Bolt-on neck and Upper Transverse Brace

[artus]

Folks,

I am starting a new SJ build (falcate or x-braced -- tbd) and looking at the relationship of the neck joint and upper transverse brace(utb). I see that Taylor has eliminated the utb in the v class bracing presumably because of their NT system. There appears to be a smaller transverse brace below the sound hole in their pattern. The NT system looks similar to the Gore/Gilet(GG) bolt-on approach, but with shims. Also the GG approach calls for abutting the head block to the utb. Just from a structural point of view, is a large utb really needed with the GG neck block? What are the tone implication of reducing the size or eliminating and moving below the sound hole a la Taylor? My musings of the day. Thanks for any thoughts.

Jack (Kansas City)

[Mark McLean]

It has often been said that the upper bout area is structurally vulnerable in a steel string guitar. The string tension is trying to fold the instrument in half. The neck is thick, and has the truss rod rod to help resist the pressure. But the upper part of the box is weaker, and made more so by the four inch hole that most guitars have the upper part of the soundboard. And there is a tendency for gradual (cold creep) forward rotation of the neck block. So, the UTB is generally touted as an important structure, and most builders make it a pretty beefy piece. Tying it into the neck block also seems intuitively to be a good idea. So I am a bit surprised to see Taylor abandon it - but you can bet they did their homework on this. Maybe the longitudinal nature of the V- brace is stronger than a X-brace in preventing rotational force?

I don't know, and haven't seen what the neck block looks like on this new Taylor scheme.

[Mark McLean]

OK, it seems that the V-class Taylors do have a UTB, but they just left it out of the publicity photos. I am saying this without having actually seen one, so correct me if you have physical evidence that I am wrong. But here are some diagrams from the patent application.

DB63887E-0304-480F-8EF0-C0AB56DD0CBD.jpeg (35.55 KiB) Viewed 10608 times

[artus]

Mark clearly the utb is on the patent drawing, but all the Taylor videos and photos on their site show a strong transvers brace below the soundhole but not above. I am confused -- perhaps i need to visit a Taylor store, dental mirror in hand. Thanks for the reply.

Jack

[Mark McLean]

The patent (US9520108) shows a number of variations on the invention. It looks like they went with the one labelled Figure 2, which has the full width transverse brace below the soundhole.
Yes, some field research at your local dealer is definitely in order.

[GregL]

Hi,
Just a sorta leading question, if I may.
I have never seen a newer Taylor acousitc (nor will I probably ever see one!), so I'm asking the question of more "experienced" readers:
- is that a full depth neck block at the top of the body on the patent, or only a "patch" (similar to a bridge patch)?
If it's full depth, surely a block that large would act similar to an UTB? (at least, in the centre, most-stressed area)
Thanks,
GregL.

[artus]

I see on the patent reference -- 10262633, that a fingerboard brace (utb) is a part of the neck block assembly. Its still there, but not on the soundboard assembly. I will probably go look at one anyway. Thanks for the replies.

Jack