Critique this unconventional top. Tell me I'm crazy.

[Taylor Ham]

For context, body size:
10"UB - 8 3/8"W - 14 1/4"LB x 3.6" avg depth. 12 String, 24" scale

Contrary to established 12 string build philosophy in most ways.
Since I already have a nice smooth sounding 6 string, I am looking for something different: a guitar with a cutting attack and very up front acoustic presence, like a mandolin. That comparison has influenced some of my design choices, such as arching contours and shallow body depth.

I will be installing a K&K mini. This guitar will be used in a loud environment often unamplified as accompaniment. On the occasion of plugging in and where sonority is more important, the tone can be adjusted off board.




Right now my philosophy for adjustment is it's easier to take off wood than put it back.

[mirwa]

A reverse vee, cole clark and taylor use this design.

However, i think you should not have split the main braces, but left them as your main support front to rear and then notched your cross brace behind your rosette instead.

Think of the fact you are trying to create a trampoline from the top, any design that affects that top from moving like a trampoline will cause issues.

Just my pennys worth.

Steve

[Taylor Ham]

Thanks Steve,

The main braces are full length and the cross brace was indeed the notched one. It was a slight stumbling block because I notched it out before radiusing, which given the heavy radius, threw off the fit over the main braces.

[charles Tauber]

My question is, "What problem, specifically, are you trying to solve with your bracing?"

Here is Taylor's "V-Class" bracing:



Here is their patent for that bracing:

https://patentimages.storage.googlea.../US9520108.pdf

Given the similarity to the bracing pattern you are using, are you asking us to critique Taylor's bracing, asking to identify the differences/shortcomings of yours compared to Taylor's, or something else? Clearly, there are a few differences between yours and Taylor's, some of which are likely significant.

Having the guitar outline drawn on the top, or the top cut to shape would help in identifying the proximity of braces to the edges of the guitar top.

[Taylor Ham]

There is a 1/8" margin around the outline of a micro jumbo shape.

My primary object was to mitigate excessive belly and soundhole dip, which originally led to a hybrid x-fan brace a la PRS two years ago. That evolved to parallel tone bar bracing, which in turn evolved into V bracing; narrowing from the soundhole to the bridge pins for better support. I became aware of the taylor development about last year.

I induced an arch, with the peak in front of the bridge, to counteract sinking of the top under the heavy tension of 12 strings.

The placement and orientation of the braces approximately follows the contours of that bubble.

Most of what you can tell might be conjecture, but if Taylor's bracing is a good starting point, then id be open to some comparisons to that. Ive heard some people don't like V bracing much.

[CaffeinatedOne]

Have you thought through the bridge plate design? it looks too narrow for a 12 string bridge; are the strings going to conflict with the longitudinal braces? While that certainly looks stable at the bridge, a compromised bridge plate could create problems down the line.

[Taylor Ham]

For the stiffness to converge behind the bridge, I made the longitudinal braces just miss the strings ball ends. I will be using 6 pin holes with two slots each.

[Haussmann]

The Taylor patent is dated 2016, but take a look at this Dutch guitar forum (april 2012):
http://www.gitaarnet.nl/forum/showth...-X-Y-Z-bracing