V Class Bracing: why did Taylor make the change?

[Taylor Ham]

Originally Posted by mischultz

Because it’s Andy’s vision. I think the economic question is marginal at best, both in an absolute sense and relative to Taylor’s ability to price in the market. There may well be a fractional savings in material and/or automated labor cost, but nothing they couldn’t capture and balance on the back end.



The GPs and GTs (not V but hang with me for a moment) sound like very particular things and unlike Taylor’s last 20 years. That’s the point. The V exists because it’s what helps Andy realize his vision for what a guitar should accomplish. If it had been a trident or a bass clef, it would’ve been for the same reason.

This is closest to my opinion.

I really think Taylor made the change because they wholeheartedly believe it makes a better guitar.

There are two sides of "better" for Taylor- the Taylor sound, and Taylor engineering. Some people may not like the Taylor sound compared to the Martin sound, so when they are no longer limited by the X brace in how far they can take it, that's the final straw. I can respect that. But I believe the new V braced guitars do bring something to the table with their tone and clarity.

The engineering aspect looks like an easier choice. Taylor has always tried to ensure their guitars are precisely set up, whether that's on the factory end through design and production, or on the player's end through adjustment. They've gone to great lengths in the past with the NT neck, which also made a few waves in the industry. Now the change is in the top structure. The V brace supports the tail end of the bridge much better than the X brace and tone bars layout. And if you look at the new C bracing, there's a common thread. Achieving this would go a long way to prevent major geometry and setup problems. If you have a design that is more structurally efficient, it could allow you to voice the top more freely. Which Taylor does. They have unique brace shapes and wood thicknesses for each model, but not each individual guitar.

Structure and sound are linked, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. Again, I see the tone problem as more of a difference between Taylor's direction and some consumers' preferences, not a result of limitation of the V design.

If production cost was a factor, they probably would have thought a bit harder before making such a big change to their entire USA lineup. The guitars themselves, and the supporting equipment needed to make them. There's alot that goes into making a factory guitar. So much, that any miniscule amount of wood they might save by making each brace a 16th or an eighth of an inch less tall is basically nothing.

I have realized something since last time I posted under this topic. One area where they might save time, if not necessarily expense, is on warranty work. If the V brace is more stable through the guitar's life than the X brace, it will keep the guitars in better condition, and keep them playing longer.

[PeteyPower16]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

I'd expect that a component of this decision is market-based, to show they are innovating and offering something no one else does. One could imagine Taylor's "mystique" to be not tradition, but innovation.

I think this is well said, and I think this is the company philosophy. At some point, innovation gives way to tradition, and as a younger company than Martin or Gibson, Taylor has not slowed in this way yet.

I just hope innovations are designed to resolve issues and improve things rather than innovation for innovation’s sake. A paraphrased quote from Sherlock Holmes: “The difference between genius and insanity is knowing when to stop.” I don’t think Taylor has reached its appropriate stopping point yet—there is still more to innovate.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

V bracing is cheaper to produce in a factory. Less complicated design with much fewer pieces to glue. When you’re making however many thousand guitars a year, all that time savings per guitar adds up. Martin charges less for their a frame braced guitars because it’s fewer braces, cheaper (as a chief reason). Taylor is more slick: they swapped to cheaper bracing but raised prices. Andy’s first x pattern was my favorite. They lost me with V…

X


V

I remember watching a movie about a problem on a spacecraft, I think it was Apollo 13. An air filter had to be built from available parts on the space ship. A bunch of mechanical engineers on Earth sat with the same available parts and brain stormed to design something that the astronauts could build.

Same thing with the V brace I'm sure. Take less bracing and make a guitar top just as strong, sounds similar and costs less to make. Give the problem to the MIT guys.

Looking at the two tops, the answer is obvious.

[FOG01]

Originally Posted by Taylor Ham

This is closest to my opinion.

I really think Taylor made the change because they wholeheartedly believe it makes a better guitar.

There are two sides of "better" for Taylor- the Taylor sound, and Taylor engineering. Some people may not like the Taylor sound compared to the Martin sound, so when they are no longer limited by the X brace in how far they can take it, that's the final straw. I can respect that. But I believe the new V braced guitars do bring something to the table with their tone and clarity.

The engineering aspect looks like an easier choice. Taylor has always tried to ensure their guitars are precisely set up, whether that's on the factory end through design and production, or on the player's end through adjustment. They've gone to great lengths in the past with the NT neck, which also made a few waves in the industry. Now the change is in the top structure. The V brace supports the tail end of the bridge much better than the X brace and tone bars layout. And if you look at the new C bracing, there's a common thread. Achieving this would go a long way to prevent major geometry and setup problems. If you have a design that is more structurally efficient, it could allow you to voice the top more freely. Which Taylor does. They have unique brace shapes and wood thicknesses for each model, but not each individual guitar.

Structure and sound are linked, which is why we are having this discussion in the first place. Again, I see the tone problem as more of a difference between Taylor's direction and some consumers' preferences, not a result of limitation of the V design.

If production cost was a factor, they probably would have thought a bit harder before making such a big change to their entire USA lineup. The guitars themselves, and the supporting equipment needed to make them. There's alot that goes into making a factory guitar. So much, that any miniscule amount of wood they might save by making each brace a 16th or an eighth of an inch less tall is basically nothing.

I have realized something since last time I posted under this topic. One area where they might save time, if not necessarily expense, is on warranty work. If the V brace is more stable through the guitar's life than the X brace, it will keep the guitars in better condition, and keep them playing longer.

Agreed with all except I question whether there is any cost savings expected in warranty work either. It has not been my experience there have been any issues with Taylor X braces leading to problems, really just the opposite. I've used Taylor’s warranty only once, for the bridge coming unglued on a GS Mini. Taylor promptly took care of it by attaching a new body to the neck and sending it back, which I assume was a decision based purely on economics.

I would expect provided I keep my Taylor properly humidified it will likely last as long or longer than I do.

[Taylor Ham]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

V bracing is cheaper to produce in a factory. Less complicated design with much fewer pieces to glue. When you’re making however many thousand guitars a year, all that time savings per guitar adds up. Martin charges less for their a frame braced guitars because it’s fewer braces, cheaper (as a chief reason). Taylor is more slick: they swapped to cheaper bracing but raised prices. Andy’s first x pattern was my favorite. They lost me with V…

X


V

That may be the case with Martin, but I don't think it's the case with V bracing.

Easiest thing right off the bat is lack of upper bout bracing in the V brace. It's actually in all the production guitars, just not on that demo top. In fact, the specfic positioning and shape of those braces may not be very close to that of any production model. One could see why that's a wise choice.

Next thing is cost. There's much made of the V brace having fewer components. Does it really have that much less, and does it matter? I say no. Taylor lines up the top and the braces in a jig under a vaccum press, and then clamps the whole thing at once. counting up the number of braces excluding identical ones above the sound hole, the V brace has 9, and the X has 10. There's only one less piece here, which makes scant difference in the assembly time. It's not like the bow tie x brace martin does, where they threw out everything besides the main X, bridge plate, and upper transverse brace.

I've done a few structural simulations, and the V brace in general needs 10% less mass in the braces to keep the same total deformation in terms of top sinking and belly. Does this really allow Taylor to cut down on enough brace wood to make a difference? maybe if all the pieces are cut from a billet squashed up against each other like a jigsaw puzzle, but that's not exactly how it works. The rectuangular blanks or the layout on the billet they are all cut from are still going to be about the same size, becase the maximum dimensions of the braces did not change much. compared to the rest of the guitar, will saving about $5 brace material per guitar (if we're being generous) make or break the bottom line? if that's the goal, better stick with a thick poly finish instead of that 3.5 mil UV cured water-base, or the new satin finish.

The point is that Taylor could have cut costs in many easier and simpler ways than revamping their entire top bracing department, in order to penny pinch on brace wood. So it just doesnt seem like their primary motive to me. Even if it is true that V bracing is significantly faster and cheaper to produce, there are so many other rate limiting factors involved that the net effect is close to 0.

[Taylor Ham]

I think everyone claiming an economic motive for switching to the V brace should build two guitars from scratch, no kits, just to see how little of a difference it makes. One X brace, one V brace, all else equal. There are much better criticisms that can be levelled at the results of the switch.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by Taylor Ham

That may be the case with Martin, but I don't think it's the case with V bracing.

Easiest thing right off the bat is lack of upper bout bracing in the V brace. It's actually in all the production guitars, just not on that demo top. In fact, the specfic positioning and shape of those braces may not be very close to that of any production model. One could see why that's a wise choice.

Next thing is cost. There's much made of the V brace having fewer components. Does it really have that much less, and does it matter? I say no. Taylor lines up the top and the braces in a jig under a vaccum press, and then clamps the whole thing at once. counting up the number of braces excluding identical ones above the sound hole, the V brace has 9, and the X has 10. There's only one less piece here, which makes scant difference in the assembly time. It's not like the bow tie x brace martin does, where they threw out everything besides the main X, bridge plate, and upper transverse brace.

I've done a few structural simulations, and the V brace in general needs 10% less mass in the braces to keep the same total deformation in terms of top sinking and belly. Does this really allow Taylor to cut down on enough brace wood to make a difference? maybe if all the pieces are cut from a billet squashed up against each other like a jigsaw puzzle, but that's not exactly how it works. The rectuangular blanks or the layout on the billet they are all cut from are still going to be about the same size, becase the maximum dimensions of the braces did not change much. compared to the rest of the guitar, will saving about $5 brace material per guitar (if we're being generous) make or break the bottom line? if that's the goal, better stick with a thick poly finish instead of that 3.5 mil UV cured water-base, or the new satin finish.

The point is that Taylor could have cut costs in many easier and simpler ways than revamping their entire top bracing department, in order to penny pinch on brace wood. So it just doesnt seem like their primary motive to me. Even if it is true that V bracing is significantly faster and cheaper to produce, there are so many other rate limiting factors involved that the net effect is close to 0.

The V is cutting the long braces so that's why there is 9. Someone would have to measure the total length of the braces laid end to end to compare the savings there. That's a cheap save though, I agree. Saving $3 on each guitar adds up and could pay a someone a good salary if they make 50,000 guitars a year.

[GoPappy]

Whatever the reason for the change, I suspect Taylor will use this as an opportunity in a few years to re-introduce a lineup with X-bracing as a "back to our roots" series. And charge a premium price for them. Much like Martin did with their Authentic series.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by GoPappy

Whatever the reason for the change, I suspect Taylor will use this as an opportunity in a few years to re-introduce a lineup with X-bracing as a "back to our roots" series. And charge a premium price for them. Much like Martin did with their Authentic series.

Shhhh, not so loud, Taylor will hear you.

[printer2]

C-bracing, half a V-brace. V-brace, used long before Taylor.



Pepe Romero, Jr Inverse Fan Bracing. Orfeo Magazine #10

And Pepe got the design off a guitar made by a luthier in the late 50's, early 60's if I can remember right. It is basically a fan braced guitar, same as on nylon or gut string guitars over the last couple hundred years but with the fan reversed.

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by PeteyPower16

Several posts on this forum debate X versus the new V bracing for Taylor guitars. While Taylor players may be more evenly split, most people on this forum (especially traditionalists playing classic instruments) vote unequivocally for the X bracing (and also for traditional tonewoods, I might add—where Taylor has branched out for sustainable woods—always innovating, while Martin focuses on tradition and the roots of the company). For myself, I hear the difference, but see pluses and minuses of each, with a slight preference for X because of bass, warmth, and power being more important to me than resonance, balance, clarity, and perception of intonation—Taylor guitars had plenty of those things already!

I am speculating as to why Taylor made the switch. Was it purely for tonal reasons? Was it to distinguish itself from Martin, and also from earlier Taylor, boosting demands or new sales? Was it to save money per build?

I can imagine it would be expensive to support both types of bracing from one factory, but I am curious if the V bracing is cheaper overall on a per-guitar basis. The X bracing appears to be a more complicated pattern. Do any luthiers know if one style is more materials-intensive or time-intensive than the other? Or is this truly an intended tonal/construction improvement?

Taylor has an expert marketing strategy, trying to convince buyers that sustainable woods can sound as “good” (whatever that means) as traditional tonewoods, and also that visually diverse wood is not a downgrade, even though it is probably cheaper to source. I respect both of these directions, noting the environmental considerations of each, and the ambitious vision to lead the industry toward something new. This would not be the first time a marketing group introduced a directional change as a consumer opportunity. With the V bracing, it is hard for me to discern how much of this is marketing versus a true technical innovation. I do think that Andy Powers really believes in it, is proud of it, and that it is here to stay.

Final question: 15 years from now, will folks search out the X braced “Bob Taylor” Taylors as treasures, the same way they do prewar Martin’s, noting that they are going to be rare and somewhat unattainable? Or will the most sought-after Taylor guitars always be the latest innovated options from the evolving company?

I think that in a few years the folks at Taylor will realize it was a mistake and come up with a ''new kind of X brace system.

Then in 15 to 20 years, people will be searching for the ''V class'' Taylors because they have that special ''something''!

[FLRon]

Some of the greatest luthiers in the world ply their trade in the AGF Custom Shop. When I see some of them making the switch to a V braced design, then I might believe it has some merit beyond increasing sales. Until then, not so much.

[Br1ck]

When they first came out, I remember thread after thread comparing the old to the new. It was about 50/50. I assume Taylor did their market research, decided their wiz bang marketing department could bend the laws of physics, existing Taylor customers would accept the change, and maybe they saved $20 per unit on the manufacturing end. Bold vision. To this day the only Taylors I've played that floated my boat were over $6K. But that is par for the course for me these days. I just don't like the necks.

[scotchnspeed]

Just want to point out that "different" is not the same as "innovative." Seems far more of the former than the latter.

[Daddyo]

I have a V braced 312CE 12 fret

It sounds great. It sounds quite big for a smallish guitar.
It's no match for my Larrivee SD-50 tone wise but it is a very comfortable guitar that I reach for all the time. I love the small size and the cutaway.
I say judge each guitar by playing it, not by getting super nerdy about technical details.
And I doubt Taylor switched to V bracing just to save a few dollars by cutting the number of braised down from 11 to 9.