When will carbon fiber guitars come down in price?

Thank you for addressing my questions. I have always thought that a one-piece guitar would have more integrity, but I suppose contemporary glues meld the various pieces/parts into a cohesive whole.

I have a hard time seeing bladder or lost wax methods as producing consistent multiples. I have particularly enjoyed Emerald's ability to produce new models and to then, on the basis of demand, produce multiples. His work baffles me.

I'm off to google you and looking forward to the trip.

[Ted @ LA Guitar Sales]

Originally Posted by John Morciglio

To Andy???
Nobody asked if "I" could build 2000 units with my "home-made" molds???

Actually I did ask, see quote below:

Originally Posted by Ted @ LA Guitar Sales

Welcome to the forum John. A few questions for you. What should an aluminum mold for a guitar cost? Could your molds be used with pre-preg carbon fiber? And finally, would you still use your system if you were building 2000 guitars a year?

When Composite Acoustic went up for sale, I was approached as a potential buyer, so I looked in to what it takes to build a consistent CF product. If I decided to build CF guitars on a larger scale, I would certainly be thinking aluminum molds. As a custom builder I can see why you would have no interest in such molds.

Originally Posted by John Morciglio

To make a "1 piece" guitar;

It would have to be a "closed" (also referred to as "Blind" ;-) mold.

A bladder or "lost wax casting" could be used for the internal pressure/support.

"IF" (to me it's a BIG IF) this is actually being done by a builder?
I don't get it or see any benefit other than pulling an almost finished product from a single step process??

Thanks for that explanation, John. Alistar Hay of Emerald guitars builds one piece CF guitars, although he has not shared his methods. He's a custom builder like you BTW, has some interesting looking guitars, sadly the guitars did not do well in my store.

Originally Posted by EvanB

Thank you for addressing my questions. I have always thought that a one-piece guitar would have more integrity, but I suppose contemporary glues meld the various pieces/parts into a cohesive whole.

I have a hard time seeing bladder or lost wax methods as producing consistent multiples. I have particularly enjoyed Emerald's ability to produce new models and to then, on the basis of demand, produce multiples. His work baffles me.

I'm off to google you and looking forward to the trip.

I don't think Alistar ever tried to sell his one piece design as superior. Although he might be giving up some consistency, the system he uses, what ever it is, allows him to build almost any design he can dream up.

[John Morciglio]

"could I "use my molds for pre-preg?
Answered, yes.

"would I" use (that system), "if" I were building 2000 per year?

Like I posted, 2000 per/year would equal 1 guitar an hour.

Not sure if I would be capable of starting/running a factory with that kind of scale.

Maintained 10-15 employees for about 15 years.
It is such a relief to not have that responsibility/headache in my life anymore.

Stay just busy enough being a small custom builder.
Had a very small 580sq.ft. shop at my home in MI.
Moved into a temporary (600sq. ft.) garage shop here in Denver.

Bought property I can build on so look forward to a 28X32 building soon.

Still small.
But the only overhead will be my utilities. (and increased property taxes).

4 or 5 of the bike building companies (in my circle) have gone out-of-business in the last year alone.

I can "afford" to build bikes and guitars for the next 10 years.
Always "loved" my work/job and this gig is even more rewarding!

Being a diemaker and high end carpenter/contractor was fun for me. 12-16 hour days are fine when you like what your doing.
Paying rent, workmans comp liability and unemployment insurance. Making payroll. Not so much fun.

JM

[ac]

I think the question regarding the 2000 guitars was pertaining whether or not your "non" aluminum molds would survive after 2000 guitars were made. How many years it would take wasn't the issue.

For example, if you had all the personnel you needed and all the money you needed to run a shop 24/7 to pump out one model of guitar using one single mold, do you feel you would need to have an aluminum mold to do this amount of work, or, would your homemade mold (non-aluminum) survive for that many guitars and still make quality guitar bodies?

We have no idea at all and so are interested in what is or is not possible.

Related question: How many times do you think it is possible to reuse the molds you make at home that are not made of aluminum if it is less than 2000 times?

Thanks.

[John Morciglio]

Originally Posted by ac

I think the question regarding the 2000 guitars was pertaining whether or not your "non" aluminum molds would survive after 2000 guitars were made. How many years it would take wasn't the issue.

For example, if you had all the personnel you needed and all the money you needed to run a shop 24/7 to pump out one model of guitar using one single mold, do you feel you would need to have an aluminum mold to do this amount of work, or, would your homemade mold (non-aluminum) survive for that many guitars and still make quality guitar bodies?

We have no idea at all and so are interested in what is or is not possible.

Related question: How many times do you think it is possible to reuse the molds you make at home that are not made of aluminum if it is less than 2000 times?

Thanks.

Thought I addressed that in my first post.

Molds made from "other" materials will pull infinite parts.
Molds are prepped with "parting wax".
If there is to be any painting/finish work or secondary bonding, you also use a "PVA" release film. (it can be easily removed without sanding).
The original parting wax will contaminate a surface and would have to be aggressively cleaned/sanded prior to finish or bonding.

With a 3-coat PVA film, the parts practically jump out of the mold with NO damage or "wear and tear".

Many Mfgs. (with unlimited budget and resources) use molds made from other materials.

My molds are actually "over built" with carbon and epoxy.
Less expensive; (gel-coats, polyester, and fiberglass) are commonly used to produce high-end molds/parts? They also have MUCH HIGHER VOC's.

Don't want to breath or expose my home to those materials.
They cost 1/10th as much as carbon/epoxy.

JM

[perttime]

I frequent some model airplane forums and some of those guys produce molded carbon wings and fuselages for speeds and stresses that are high by full size airplane standards. They want accurate, light and strong. I have never seen anyone mention aluminum as a mold material - but I don't think they produce parts in their thousands. Various vacuum and infusion systems are a normal part of the process.

[sirwhale]

Originally Posted by John Morciglio

Thought I addressed that in my first post.

Molds made from "other" materials will pull infinite parts.
Molds are prepped with "parting wax".
If there is to be any painting/finish work or secondary bonding, you also use a "PVA" release film. (it can be easily removed without sanding).
The original parting wax will contaminate a surface and would have to be aggressively cleaned/sanded prior to finish or bonding.

With a 3-coat PVA film, the parts practically jump out of the mold with NO damage or "wear and tear".

Many Mfgs. (with unlimited budget and resources) use molds made from other materials.

My molds are actually "over built" with carbon and epoxy.
Less expensive; (gel-coats, polyester, and fiberglass) are commonly used to produce high-end molds/parts? They also have MUCH HIGHER VOC's.

Don't want to breath or expose my home to those materials.
They cost 1/10th as much as carbon/epoxy.

JM

Hi John, thanks for all the information, it's really helpful for us here. I think people are missing your answers sometimes as it seems like you are writing your responses as if you were transcribing a verbal conversation with people who understand what you're talking about The acronyms go right over my head, like VOCs... I just play guitars and your responses are the first introduction I've ever had into comprehending how my guitar got to my hands. Thanks for putting the time in to explain this stuff to us.

[perttime]

Originally Posted by sirwhale

Hi John, ...
... your responses are the first introduction I've ever had into comprehending how my guitar got to my hands. But thanks for putting the time in to explain this stuff to us.

It is clear that John knows what he is doing, when it comes to carbon fiber structures. His work in fast recumbent bikes is pretty legendary.

[BananasCentral]

VOC is volatile organic compounds
This can be better understood by looking up "organic solvents"

In laymans terms it would be the stinky part of paint which evaporates.
Also responsible for new car smell, just to go ahead and ruin that for you

Originally Posted by sirwhale

as if you were transcribing a verbal conversation with people who understand what you're talking about The acronyms go right over my head, like VOCs... I just play guitars and your responses are the first introduction I've ever had into comprehending how my guitar got to my hands. Thanks for putting the time in to explain this stuff to us.

Think you are having a hard time?
Try being a technical guy and asking guitar questions of "someone who just plays"

CLEARLY a language barrier.
And I'm not picking on anyone because I don't speak music.

[Ted @ LA Guitar Sales]

Excellent thread guys.

[Honch]

The most important thing is that one think's if there's a brand name stuck on the head, you think that's a a factory too (with wooden guitars) that makes them. In China. In Asia most factories does a lot of brands wooden guitars. The ones that makes Cort doesn't make just Cort ones.

The CF has a too much proprietary design and patent, and would be too risky to lay out and outsource to Asian countries. You will have to disclose whatever patent and design there is to the actual mold where they make them.

As far as I know, NO ONE tried to build CF Steinbergers headless bass guitars over in Asia. Even as a counterfeit copy. They just went for the design and made it in wood. I don't know if anyone does still actually. I've yet to see some graphite at all, neither electrics nor acoustics from Asia, that is as well done, as their wooden counterparts.

It is a kind of dirty work and deeper QC that goes into building CF guitars. I know that Moses Graphite factory, shop is residing in the outskirts of Eugene Oregon, in order to be at a distance to more crowded areas. But nevertheless, the Asians chops down woods to no end, in order for making any guitar, but they can't dig up coal from the coal mines as easily. While not rocket science it's not like building a car. And the eternal chase for making them sound like all wooden guitars - and the best of them too - is bound to have clandestine trade secrets just as well as striving for the same feel when playing them and looks.

I think as such things like Lacey act and CITES strikes us more and more, the wooden guitars will eventually go up in price instead. At least those who are something to write home about. When the prices meet people will think twice and maybe - finally - take a good look and especially listening at the CF guitars.

[Honch]

Also, I think this one hasn't been mentioned yet.

As with all markets and design of products, I am not sure anyone would consider going into some kind of "lasts forever" type of guitar. That's why they keep the prices up. I remember reading that Ed Roman was longing for someone to trade in his/her Rainsong, but no one did. since 2004.

It has to do with the industrys general design lifetime in their products. Planned obsolescence. Too long longetivity, was what caused the regression in the 20s. No one bought anything new anymore because what they bought lasted their lifetime. Toasters, cars, bicycles, especially light bulbs. Anything can be made to last forever at a price. However, after a while, when people don't buy anything, every worker gets laid off. And so on.

Since most wooden acoustic guitars have a self-destructive design, like Martins the company needs to be around whenever that inevitable neck reset has to be made, so you pay a certain amount of insurance money within the price, so that the company will still be around whenever a repair has to be made. So, for example like this one, what should that person do?

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=389908

- - - -

Even early Steinberger basses has to begun to crack by now. In the neck, small bubbles, and it "dries" up too. Just as the "metal fatigue" there's "graphite fatigue"*. Strength vs stiffness. But since it is since the 80s they hold up longer than any wooden instrument anyway. Not needing service until now. But the service/maintenance may be impossible whenever that times comes...so... buy a new one...


* http://www.christinedemerchant.com/c...teristics.html

[ac]

Originally Posted by John Morciglio

Thought I addressed that in my first post.

Molds made from "other" materials will pull infinite parts.
Molds are prepped with "parting wax".
If there is to be any painting/finish work or secondary bonding, you also use a "PVA" release film. (it can be easily removed without sanding).
The original parting wax will contaminate a surface and would have to be aggressively cleaned/sanded prior to finish or bonding.

With a 3-coat PVA film, the parts practically jump out of the mold with NO damage or "wear and tear".

Many Mfgs. (with unlimited budget and resources) use molds made from other materials.

My molds are actually "over built" with carbon and epoxy.
Less expensive; (gel-coats, polyester, and fiberglass) are commonly used to produce high-end molds/parts? They also have MUCH HIGHER VOC's.

Don't want to breath or expose my home to those materials.
They cost 1/10th as much as carbon/epoxy.

JM

You did address that in your first post but others later questioned that and asked in terms of numbers. They asked a couple more times but you didn't address what they were after, so I thought I'd ask their question again with more detail.

The reason for this question on the forum is that there are builders who use expensive, outsourced aluminum molds which limits their flexibility--but their reasoning is that every part will be identical and more consistent than from other types of molds. At least that's how it has been presented on the forum. So the general understanding has been--aluminum is more expensive--but somehow better.

One of the 4 main builders does not do it this way but still produces consistent, high quality guitars and is able more quickly to create new mold and so is more flexible making custom builds. He does say that making the mold is still time intensive--but it's much faster and less expensive than outsourcing an aluminum mold. His methods conflict with other builders and so there has been this outstanding question regarding methods.

So that's the background on why I asked the question again. Thanks for expanding and clarifying everything for us.

[BananasCentral]

Originally Posted by ac

every part will be identical

Yes this is what molds do

[ac]

Originally Posted by BananasCentral

Yes this is what molds do

I was referring to comments that suggested that aluminum molds created casts that were "more" identical, i.e., better--than those created by any other type of mold and would last longer than any other type of mold.

This is core point of discussion, and where Morciglio's input has shed new light, is that he has pointed out that aluminum is not better, but just functions the same as other molds. I always assumed incorrectly that aluminum had to be the best.

I've tried to think of the reason why aluminum would be still be used but can only come up with speculation at this point.

The oldest CF guitar companies use aluminum and maybe this was thought to be necessary in the earlier days of building with composites.

Other techniques and methods and improvements have been added as time has gone by. Newer builders do not seem to be using the aluminum molds or feel any need to use them at all.

The one advantage I can see for aluminum is if material is press fit into the mold, which might speed up the process?, then that would be a definite advantage over softer mold material. But I don't know if this is part of the process or can be or not.

Or maybe it's just a case of companies holding on to what has worked in the past, even though there are better (or less expensive/more flexible) ways to do things today to achieve the same results??

But I can see that if a companies methods have been successful so far, they may be reluctant to try anything new until market forces make it necessary to do so. A conservative approach, but reasonable.

"You don't change a winning game. You always change a losing game." a quote from Bill Tilden, a once famous tennis player I read when very young.

I'm sure we'll hear more that will adjust my "speculation" closer to reality. :-)