three carbon fiber questions

finkdaddy

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
411
Reaction score
0
Location
Waterford, WI
On an upcoming build, I'm going to want to add a carbon fiber rod to the neck and probably use some sheets as a bridge patch as well.
But I've never used it before, so I have some questions for you fine folks.

1) Where is a good place to order the material from?

2) Do I need to buy special tools to cut it?

3) What type of glue is used to secure it?

Thanks in advance!

~Fred
 
Here's where I get mine. http://cstsales.com/ They're close to me so I run over when I'm in their town. Found them on David Hurd's website.
Hack saw for the truss rods and scissors for the bridge plate material.
Epoxy for the stickum
 
Here's where I get mine. http://cstsales.com/ They're close to me so I run over when I'm in their town. Found them on David Hurd's website.
Hack saw for the truss rods and scissors for the bridge plate material.
Epoxy for the stickum

Oooo, that's perfect!:D
May I ask what thickness you would use for a bridge plate?
Also, is there a specific brand/type of epoxy you like to use?
 
Don't remember the brand of epoxy I have been using but I looked on the LMI website where I got it and it's not there but I would think any decent epoxy would do. They have Smith All Wood Epoxy and I guess I'll have to use that when I run out of mine.
As per David Hurd I've been using 0.030 for the bari's and tenors and 0.018 for the soprano's and concerts.
Mr. Hurd has a great web page on bridges and bridge patches http://www.ukuleles.com/Technology/bridgesize.html
 
The Composite Store for bridge patch strips www.cstsales.com

Somewhere out there on the net David Hurd has a page with information on carbon fiber bridge patches.

Dragonplate is a good place too.

System 3 T-88 Epoxy is excellent. It works well for oily hardwoods also, and other difficult to bond materials. Using an accurate scale with epoxies is a good idea, if you have one. Much more consistent results are possible when measuring epoxy with a scale.
 
Last edited:
I have been using DragonPlate Carbon Strip (Rectangle) ~ .200" x .250" x 24" @ $8.55 ea. StewMac sells a .200 router bit for this size strip.

Cuts easily with a fine tooth hacksaw.
 
What is the bridge patch for. It is dozens of times stronger than wood. What is the load path that is being dealt with. We use the 20 thou stuff on hunting bows, it is immensely strong. Why not use the cloth since it contours to the shape people generally want if they are using forms. I have long experience with carbon fiber, and people generally use it incorrectly. But I also hadn't heard of this use, so I am trying to get up to speed.

WEST is a good epoxy to use since it has a decent hardness profile for either carbon or wood, given most people aren't post curing musical instruments.

I suppose you can't beat an accurate enough scale, and I use it for medium sized batches, but for small jobs, I use a PD dose syringe in a bottle. It allows one to dispense small amounts really conveniently with good accuracy. And it last a long time since these syringes use o-rings rather than rubber ends. It might be that T-88 would be too viscous for the syringes, but I use WEST mostly.
 
Just because it hasn't been brought up, and you state that you're new to working with CF:

Make sure you're using, at least, a high quality dust mask any time you're working with or cleaning up after a process that generates CF dust. I'm not sure if it requires any special eye protection (ie. anything you wouldn't already be wearing for a similar process in wood), but I've heard it's pretty nasty if you breath it in.
 
Just because it hasn't been brought up, and you state that you're new to working with CF:

Make sure you're using, at least, a high quality dust mask any time you're working with or cleaning up after a process that generates CF dust. I'm not sure if it requires any special eye protection (ie. anything you wouldn't already be wearing for a similar process in wood), but I've heard it's pretty nasty if you breath it in.

Great advice, thank you!
 
Thanks Resoman. Coincidentally I was reading the articles about David in AL56 today. So that article on bridge patches comes at a good time.

So the main things in that article are:

1) Bridge plates are important (more on this later);

2) Sound boards often split at the termination of bridges;

3) Bridges often terminate abruptly, and at the same point as patches;

4) Bridges and patches can form stress risers.

5) Properly designed bridge plates can eliminate SB cracks.

I would agree that soundboards crack for the reasons given, but I also think that instrument without carbon fiber, made in the modern way, are equally durable. The problem is not new, and the suggested prescriptions are only novel in their use of the material in question.

I also think that using the stiffest and strongest commonly available material as a patch can just as easily create a stress riser as using a bluntly ending bridge. As an example, lattice braced guitars, often have tops that fade out to the sides to a thickness of .5 mm. These are bolstered with a spiderweb of carbon, that is almost invisible. Not 30 thou of solid carbon.

These days there are other strategies, like scientific moisture control, spherical plates, better wood, less clunky bridge designs; etc... These also contribute to the split soundboard issue's resolution. And of course we don't know how long these plates and glues will last. For instance, if you put a plate of FRP with epoxy under a piece of wood, you are guaranteeing uneven absorption of moisture, in that area. That is a pretty good design for making one of those wooden moisture meters. So we are hoping that in 50 or 100 years, these will be the winning ideas. As the makers of instruments in the past assumed their choices would work out over time.

Getting back to 1), I am not convinced that these plates are necessary structurally, but do they produce better sounding instruments? Obviously people wouldn't use them if they killed the sound. Many older classicals didn't have them, and often used the fans to tie in to the bridge ends. But certainly the momentum has been towards under bridge plates. Some of the classicals that are using patches are using about 40 thou of softwood, so it doesn't take much to get a unified tone. Of course there is NA classical guitar making, and European guitar making. And there is the influence of steel string guitar making. I should probably get the whole book.
 
On an upcoming build, I'm going to want to add a carbon fiber rod to the neck and probably use some sheets as a bridge patch as well.
But I've never used it before, so I have some questions for you fine folks.

1) Where is a good place to order the material from?

2) Do I need to buy special tools to cut it?

3) What type of glue is used to secure it?

Thanks in advance!

~Fred


I'm not a builder myself but I've heard that sparks fly if you try cutting this stuff with your bandsaw. Be safe out there. :)
 
I would agree that soundboards crack for the reasons given, but I also think that instrument without carbon fiber, made in the modern way, are equally durable. The problem is not new, and the suggested prescriptions are only novel in their use of the material in question.
Totally agree that successful instruments can and are (and have been for hundreds of years) built with and without carbon fiber bridge patches. More important than the material, I think, is the design.

I also think that using the stiffest and strongest commonly available material as a patch can just as easily create a stress riser as using a bluntly ending bridge.
Don't forget about weight in this conversation. Carbon fiber is not used solely for it's stiffness but rather because of the stiffness it provides at a given weight. Use of a softwood as a bridgepatch would also follow the "stiff but light" principle. CF provides the necessary stiffness with the least amount of weight as compared to most woods. It's not just about the stiffness...stiffness vs. weight.

Getting back to 1), I am not convinced that these plates are necessary structurally, but do they produce better sounding instruments?
I think properly designed bridge patches are necessary but I don't believe CF is the only way to accomplish this...but CF is one of the stiffest materials available for a given weight. So if you subscribe to the "stiff but light" principle of building, CF is successful in accomplishing that principle but it is not the ONLY way. I have seen many of the builders with reputations for "good" or consistent sound say they try to build with materials that are "stiff but light". That principle seems to produce good sounding instruments. CF is but one way to accomplish that principle. We all make tradeoffs and many a good sounding instrument have been built without CF. But then again "stiff but light" could just produce one kind of good. Maybe "stiff and heavy" produces a different kind of good sound. To each his own.
 
Donovan,
I think those are all reasonable and valid points but one of the main reasons I use CF besides the Stiff but Light is that I mostly use the through the bridge method of anchoring the strings and the knots from the string aren't against a soft wood. But, my wife is still playing the first tenor I made and that was with a spruce bridge patch with the strings thru the bridge method that I like and there have been no problems.......yet
 
Donovan,
I think those are all reasonable and valid points but one of the main reasons I use CF besides the Stiff but Light is that I mostly use the through the bridge method of anchoring the strings and the knots from the string aren't against a soft wood. But, my wife is still playing the first tenor I made and that was with a spruce bridge patch with the strings thru the bridge method that I like and there have been no problems.......yet

Totally agree and great addition of things to consider. I started to write about that but deleted it cause it was getting too long. I remembered visiting frets.com and saw these images http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier/Technique/Setup/BuzzDiagnosis/StringBall/looseball.html which got me to thinking about the advantages of using a "harder" surfaced bridge patch. I also use mostly a through the bridge method of anchoring. No problems so far either...but I have seen other guitar repair pictures where that style of mounting looks to be harder on softer bridge patches. For me, CF bridge patch kills 2 birds with one stone. Many things to consider.

** Added **
Google "guitar bridge crack" and select "images". This was another source for some of the imagery that got me thinking about the different issues discussed above.
 
Last edited:
CF is good for strength, is light weigth and is striff, but I wouldn't use it for anything that is going to wear or rub up against it. It cuts and sands like butter, but it wears out fast if you use it for something like a nut or saddle. It also splits really easy. I don't use it for bridge patches for this reason, its too soft and would be a bitch to try and replace if a string bead wore through it or it split. I'll stay with wood.
 
finkdaddy,
An alternative to CF neck inserts is aluminum rod. David Hurd and others on the ANZLF have mentioned (and measured) very similar stiffnesses between CF and aluminum rod (of the same dimensions). Keeping in mind that the CF that we buy is not the same quality CF used in the space program. Obviously the aluminum weighs a little more. Would be interesting to hear comments from those who have tried both regarding the weight effects on the balance of the instrument (ie: does the aluminum rod make the instrument feel more headstock heavy?). I'm using the aluminum on my current build because I could not find the size I wanted in CF and it is available locally. Local availability was probably the biggest factor. On the other hand, "Aluminum neck insert" does not sound as sexy as "carbon fiber neck insert" :) Maybe all of those soda cans we crushed as kids also leads to the perception of aluminum not being stiff enough. Just tossing another option out there.

donovan
 
Top Bottom