body would have to be 5lbs and lose, as I believe a previous poster said, one third of its weight. Difficult, but not impossible given all these options. I see there's a lot of interest so I wanted to show everyone the weight of the other components, and I will be posting here with a result on weight after the edge routing, sanding, and then either the bathtub routing or smuggler's routing.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Shoot for 9 pounds. You'll be a lot happier when you get done and it's 8lbs 12 oz..


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

You could also add a light-weight B-Bender. I've seen them made with aluminum components to shave weight. Then add an extra generous rout for it on the rear


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

and when you get to that stage, tung oil does something magical to walnut, Apply it first, then put on your clear/top coat.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Lincoln said:


> and when you get to that stage, tung oil does something magical to walnut, Apply it first, then put on your clear/top coat.


Keeping in mind that finish also adds weight


----------



## nnieman (Jun 19, 2013)

It looks great!
In my experience - you are not going to get it to under 6 lbs.
Contours be pickup routes don’t really remove very much wood.
I would consider 6-7 lbs to be heavy but still ok.
The smugglers route doesn’t take off a pound, just a few onces (I have tried it).

The only way you are going to get under 5lbs is to plan it thinner & chamber it.
Then add a top (or back).

Nathan


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Lincoln said:


> and when you get to that stage, tung oil does something magical to walnut, Apply it first, then put on your clear/top coat.


Ya I have tung oil! Have used it before for other stuff like walnut picture frames and children's toys I've made. Not sure exactly what my process will be for finishing the guitar, but will look into it at some point and include it as part of the main thread for my build. I'm going this afternoon to try and fix my busted router table, would be easier to use the table than it would be to hand rout the guitar edge but I'm prepared to do it either way.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

This is a shelf, but it's walnut. I didn't even see this figure in it until I hit it with the tung oil. It really brings out the best in walnut.


----------



## Swervin55 (Oct 30, 2009)

I guess a Bigsby's out of the question, huh?


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

I guess that's a joke because they're so damn heavy lol, but nah, not into bigsbys yet, maybe one day after I spend some time with some hollow bodies and have better chops and can appreciate them more.

The edge routing and roundover is done. I lost 2 ounces. I need to lose another 14 for a 6-pound tele and another 30 for a 5 pound tele.









If I have sufficient time, weather and light tomorrow, I'm going to rout the pickup cavities, the control cavity, and that between cavity which I need to look into because I think it's meant to connect two other cavities but I'm not sure what it does...and then I'm going to hand-sand the edge of this thing until it's properly smooth. Then I'll do the smuggler's routing (I'm fairly committed to that at this point because the cavities alone will definitely not lose me 14 ounces) and then it'll be weigh-in day once that's done. Happy Thursday y'all.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Route it like à thinline but don't put the f holes in. But you would need a top. Too bad it wasn't just a wee bit thicker. Slice the top off flatten it and glue it back on after routing.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

knight_yyz said:


> Route it like à thinline but don't put the f holes in. But you would need a top. Too bad it wasn't just a wee bit thicker. Slice the top off flatten it and glue it back on after routing.


Sorry if this is a double post, not sure if the forum thread lost what I just typed. Anyway, what about this?








I could make cavities in the back, and cover them with thin maple. Would this work? I guess I should be covering them with classy stickers to save the most weight, but I have none. C'est la vie.

Would this ruin the structural integrity of the guitar? I don't drop or dent my instruments, and I figure hey it's walnut, it has to be strong. What are everyone's thoughts on drilling multiple small "chambers" vs hollowing out a massive "cavity" or two?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

I was thinking of this, but with a walnut top. I guess you could do this from the back and make a really big cover plate. This is a thinline telecaster without the top glued on.


----------



## ga20t (Jul 22, 2010)

+1 I wouldn't bother with multiple smaller plates. Just work your way towards this until you obtain the weight relief you require. If you're worried about strength to support the top, you could leave material wherever you want, as was done with the treble bout here.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Okay, so had to stop early today, and had some close-call "oh no I've ruined it" moments with the router. However, I then realized that those "Oh no" segments would be completely covered by hardware, and continued routing. The neck cavity, neck pickup cavity, and the control cavity have been routed. I haven't drilled the neck yet, because I'm not sure what order to do this all in, but I've decided I'm going to keep trying to shed weight first. I'm down to 6 pounds 13 oz, leading to a future guitar that will be potentially under 10 pounds, assuming guitar finish doesn't weigh as much as I think it does or that other poster was just joking.










Tomorrow, I'll have to try my hand at this smuggler's routing, and I'm thinking I won't go half measure with it. Planning on routing it to 1.5" depth with the previously posted cell design. Will research this tonight before I start Forster drilling tomorrow but if anyone knows something I don't, let me know if 1.5" depth is a bad idea for the smuggler's routing.

It is noteworthy that the guitar body lost 7 ounces with today's body routing, and another 2 or something with the edge routing.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

You can go deeper on your bridge pickup route. Save a few more ounces there.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Lincoln said:


> You can go deeper on your bridge pickup route. Save a few more ounces there.


Bridge pickup is routed to 7/8", how much deeper you figure? I'll probably get one, ounce if I go deeper, but I'll take it.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

jfd986 said:


> Bridge pickup is routed to 7/8", how much deeper you figure? I'll probably get one, ounce if I go deeper, but I'll take it.


If I was trying to shave weight off a body, I'd go right down to 1-1/2" deep on a 1-3/4" thick body. 1-3/8" if you want to be safe. Or if you think you might end up planing some material off the back.
You can't go super deep on the neck pickup, because it mounts to the body, not the pickguard. 
You can mount the neck PU to the guard however. Just a matter of drilling two holes using an accurate template. (or finding a tele pickguard already drilled for the pickup screws. some are.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Lincoln said:


> If I was trying to shave weight off a body, I'd go right down to 1-1/2" deep on a 1-3/4" thick body. 1-3/8" if you want to be safe. Or if you think you might end up planing some material off the back.
> You can't go super deep on the neck pickup, because it mounts to the body, not the pickguard.
> You can mount the neck PU to the guard however. Just a matter of drilling two holes using an accurate template. (or finding a tele pickguard already drilled for the pickup screws. some are.


What if I went down to 1.5" for the bridge pickup and then, for the pickguard area, I left the neck pickup area at 3/4" and did the smuggler's routing Around the pickup area all underneath the pickguard, at 1.5" ?

I know planing has been suggested and it's a valid suggestion, but I don't have a planer that big and if I'm already making all these holes, I can't be bothered to make the trip to my supplier, schedule a time for him to meet with me and then have him plane the thing for me. It's more convenient for me to go hard on these cavities. Plus I already planned to do the control cavity at 1.5" so the wood at the bottom of that is 1/4", so yeah, I want to leave the overall guitar at 1.75".


----------



## nnieman (Jun 19, 2013)

I dont bother with the wiring channel, I use a long drill bit to drill a hole between the neck pickup and bridge pickup then bridge pickup to control cavity.
It look better, especially if you arent planning on using a pickguard.

I wouldnt bother routing the cavities deeper - it wont make enough weight difference to be noticeable.

The smugglers router will knock off a bit of weight.

Put it together, buy a padded strap from Well Hung and it will be awesome.

Nathan


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

Here is a little mass properties exercise. I modeled this in CAD for different chambering. You have to be pretty extreme to get it down to a typical light Tele body.










I assumed the body you weighed has a typical Tele outline. That gave me the 0.417 oz/cu, weight per volume, that I could apply to different chambering methods. The Normal routing came out close to your weight above. So extrapolating these are the weights you'll get for the Smugglers route and then thinning the body and routing out more like a thinline, then putting a top or bottom plate back on.

Cheers Peter.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Silvertone said:


> Here is a little mass properties exercise. I modeled this in CAD for different chambering. You have to be pretty extreme to get it down to a typical light Tele body.
> 
> View attachment 340651
> 
> ...


I love this kind of stuff! Amazing!


----------



## ga20t (Jul 22, 2010)

Silvertone said:


> Here is a little mass properties exercise. I modeled this in CAD for different chambering. You have to be pretty extreme to get it down to a typical light Tele body.
> 
> View attachment 340651
> 
> ...


Math is our friend.


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

The honey comb pattern will be strongest...but how would it affect the acoustics?


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Paul Running said:


> View attachment 340676
> The honey comb pattern will be strongest...but how would it affect the acoustics?


only one way to find out! brb.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Saturday update:

Botched the routing somehow, the router kicked while I was doing this edge at glacial speed and a sliver of wood Outside the outline of the pickguard was removed. My fingers, and my resolve, are intact. This is an easy fix, and the guitar definitely doesn't have to be perfect. I just need to get my CA glue back from my girlfriend tomorrow and spend some time jamming scrap fragments into it that have been sent through the bandsaw for shaping, and then I'll sand them to almost-flat with the belt sander and finish with motivated hand sanding.

















The new weight of the guitar body, after this Rather ambitious smuggler routing job, is 5 lb 12.3 oz. The guitar lost a whole pound, just from this 1.5" deep smuggler routing, and I haven't even done the center pocket or fully completed the route yet. I stopped working because I literally couldn't see what I was doing at some point, and acknowledged that I have to move to the garage to finish this project and improve the ambient work lighting with fast spinning blades.

I marked out some compartments for the back that I could route and, I think I'm gonna go for it tomorrow and cover them with some thin wood to make sure the back is flat. Or maybe there's some simpler way to do it? Cut pickguard sheet material?









I'm probably taking tomorrow off, need to reset my work spaces and make more headway with actually practicing guitar haha


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I would stop right there. 
More routing on the back and adding veneers and covers will be more work then it's worth, at least that's what I would do. 

If it ends up just under 9 pounds it's no big deal, really. Route the edge roundover, sand the top and back, tung oil, assemble it. Done.


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

Or you could do a 72 Deluxe style pickguard and take more weight out that way.









At a certain point you have to decide how much wood you want to see.

Cheers Peter.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

You know , my PRS SE custom 24 does come in at about 9 pounds anyway (I think, at least that's what the internet says) and I do have a kliq aircell strap already and wouldn't mind buying another one if needed... Also tomee2 I don't know anything about you but you've probably been playing guitar way longer and have had much more experience with this than I have, and if you think it's too much work then it's probably not for me to do if I already have found this sufficiently trying.

I'm going to leave it as is and do my patch job tomorrow or Tuesday. After this, I will sand it up and then oil and assemble with appropriate time in between.

Does anyone think it needs more rounding over? Asking because that previous poster just mentioned rounding over the edges, and I really am not sure whether rounding over is a subjective thing or whether I have had decidedly too little rounding over and should use the "big" round over bit. I am not playing in the round over radius league just yet.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

jfd986 said:


> Saturday update:
> 
> Botched the routing somehow, the router kicked while I was doing this edge at glacial speed and a sliver of wood Outside the outline of the pickguard was removed. My fingers, and my resolve, are intact. This is an easy fix, and the guitar definitely doesn't have to be perfect. I just need to get my CA glue back from my girlfriend tomorrow and spend some time jamming scrap fragments into it that have been sent through the bandsaw for shaping, and then I'll sand them to almost-flat with the belt sander and finish with motivated hand sanding.
> 
> ...


That is exciting. I might add a Smuggler's route to my Blackguard boat anchor. If it lost ~1lbs I'd be happy.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

jfd986 said:


> ....
> Also tomee2 I don't know anything about you but you've probably been playing guitar way longer and have had much more experience with this than I have, and if you think it's too much work then it's probably not for me to do if I already have found this sufficiently trying.
> ...


I suggested you stop right there because I think it looks pretty good as it is.
I'm not much of a guitar player, just done a bit of woodworking for a long time. My biggest mistake is usually going one step too far in trying something, then regretting it. That's what I see happening with routing pockets in the back of that walnut body. The gain, losing a few ounces of weight, I think won't offset the work involved to make it look as nice as it does now. It's just that I see a 1 piece walnut back with beautiful grain, if it was me I'd want to leave it alone.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I ordered a kitchen scale from Amazon the other day so I could weigh bodies better.
The double cut walnut tele body I have is 5.12 lbs. There is hope.

I also weighed a 14" x 20" x 2" Walnut chunk (body blank). 12.5 lbs. That's a lot of waste wood. Little more that half.

That works out to about 3.3 lbs per board foot, which is right on for walnut.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

correction. 5.018 lbs. solid walnut, 1-3/4" thick, double cut and 2 HB route.








No tummy cut, no arm cut.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Lincoln said:


> correction. 5.018 lbs. solid walnut, 1-3/4" thick, double cut and 2 HB route.
> View attachment 341280
> 
> No tummy cut, no arm cut.


Yeah idk why mine is so much heavier, maybe because it's single cut? Anyway at least I have that finished look to look forward to, and I suppose an extra 13 ounces may not be "so much heavier" considering my SE Custom 24 weighs around 9 anyway.

I'm gonna see about getting the error fixed tomorrow and then digging the smuggler's route all the way down to 1.5" with the router. If I'm happy with the patch job and the routing, then it'll be time for extensive sanding. I'll weigh the guitar after the sanding is done.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

The error has been patched to the best of my abilities and the most of my patience. Will finalize the smuggler routing tomorrow and then there will be sanding.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

I had less time than expected today, so I just did the final routing of every cavity (except the neck pickup cavity) to 1.5" depth. Looks like I lost Another 3 ounces, and the guitar body is now down to 5 lbs 10 oz. If I can get another 2 ounces shaved on sanding (unlikely, but hey why not hope) then I'll be down to 5 and a Half pounds, a milestone in my fledgling scrap walnut guitar body building career. 

If I get all the cooking done tomorrow that I planned to do, and it happens on time, then tomorrow will at-long-last be Sanding day. Glorious.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Are you adverse to forearm and belly cuts? Adds one of the best parts of a Strat (comfort), bet you could lose a pound easy.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

keto said:


> .... forearm and belly cuts...Adds one of the best parts of a Strat (comfort), bet you could lose a pound easy.


Repeated for emphasis.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

I think this is worth taking time to consider. I would probably only do the belly contour, and I probably wouldn't lose an entire pound, but it would likely make the guitar considerably more comfortable for me and wouldn't require me to "fill" or "glue" anything.

If I did this, I suppose I would need a rasp, or I could do it with slow methodical belt and orbital sanding, as far as I know. I'll do more research on it this weekend, and will try to determine how big the belly contour should be and what angle it should take.


----------



## nnieman (Jun 19, 2013)

jfd986 said:


> I think this is worth taking time to consider. I would probably only do the belly contour, and I probably wouldn't lose an entire pound, but it would likely make the guitar considerably more comfortable for me and wouldn't require me to "fill" or "glue" anything.
> 
> If I did this, I suppose I would need a rasp, or I could do it with slow methodical belt and orbital sanding, as far as I know. I'll do more research on it this weekend, and will try to determine how big the belly contour should be and what angle it should take.


Honestly unless you really want to shave ounces or like the contours then I wouldn’t bother.
I weighed a tummy and arm contour offcuts - 1.5 oz.
I cut contours with a bandsaw so assuming a blade kerf & sanding I think the max you would loose would be 3 or 4 ounces.

Nathan


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Okay I'm a big fan of all the kitchen scales. Thanks for letting me know about this. I'm gonna think about maaaybe doing some rear cavity work tomorrow IF i can find an easily available piece of thin walnut for backing, so that it's not an absurd amount of extra work. If anything, actually, I'm open to making the cavity cover first and then deciding whether or not to do the cavity. Otherwise, I'm just gonna start sanding and hope for the best.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I still think you should assemble it to see what weight you end up with before routing pockets in the back. It's never going to be a 7 pound guitar, and that's OK. Its walnut, not pine or basswood.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

tomee2 said:


> I still think you should assemble it to see what weight you end up with before routing pockets in the back. It's never going to be a 7 pound guitar, and that's OK. Its walnut, not pine or basswood.


Aside from the extra work, which I'm going to mitigate by making cover plates first and quitting if it gets too complicated .. what are the disadvantages of going for the routing now? Asking because I finished the smuggler's routing in essentially an evening and a half afaik and it wasn't terrible. I am a bit concerned about the cover plates for this back routing though, which is why I'm gonna make them first, well before I make more holes in the guitar.

I have gone back and forth about this a bit, I wouldn't mind "not bothering" but at the same time, if I'm doing all this, I wonder what's another day of project if it's gonna mean I get to play a 6-ounces-lighter guitar for life? As opposed to after I sand it, finish it, stick everything on and then am a bit gunshy about removing everything to route through a finished, oiled guitar body, or maybe this is rather commonly done and doesn't really matter?


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't being very clear in getting my opinions out (and that's all they are)... 
I'm all about preserving what to me looks like really nice slab of walnut, that'll look amazing once it's oiled and polished. 
That looks like one solid piece of walnut, no glue seams, with really nice wood grain. I think routing a hole in it to save 3oz of weight would really take away from how it looks. 
People go gaga over a Les Paul with a one piece mahogany back, and they don't care that it weighs 9 pounds. 

So my advice to build it up first isn't to save time or effort, but to see what it looks like and what it weighs before routing holes in the back, which i think would take away from what it will look like when finished.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

tomee2 said:


> Sorry, I guess I wasn't being very clear in getting my opinions out (and that's all they are)...
> I'm all about preserving what to me looks like really nice slab of walnut, that'll look amazing once it's oiled and polished.
> That looks like one solid piece of walnut, no glue seams, with really nice wood grain. I think routing a hole in it to save 3oz of weight would really take away from how it looks.
> People go gaga over a Les Paul with a one piece mahogany back, and they don't care that it weighs 9 pounds.
> ...


I thought about this as well, but then wondered to myself.. who really looks at the back of the guitar?

I think , though , that if it won't harm the guitar afterwards which I guess you're fairly confident it won't, maybe it's worth preserving the walnut back and just seeing how it is. The EMG pickups are all plug-in wiring anyway and don't require soldering, a child could take them apart if I needed them gone for more body routing.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I know, no one looks at the back, but they do! I do at least. I also just love walnut.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Picked up orbital sander, hoping I could do the back of the guitar with it. Orbital sander has some sort of velcro pad problem. Picked up the hand sanding block I bought from Home Depot.

3....hours....later....









Thankfully, the sanding block has a sponge bit where the sandpaper actually rests, so I managed to do the side with the block as well. I was mildly offput by the sanding marks, but then I saw that my amspec tele has them so I figured well, if it's good enough for Fender, it's good enough for me.

I sanded everything at 80 and then at 150. I'm giving my shoulders a break, and if they survive, I'll go again on the 26th or 27th. If they don't, I'll rest for a week and take this up again next week, or the week after, I got tendonitis in both so I'm hoping stretching will keep me from feeling it real bad tomorrow haha.

Happy holidays to all.


----------



## nnieman (Jun 19, 2013)

jfd986 said:


> Picked up orbital sander, hoping I could do the back of the guitar with it. Orbital sander has some sort of velcro pad problem. Picked up the hand sanding block I bought from Home Depot.
> 
> 3....hours....later....
> View attachment 342368
> ...


You skipped a step -100 grit.
80-150 is too big of a step

Keep sanding with higher grits until those scratches disappear.
You might have to go up to 400 grit in that end grain.
180-220-400
It’s looking great so far.

Nathan


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

I think this is one of the overlooked lessons of basic woodworking. Something I have only started to fully grasp recently. Figuring out the best grit to start, when to move up a grit, and when to stop. If it is taking you a very long time to sand something out, then you are using too fine of a grit. A good supply of sand paper is one of the best tools you can have. I have 36 grit all the way up to 10000 grit in many sizes and shapes. Start with a grit that will easily take out the scratches you need to remove. It should not take long to do this. Once those scratches are gone and you can only see the scratches left by the sandpaper you are using, you can move up a grit. Sand 90 degrees to the previous grit and move up a grit when you do not see any scratches that are going perpendicular to the way you are sanding. Then move up a grit and sand 90 degrees again. The closer the grit to each move, the quicker this will happen. So if you start at 80, go to 100. This will maximize the aggressiveness, speed, with which you can move to the next grit, from 100 go to 120. If you do not have 120 and have to go to 220, it will take you a very long time to get those "coarse" scratches out. I try and get every possible grit I can find. From 36-40-60-80-100-120-150-220-320-400-600-800-1000-1200-1500-2000... In the perfect shop, you would have sanding blocks of all different sizes and shapes and the grits noted above to fit those sanding blocks. For fret boards I have a lot of different grits cut into strips that fit onto radius sanding beams. It makes short work of sanding a radius, and epoxied inlays.









Here is a picture of my sanding jig. I double stick tape sandpaper to my sanding beam and tape my jointer push block to my beam.










First pass with 60 grit - mark the board and only sand to take off the lines. Work through the grits. keeping an eye on the lines and making sure you flip the radius beam and sand from each direction for a certain number of strokes - quickly and you are left with a beautiful board.










Cheers Peter.

PS - for fret boards I start where ever I need to depending on the inlays or lack there of, usually 60 or 80 grit. I have strips cut up to 400 grit for my beam. Then use a smaller block if I want to polish with 600 and 800.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

What Silvertone says is exactly right. The poplar tele I finished this summer was a mess because I went from 80 to 150 to 220. I then spent weeks spraying more and more paint to cover the scratches! This translated to overly thick paint that now chips off very easily. All because I skipped steps in sanding.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Silvertone said:


> I think this is one of the overlooked lessons of basic woodworking. Something I have only started to fully grasp recently. Figuring out the best grit to start, when to move up a grit, and when to stop. If it is taking you a very long time to sand something out, then you are using too fine of a grit. A good supply of sand paper is one of the best tools you can have. I have 36 grit all the way up to 10000 grit in many sizes and shapes. Start with a grit that will easily take out the scratches you need to remove. It should not take long to do this. Once those scratches are gone and you can only see the scratches left by the sandpaper you are using, you can move up a grit. Sand 90 degrees to the previous grit and move up a grit when you do not see any scratches that are going perpendicular to the way you are sanding. Then move up a grit and sand 90 degrees again. The closer the grit to each move, the quicker this will happen. So if you start at 80, go to 100. This will maximize the aggressiveness, speed, with which you can move to the next grit, from 100 go to 120. If you do not have 120 and have to go to 220, it will take you a very long time to get those "coarse" scratches out. I try and get every possible grit I can find. From 36-40-60-80-100-120-150-220-320-400-600-800-1000-1200-1500-2000... In the perfect shop, you would have sanding blocks of all different sizes and shapes and the grits noted above to fit those sanding blocks. For fret boards I have a lot of different grits cut into strips that fit onto radius sanding beams. It makes short work of sanding a radius, and epoxied inlays.
> View attachment 342392
> 
> 
> ...


Alright I'll go buy some more sandpaper grits then. Yeah I had no idea 80-100 is important but then 150-220 is fine. I'll try this "sanding at 90 degrees to previous" thing too. I suppose, on the side of the tele body, that'll mean I'd be going WITH the grain, but then on the front and back faces of the tele body it would mean I'd be going Against the grain, correct? Just for the 100 grit next step, I mean. I guess always sanding with the grain doesn't matter as much as I thought it did, because really it's just important to move up slowly with the grits and remove the old scratches?


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

jfd986 said:


> Alright I'll go buy some more sandpaper grits then. Yeah I had no idea 80-100 is important but then 150-220 is fine. I'll try this "sanding at 90 degrees to previous" thing too. I suppose, on the side of the tele body, that'll mean I'd be going WITH the grain, but then on the front and back faces of the tele body it would mean I'd be going Against the grain, correct? Just for the 100 grit next step, I mean. I guess always sanding with the grain doesn't matter as much as I thought it did, because really it's just important to move up slowly with the grits and remove the old scratches?


I might actually have 180 grit. Just get as many as you can as close as you can. The finer you get the less important it is to get close #s because it starts to get very fine. On the body you can probably stop at 220 or 320. You do not want to polish surfaces that get finish too much because the finish will not stick as well. The 90 degree thing just helps you tell the difference between the scratches of the coarser grits. If you miss 80 grit scratches for instance and move up too early, it will take forever to get those scratches out. "With the grain" is only important on your last sanding stage. The 90 degree thing is just so you can see you have all the deeper scratches out. It is also important to have good light and hold the body up and look at an angle to see the scratches.

It is the same thing after finish. I usually start with 400 grit and then use the same process until I am ready to buff. Here is an example of 400 grit scratches.









Here is 600 grit - I can still see a few 400 grit so I would sand a bit more until I cannot see any of the scratches running the other way. They are also much finer.









Cheers Peter.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Okay, this is likely both the least fun part of this entire process and also the part that will take the longest, because of my shoulder tendonitis and my disinclination for hand sanding.










Made it through some of this before I got tired









Did the front fully









The whole process is rather monotonous and tedious. I'm hoping that tomorrow, if my shoulders are okay, I can get 2 hours of this done in the morning, instead of doing it in the evening and then feeling like writing off the rest of my night.
I sanded with 100 against the grain and then sanded with 120 with the grain

















I'm gonna finish the 120 on the back tomorrow, and then I'm gonna leave myself an unreasonable amount of time with which to complete this. Like a month or more, just to sand. Not happy about this, idk the project isn't anywhere near completion and I feel as though I'm going to get very upset if I get past this, and then for some reason further down the line I have to scrap it or it "just won't work". Although I will say that, considering what I know about woodworking, it's basically a matter of messing with something until it fits or shifting/boring something bigger until it aligns, so maybe I'll be fine.

NOTE : I sanded "with the grain" on the front and back with 120. I sanded "against the grain" on the sides, basically I did the whole guitar with one "direction" of sanding.


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

Do not get discouraged here. That body looks great to me. I assume you are going to pore fill it? If yes , you will be sanding again. Are you using sanding blocks? Hand sanding is very tedious but should not take extreme amounts of time if you use the correct grits and switch out when you should. You can see the scratches in the end grain. I think those are fine for 120 grit. They look about the correct size, meaning you could probably go to 150, or 180, or even 220. The thing to learn here is what to look for. Recognize deeper scratches. Maybe concentrate on a small area and move up through the grits. Or you could take a small chunk and practice. Start at 60 grit and alternate sanding direction moving up when those scratches are gone. Once you get a good sense of the process, it should go relatively quickly. It's all about knowing what to look for.

You could also look at a ROS and/or pneumatic spindle sander but you still have to recognize the sanding scratches. Can you see the sanding scratches in the end grain? They are the light coloured whisps parallel to the body top and back. If you did the side with 120, pick a small area and sand with 150 or 180 on a bit of an angle until all those scratches are gone and you can only see scratches running the way you are sanding. Then move up a grit and sand the other way until those are gone. This should only take minutes on a small portion.

This is a very cool tool for body edge sanding - Shop Fox pneumatic sander - 









Cheers Peter

PS - you think this is tedious? Wait until you get to wet sanding. LOL


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

One thing that was not mentioned and is important if you are using stains.... sand the end grain two steps higher than the body. If you stop at 400 on the body, sand the end grain to 800.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Yeah I'm using a small sanding block, but I think I'm moving it back and forth too quickly and thereby getting tired too easily. I've noticed (because I'm one of those counting people who counts literally everything) that it takes 100 strokes thereabouts to clear most of the scratches in the cross-direction, and then for the thiknner scratches in certain spots I have to go to the and do another 70-100 strokes, sometimes 150 strokes, and then it's perfect. So I'm going to keep doing that, but just I'll move my arm a bit slower and apply less pressure because I don't wanna wreck myself and hate myself for trying to get things perfect.

I don't actually know what pore filler is, is it the same thing as grain filler? If you guys could recommend something here, that'd be great. Is it the same as sawdust and glue? I'm assuming it's not.

I will remember that about the end grain, will look for 800 grit sandpaper only when it's time for 800 grit sandpaper. Right now I have enough sandpaper to sand a whale.

The Lee Valley guys told me I shouldn't use that for the body edge because I'd have "no control". Were they just trying to hardsell me a spindle sander?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

wrap your paper round an eraser, do smaller sections at a time...


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

knight_yyz said:


> wrap your paper round an eraser, do smaller sections at a time...
> 
> View attachment 344071


Good suggestion. I bought a couple of those novelty erasers that are really large. I also bought some hard cork trivets (things you put hot pots on top on the counter top) and expect to cut them into different sizes and glue to blocks. If you can use a block that fits your hand well it may reduce the fatigue as well. I usually use a ROS for each grit but follow up with a quick pass with sandpaper to keep the scratches directional. If I do 20 - 30 strokes across the body top, I'd be surprised. It takes a while to get the hang of it. 

Cheers Peter.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Okay!

Done sanding. I think. Here's my question:








The second last grit And the last grit on the side were both done in this direction. 








Is it okay that the side has these directional scratches on it? Because honestly, if I go the opposite direction for the last grit, I don't know if it will look right, but also the side of this body doesn't have a completely up-and-down or side-to-side consistently directional grain, not the way the top and back do.

Thoughts? Ready for finishing?


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

can you "feel" the ridges in picture #2? If you can feel them, you will see them after finishing. Keep sanding. I don't think sanding direction matters as much on the end grain. I normally use a random orbital sander on smooth curves like that, and they're all over the place.

Be sure the routing under your 3-way switch is at least 1-1/4" deep. If it isn't, you'll be taking it apart again.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

I thought about Floyding this guitar, and a local luthier said I shouldn't because he said the guitar would end up with too many holes, and may be a bit flimsy.

I wasn't about to argue with a professional guitar builder, but I just wanted a bit of insight into this problem if anyone could offer it... If I had a pro do Floyd Rose routing into this particular body, then it would effectively make a hole underneath the bridge pickup (because that's been deep-routed) and in the smuggler routing under the center of the pickguard (because that's been deep-routed to idk 1.5" like the bridge pickup cavity).

I would then have to glue or screw an appropriately-sized block of walnut into the center compartment in order to be able to secure the back adjustment screws for the springs.

Would this, in your view, actually significantly affect the playability or integrity of the guitar or the system? He cautioned me that this is the kind of idea that I may get deep into, and then have to abandon because it won't work out. I'm just not understanding here because to me, this is all metal and wood and I felt as though, if he wasn't worried about the block not being secure, what is the major concern that I'm not seeing with there being holes that I would cover up with backing plate?

If this Floyd routing really is a terrible idea, then honestly, at this point, I think I'm ready to accept that this build will not finish as-is with a guitar that's light enough for me to be able to use and play regularly. I think I'll have to count this a a learning experience, and start with a fresh guitar body, probably something pre-made from Solo that's light enough to be able to facilitate the final weight I'm looking for. I'm just kinda done with fighting the build, I bought pickguard sheet from stewmac the other night thinking I'd dig out the back a bit more and cover it up, but if this luthier isn't thrilled about more holes in this guitar than there already are, chances are good that creating more cavities may somehow ruin the guitar as well I figure, or leave me with a guitar that still isn't quite the weight that I want it to be.

I'm also ready to tell myself that giving up on using this specific piece of wood because it's so belligerent on the scale, isn't the same as giving up on building this guitar, and I probably shouldn't be blaming myself or putting myself down just because I made it 80% of the way and decided to quit when it became basically impossible to get what I want out of the build, which is a big reason we build individually in the first place afaik.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

I would vote to route the living hell out of the back and then apply a thin cap if you have that ability.

No strat contours for the love of the telecaster gods.

Could even route the front and then find a nice maple top and have a beautiful walnut back and sides etc.

7lbs for a body is quite heavy. A hollow body would be very cool.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Always12AM said:


> I would vote to route the living hell out of the back and then apply a thin cap if you have that ability.
> 
> No strat contours for the love of the telecaster gods.
> 
> ...












Well it started at 7lb 6oz and I stepped on it with the router, and right now it's 5 lbs 8 oz I believe , so I'm trying to get it under 5 lbs so that the overall guitar can be under 8 lbs. What do you think of this Floyd Rose routing though, do you think the guitar would be compromised and unusable if I got someone to do it or do you think it'd be just fine?

If you think it's fine to dig it out, there's more weight to lose by making cavities in the back and I could potentially just put custom pickguard over them maybe? At this point I really don't care how the back of the guitar looks, long as it's light. I understand wood would be stronger as a cap, but do you think pickguard or backplate material would work fine?


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

It's just unfortunate that the piece of walnut you started with was a very heavy piece. Most of us start with a chunk of ash because it's the cheapest thing at the wood store that looks like something we are used to seeing guitars made out of. And of course you end up with a 7lb body that even if you do finish, you'll never end up playing.

If you went the Floyd Rose route, what pickups would you use? Tele neck and ?? I'm going to go do some measurements and see where a FR would end up on a tele and if it interferes with what you've already done.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

ok, lay this out on your tele. On the back, measuring from the bottom/back of the neck pocket - imagine a cavity starting at 3" from the neck and running to 8" from the neck, 2-1/4" wide.
And on the top of the guitar, a cavity starting a 6-3/8" from the neck pocket, running to 9-1/4", and this one is 3-5/8" wide at the widest point. Does any of that interfere with the routes you have now?


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Lincoln said:


> ok, lay this out on your tele. On the back, measuring from the bottom/back of the neck pocket - imagine a cavity starting at 3" from the neck and running to 8" from the neck, 2-1/4" wide.
> And on the top of the guitar, a cavity starting a 6-3/8" from the neck pocket, running to 9-1/4", and this one is 3-5/8" wide at the widest point. Does any of that interfere with the routes you have now?


I very much appreciate the offer to assess, and I'm going to take pictures so you get a better understanding of what it would all look like.





__





Floyd Rose Tremolo Instructions - StewMac


Floyd Rose Tremolo parts diagram and routing specs from the manufacturer.




www.stewmac.com





I'm looking to mount the Floyd rose 1000 low profile trem and I believe the instructions are in there. Are they the same as the Original instructions? Odd, I can't find a separate pdf.











If the Floyd Rose bridge had to start at 6 3/8" then yes, it would likely interfere with the bridge PU cavity.

My plan was to use EMG tele pickups for this build.



















On the back of the guitar, there will be a hole here where the 3" from the neck starts. The luthier intiially mentioned that, to deal with this, I should put a block of walnut here and glue it or screw it in to be able to put screws into it:










But then as I started to ask him more about how this piece of walnut should be mounted (he first suggested cutting gaps into the two sides of the "chamber" I had made, to effect proper glue up perhaps?), he quickly became uncomfortable with the idea overall and said I should start from scratch. Bear in mind that this was all done with pictures and over the phone, he didn't actually have the walnut body in front of him when trying to figure this out so I don't know if that may have impacted his advice.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

I vote B-Bender instead of Floyd. Good thing it ain't my Tele


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Alright well, so far the response has been overall positive .. I guess it's just a matter of finding another luthier then, one who will be positive enough about the outcome to attempt the modification, assuming this 6 3/8" thing isnt a dealbreaker.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

jfd986 said:


> I understand wood would be stronger as a cap, but do you think pickguard or backplate material would work fine?


Make a jig to hold the body secure to run it through a bandsaw to slice off the back.
Route out the body accordingly and glue the cut off back on?


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

jfd986 said:


> View attachment 346072
> 
> 
> Well it started at 7lb 6oz and I stepped on it with the router, and right now it's 5 lbs 8 oz I believe , so I'm trying to get it under 5 lbs so that the overall guitar can be under 8 lbs. What do you think of this Floyd Rose routing though, do you think the guitar would be compromised and unusable if I got someone to do it or do you think it'd be just fine?
> ...


I think either way you are creating something of your own and it’s going to be bad ass.

I don’t own the tools needed to route or possess the knowledge on how to cap a heavily routed body. But I think it’s a good idea to strip down weight and I think hollow bodies and weight relieved guitars sound cool in their own way anyways.

I don’t know much about Floyd rose cut outs etc.

I just know that the EMG’s will be a lot heavier than a set of traditional Tele pickups. So even at 5lbs it will feel heavy once everything is installed.

a light guitar to me doesn’t really matter personally, but I can see why a 7lbs body would be a bit daunting. Mine feels pretty hefty and the body is 4.11


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

laristotle said:


> Make a jig to hold the body secure to run it through a bandsaw to slice off the back.
> Route out the body accordingly and glue the cut off back on?


I don't have access to a band saw this serious, that's why I was kinda hoping to use pickguard plastic to cover all the routed cavities in the back.



Always12AM said:


> I think either way you are creating something of your own and it’s going to be bad ass.
> 
> I don’t own the tools needed to route or possess the knowledge on how to cap a heavily routed body. But I think it’s a good idea to strip down weight and I think hollow bodies and weight relieved guitars sound cool in their own way anyways.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the support! All of the components were weighed prior to starting the build, and it appears as though, if I left everything as-is and threw it onto the guitar, the final guitar would be 8.5 lbs in total weight.

Amazon says the floyd rose bridge I want weighs 1.9 pounds. I'm going to keep checking and I'm hoping that's a gross overestimation of its true weight, and I predict the guitar will lose at least 4 ounces on the floyd routing alone, based on the routing I've done so far, and then I should be able to lose even more if I hollow out more of the back.

EDIT : amazon.au says 182 g but amazon.com says 400 grams, or 14.1 ounces. If I do all of this and I end up with a guitar that's too heavy for me, I'll at least be happy I tried. I cannot afford to be conservative about this.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

jfd986 said:


> I don't have access to a band saw this serious, that's why I was kinda hoping to use pickguard plastic to cover all the routed cavities in the back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Floyd rose will be a nice chunk of weight.
ultimately you may be best to just assemble it all and then see if it weighs too much by feel.

I wouldn’t get too caught up on numbers. I’ve found a lot of light weight teles not really be that great sounding. I’ve actually found every Tele except the ones that I’ve spend months fine tuning and adjusting to sound bad lol. That’s the element of personal bias that makes it so hard for myself and others to give impartial advice I suspect.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

jfd986 said:


> I don't have access to a band saw this serious, that's why I was kinda hoping to use pickguard plastic to cover all the routed cavities in the back.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That ain't bad. My Tele is 10.09 lbs.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

cboutilier said:


> That ain't bad. My Tele is 10.09 lbs.


I just sold a guitar that was over 8 lbs because I felt as though it was giving me shoulder soreness when standing up and thereby shortening my practice time (and because somebody offered me significantly more than what I paid for it) so I'm hoping to build something under 8 lbs that also serves the purpose of the guitar I sold (has a Floyd Rose, does whammy stuff). My current tele is 7lbs 13 oz and I get shoulder soreness with a thick gel padded strap but only after 45 minutes of non stop practicing. It sets in slowly and then gets bad around the 43 minute mark, at which point it promptly clears up once I remove the guitar and rest.

With the other guitar, the soreness would set it much quicker, so hoping to avoid the 8 pound threshold for completed project weight.


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

jfd986 said:


> I just sold a guitar that was over 8 lbs because I felt as though it was giving me shoulder soreness when standing up and thereby shortening my practice time (and because somebody offered me significantly more than what I paid for it) so I'm hoping to build something under 8 lbs that also serves the purpose of the guitar I sold (has a Floyd Rose, does whammy stuff). My current tele is 7lbs 13 oz and I get shoulder soreness with a thick gel padded strap but only after 45 minutes of non stop practicing. It sets in slowly and then gets bad around the 43 minute mark, at which point it promptly clears up once I remove the guitar and rest.
> 
> With the other guitar, the soreness would set it much quicker, so hoping to avoid the 8 pound threshold for completed project weight.


If you are trying to build a lighter guitar, which is the main reason for building, why start with such a heavy piece of wood? I have never put in a Floyd but I have heard they can be super heavy especially if you upgrade the sustain block. Even for walnut that body seems extremely heavy. I have walnut that is not much heavier than honduran mahogany and would have resulted in a 6 lb solid Tele body with no weight relief at all. I just finished a Tele from Northern White Ash which was very heavy, so I made it a thinline. Routed out the back and put a two piece walnut back plate on it and it weighs in just over 6 1/2 lbs all setup.

I chambered like this but left out the pickguard and pigsby.







Cheers Peter.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Silvertone said:


> If you are trying to build a lighter guitar, which is the main reason for building, why start with such a heavy piece of wood? I have never put in a Floyd but I have heard they can be super heavy especially if you upgrade the sustain block. Even for walnut that body seems extremely heavy. I have walnut that is not much heavier than honduran mahogany and would have resulted in a 6 lb solid Tele body with no weight relief at all. I just finished a Tele from Northern White Ash which was very heavy, so I made it a thinline. Routed out the back and put a two piece walnut back plate on it and it weighs in just over 6 1/2 lbs all setup.
> 
> I chambered like this but left out the pickguard and pigsby.
> View attachment 346206
> ...


Honestly I didn't really know what weight of guitar I would need until after I started building. Initially, I just started building because I wanted to do something cool with the massive chunk of walnut that was sitting in my wood pile.

Then there was an "uh oh" moment after I cut the body out of the wood, but I had done so much at that point that I didn't want to quit. Then the thing lost almost 2 pounds with some routing so I got more hopeful.

Problem is, I also started playing considerably more guitar over the last two months, more than I have for years, and I figured out that 8 lbs may be a line for what I'd consider uncomfortably heavy while playing standing up.

So then I sold the heavy guitar and I'm now interested in making one with a Floyd, and I'm hoping it can be this guitar.

If I had known I would be unsatisfied with my Floyd guitar, and that walnut would be this heavy after initial shaping (honestly had no idea) then I agree, I definitely wouldn't have started with this project this way.

I did understand the advice that was given earlier on a different thread, to not build unless I have played a lot and have a much better idea of what I want for a guitar, but I still wanted to try to build because I just figured it would be a lot of fun. It has been and still is fun, aside from initial 80-120 grit sanding which I managed to make fun simply by doing it slower, it's just I'm at a point now where I could stop here and not pay a luthier and not buy a Floyd rose bridge for this walnut body, or I could do those things for this walnut body, and I'm trying to figure out if they'll lead to a guitar that works well or a disappointing failure.

I'm not against stopping now if luthiers tell me it's not going to work out, but I just wanted to hear as to whether it can be done without being a disaster.

As soon as the pickguard plastic comes, I think I'm gonna measure out and go for some weight relief on the back, and will weigh the guitar then and try to figure out what the added weight would be with a floyd rose bridge. Hopefully I'll have some more quotes from local luthiers by then.


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

jfd986 said:


> Honestly I didn't really know what weight of guitar I would need until after I started building. Initially, I just started building because I wanted to do something cool with the massive chunk of walnut that was sitting in my wood pile.
> 
> Then there was an "uh oh" moment after I cut the body out of the wood, but I had done so much at that point that I didn't want to quit. Then the thing lost almost 2 pounds with some routing so I got more hopeful.
> 
> ...


I hear you. I've been there. That's probably what got me into this "predicament" of building guitars.  Trying to modify a guitar and realizing I need more tools. It's a Forest Gump thing. Well I bought a bandsaw and thought, I might as well buy a table saw and while I'm at it I might as well buy....

You could shave off the back and take out more material and then add a thin back cover, like a thinline. That would help significantly. You may even want to do a contrasting wood like maple or ash on the back. You could make it two pieces so you do not a very wide piece, or even just buy some 1/4" stock which is a common thickness at about 7 1/2 - 8" wide.

Cheers Peter.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Silvertone said:


> I hear you. I've been there. That's probably what got me into this "predicament" of building guitars.  Trying to modify a guitar and realizing I need more tools. It's a Forest Gump thing. Well I bought a bandsaw and thought, I might as well buy a table saw and while I'm at it I might as well buy....
> 
> You could shave off the back and take out more material and then add a thin back cover, like a thinline. That would help significantly. You may even want to do a contrasting wood like maple or ash on the back. You could make it two pieces so you do not a very wide piece, or even just buy some 1/4" stock which is a common thickness at about 7 1/2 - 8" wide.
> 
> Cheers Peter.


If I didn't have a big bandsaw to shave off the back, then could I make holes and cover them with pickguard plastic? Or is it worth the trouble and expense to get a luthier to make that one crucial cut?


----------



## Silvertone (Oct 13, 2018)

jfd986 said:


> If I didn't have a big bandsaw to shave off the back, then could I make holes and cover them with pickguard plastic? Or is it worth the trouble and expense to get a luthier to make that one crucial cut?


You do not need a big band saw. Just use a router and a router sled to thickness. You could even make it a little thinner but be careful as the Tele switches are really deep. They are handy for a lot of stuff.









Then buy 1/4" x 7 1/2" for a two piece back. Here is the back of my ash Tele hogged out. Then I just put two pieces of thin walnut for a back.
















Cheers Peter.

PS - I have a 14" bandsaw and in theory I could cut the back off that guitar but I would not do that.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Silvertone said:


> You do not need a big band saw. Just use a router and a router sled to thickness. You could even make it a little thinner but be careful as the Tele switches are really deep. They are handy for a lot of stuff.
> View attachment 346225
> 
> 
> ...


Okay I think I will do that, but with a 20" planer that my wood supplier has. He lets me use it occasionally for free (very rarely, I don't ask him for stuff like this often) and I don't trust my homemade router sled enough to do this with it just yet, I've only used it once or twice and I'm not there yet.

Another luthier pointed out that the Floyd Rose top routing would come into direct conflict with the bridge pickup routing, and that there's a chance (I don't know how much of a chance, and unfortunately I don't know that it can be calculated) that the body may snap in half when I bring everything to tension and start slamming on the bar.

When I started my reply to him, I was like yeah, let's do it, all good .... but then I realized that, if I successfully do the weight relief you're suggesting and I get "what I want" in terms of tele body weight .. I may end up with a tele that I really want to keep and play, and I may like it so much that I end up deciding to sell my current tele. Or, if I weight relief it successfully and put it together and hate it as-is, I could always decide to "risk everything" and floyd it then.

If I weight relief it and it Doesn't go down in weight, then I may as well not finish it, sell the body, and start a Floyd build from scratch.

I think the key pieces of info for me that were missing here, which have now helped me make this decision, are:

- there's an easy way to do proper weight relief cavities (The router sled method you're talking about which involves gluing on a thin blank that I can just buy and don't necessarily have to custom-make bespoke from scratch, and may not cost a silly amount of money) and

- there's a very real chance the entire guitar body might ... break, like completely snap LoL, and I should weigh that against having a working, non-Floyded guitar, that may potentially just be great.


NB: The routing on my switch cavity is actually Really deep, like its probably more than the 1.5" recommended. I wanted to ask, if I'm doing the plane-away method, would it be best to basically plane Until I Hit the switch cavity and the smuggler routing? And then I figure that way, I'll know where all the holes are and I can dig out my other holes, then slap the wood backing on afterwards?

Additionally, where would I be able to buy wood that thin, and what's it called? I can't seem to be able to google it anywhere. I'm gonna take a shot at making my own today, but if it proves too tedious or unattractive, would like to know who has that for sale out here.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Alright well, I couldn't find quarter inch thick pieces of hardwood, so I'm making my own guitar back.










My wood supplier is going to help me plane it, and after that's done idk I'll have to look into what sequence in which to do things, in terms of tracing, bandsaw/jigsaw, gluing, and then how to get the border to match the current border of the guitar. Didn't quite expect to be doing this but optimistic because I'm getting to use an industrial planer, job will be much easier than if I did it on my own.

This guitar has been shaved to the minimum thickness that will allow the controls to fit:









I think that's 1.5" or 1 3/8", either way I'm prepared to route depth into the back cover if I one day find this setup lacking, ie if I switch pickup systems.

Having said all that, we are now (temporarily) at 4 lbs 4 oz after the planing.









It made much more of a difference than I expected it would, and the guitar actually looks better now. I no longer care that I don't have a standard tele thickness, I feel like this now may be closer to a Godin Stadium HT and I recently realized that may be what I'm building in the roundabout way. Having said all of that, I acknowledge that the guitar will soon gain about 1/4" of back cover and wood weight (but it'll be mostly maple, thank goodness) and I will thereby be going for broke with the weight relief routing.

I'm going to start the weight relief routing tomorrow, and I will not be kind to this thing.








I don't think you can clearly see all the pencil marks I made, but trust me, there will be a lot missing when I'm done with it, hopefully by end of day tomorrow.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

I have to do some routing so that the battery fits in the little cavity I routed for it, and so that things are generally to my liking and feel complete, but I gotta say








If it's 2 lbs 13 and the back is 1 lb, then we're looking at (potentially) a 4 lb body and a 7 lb guitar. 

Does anyone know if I'd be okay to dig out the body here?










I stopped short because I wasn't sure if it affected the guitar somehow , I noticed other people left some material there. Would anyone know if this bit matters?


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Holey!! 

Here's a picture of the template I use to hollow out tele's. You can sort of judge by it. If not, let me know and I'll measure.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Interesting. I suppose I could get closer to the string holes, but it would appear that's no longer necessary.










I started routing today, I plan to finish tomorrow or the day after because it's so tedious and any mistake could thing the guitar.... But I'm down to 2 and a half pounds!

That means, assuming the new neck I ordered isn't excessively heavy and assuming 1 lb for the back, I may end up with a 6.5 lb guitar. I'm potentially creating the lightest electric guitar I have ever played. Excited.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Weekend update, lost another 4 ounces

















Back is not glued on yet, but I suspect it'll result in a body that will weigh about 3 lbs after I'm done gluing and template routing around the backboard edge using the sanded body edge as the template.

I'm done for today, may take a break tomorrow or may attempt the glue up, we'll see. However, one thing I really have to do tonight is double check whether or not I beat the autocad prediction given earlier on this thread, and by how much! I know it's not "done" yet, but I can't help but be excited about it.

After the body is glued, I think I'm going to wait until the neck comes in before finishing. I've read some things about guitar kits that have made me understand it's best to "test fit" the guitar with the neck by installing the bridge and then placing the neck in, and taking either a thin straight edge, dropping it into the bridge notch and seeing where it lands or? Stringing up the E strings and seeing if they land correctly and if the action is tolerable on test fit.

Does anyone know if this can be done without drilling the neck and bolting it in? I would prefer the neck to be returnable if things don't work out here Because of the neck. However, I suppose if the neck itself isn't twisted in any way, that I'd simply be making adjustments to the body itself if things don't line up? Has anyone had things just not come together on fit?

I realize I probably should have done this a while ago, but I just learned about this test fitting business last night and am prepared to deal with the issues that may arise as a result of my oversight.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

With all the work you've done to lose weight, a little additional work you might have to do to line things up would seem like nothing. I wouldn't worry about it. As long as you laid everything out according to a body center line, it will all fall into place. At worst you may have to tweak the neck one way or the other to center the two "E" strings on heel of the neck at final assembly. And that's just a matter of loosening and retightening the neck screws.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

When I initially did the back routing, I test fit the control cavity and noticed a D battery for the EMGs wouldn't fit. So I made this.









Looked neat enough and tucked away and the back would go on in test, but I didn't test it WITH the control plate on. So it didn't fit. 

I decided first to try filing and drill pressing the holes for the pots to move them over.










But there was still a fit issue, and by this point, the volume knob was This close to the switch.










Miraculously, the holes I bored were covered as planned, by the knobs. I then decided to do an afterthought of routing at the front of the cavity.









At which point the assembly would fit, but then the pickguard wasn't in the right place. 

30 minutes of sanding later, the pickguard accommodated enough for everything to lay flat, but then it didn't lay flat again because, when I did the test fit, the battery snap was now getting in the way when engaged with the battery, something I didn't account for.








So I removed the plastic covering from the snap and slid it out of the way









It is now, Lunchtime.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I greatly admire your determination, creativity, persistence and stamina.

What is the present weight of the body with all of the hardware (including the pickups)?


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

greco said:


> I greatly admire your determination, creativity, persistence and stamina.
> 
> What is the present weight of the body with all of the hardware (including the pickups)?


Haha thanks, woodworking experience and getting consistent positive help on this forum have spurred me on. Once I get far enough into something, I will not be deterred. Let me dust off the scale here..









4 lb 2 oz no tuners no pickups









4 lb 7 oz with pickups no tuners








The tuners actually end up adding 6 ounces lol. 4 lb 13.5 oz with tuners on board. Counting on that maple neck which is on its way to be under 2 lbs to keep the guitar under 7 lbs.

It's kinda difficult to find someone who will sell me tuning machines for under $100, let alone lightweight metal tuning machines, so I'll look for a bit today but I will likely just keep these and throw em on, not worth the effort to save max 3 oz as far as I know for metal tuners. At that point it gets down to road bike science "you're paying $30-60 extra to save 3-4 ounces on your build" Nope, pass.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Thanks for the pics and the various weights. I appreciate you taking the time to post all of the above.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

greco said:


> Thanks for the pics and the various weights. I appreciate you taking the time to post all of the above.


It's the least I can do , all of you have and continue to be helpful every step of the way with my guitar project and with me getting back into, looking for, buying and selling guitars. Reporting back and following up is very easy for me, especially if people are interested. If there's anything I've missed that you or anyone wants to know about this project, do let me know.

I should mention there was a small hardware weight change (besides the neck) since initial weigh ins, which is significant for me for reasons other than weight. The hardware was weighed today without 6 string-through ferrules. I'm returning them because I know my string holes aren't straight and I don't want to ruin the custom back I just put on. Thanks to the bridge that came pre drilled for both styles of tele, this tele will be a top-loader.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Haven't had a chance to work on the guitar the past couple days, but the neck just came in and for 85 bucks, I mean...









































As expected, it definitely doesn't look like the picture on the website. As I hoped, I'm very happy with my Ali express roasted maple neck which came a month and a half earlier than expected.

I tried to capture that the neck doesn't appear warped or backbowed, but also I ran my hand along the frets and they don't feel sharp at all. 

There's another company called kmise that makes maple tele necks, but they were sold out when I checked, and there are a few reviewers mentioning that their stuff needs TLC, I would've gambled on one of theirs were they available but I'm still happy I went for this. 

Here's a pic of it snugly fit into the body.









It weighs 1 lb 5 oz. That puts me at 6 lb 2 oz total weight so far. Things are looking up.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

did you cut the heel for a strat? The routes are a bit different..


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

knight_yyz said:


> did you cut the heel for a strat? The routes are a bit different..


As far as I know, it's been cut for a tele from the tele template I made (from a vinyl tele template sticker)

It's my understanding that the Strat neck pocket has a bit of a concave bulge to it at the neck pick-up end. I'm not near the body right now, but I believe this one was routed straight to fit a tele neck.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Routing done, finally.









Got as close as I could without wrecking anything. Will start sanding (again , sigh) this week sometime.










I lost 0.3 ounces routing the body (so, nothing). It no longer matters.


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

Sanding is progressing slowly, working on it sporadically while also job hunting and trying to play more.










The right side of this body curve (?terms) is at 100 grit still and "against" the grain. On the left side, the 120 grit has removed the 100-grit markings.

I went inside at this point to warm up my fingers, and this is when my gf asked me to go pick up a playpen off Kijiji for the ducklings she will be babysitting for 5 weeks. This 8 minute trip took 25 minutes because folding instructions, and I decided to call it a night.


----------



## innasohna (Sep 22, 2021)

jfd986 said:


> Ya I have tung oil! Have used it before for other stuff like walnut picture frames and children's toys I've made. Not sure exactly what my process will be for finishing the guitar, but will look into it at some point and include it as part of the main thread for my build. I'm going this afternoon to try and fix my best router table, would be easier to use the table than it would be to hand rout the guitar edge but I'm prepared to do it either way.


Same here.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I will be on the heavy side, but so what?

It seems like a shame to use nice wood and then to try and remove some of it. That's especially a drag if you decide you don't want a pickguard later, but you've already chambered it.

I'd build it with minimal cavities.


----------



## MarkM (May 23, 2019)

@jfd986 have you made any progress on this guitar? Not throwing stones as I have a bench full of guitar and amp projects that have been sitting there for over a year!


----------



## jfd986 (Nov 22, 2010)

MarkM said:


> @jfd986 have you made any progress on this guitar? Not throwing stones as I have a bench full of guitar and amp projects that have been sitting there for over a year!


Sorry for the suuuuper late reply.

Things that have happened since I paused this project:

Got carpal tunnel
Carpal tunnel healed
Got a new job contract signed
Got back to general woodworking to finish a bigger and more annoying project 
Finished some woodworking projects for the summer
Immediately signed up for a new project and had 3 tools break down
Bought the things needed to fix them
Got back into tennis
Carpal tunnel flare up
flare up subsided
got too cold to mess with the jointer blades outdoors
Contract start date came around, started working again
Got engaged


I do appreciate people checking in and keeping me honest though. I am planning on doing this project in my garage in the dead of winter. I've noticed that it's currently at the point where I only have to use either a drill or hand sanding / tools. So? I'll wait til it's too cold to do pretty much anything else, and until my job evens out. Then I'm gonna go after it and will update here. I feel you on the incomplete projects, I had a 5 foot live edge table lying around my house for a YEaR. 

Most of my projects this summer came out well, though. Check em out, I'm gonna message here again when I finish the next grit of hand sanding on the guitar body.


----------

