Tremolo height on a Chaparral

[johanvg]

I am trying to setup my '91 Chaparral that I recently bought but when setting a low action of around 2mm bottom 6th string to top of 12th fret I measure a height of 16mm at the bridge end (bottom 6th string to top of guitar near the bridge). The body is routed for the tremolo so it seems very odd. Anyone else had the same experience? The neck is tilted at the body (no shims). Nut height is ok so is the neck curve.

Looking for some feedback Thanks

I will post some picks asap.

J

picture added http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/Chaptrem.jpg

[johanvg]

Pic added

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

FFS! That's a mile high man. My Floyds plate is level with (or below) the cavity ALWAYS! Screw the bridge posts in (a LOT). And lower your pickups (a lot again)...

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

[johanvg]

Thanks for the answer. The problem is just that, with a low setup at around 2mm at the 12th fret, neck curve right no fretbuzz but way to high on the bridge. If I lower the bridge the strings will touch the fretboard!!!! I bought this one off the internet but something is wrong, maybe they changed the neck or something. Only way to bring it down is to compensate the neck tilt at the body. It seems all original also the aging (discolouring) on the neck matches the body. So any ideas????

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

Without seeing more pics, I can't really say. That bridge is waaaay too high. It's possible the neck is not original but I'd be surprised. I don't know of any Hamer necks that have an offset at the join.

Also, with the neck needing a shim, you'd have to actually shim under the neck joint but nearer the NUT end not the bridge end. I've never come across this before.

[tbonesullivan]

you may want to remove the neck to see if it has been shimmed previously. If it isn't, sounds like it might need a shim to reduce the neck angle so you can have the trem posts at a proper height.

[johanvg]

Here are more detailed pictures.

Tremolo set at lowest possible with strings already touching frets.

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9628.jpg

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9629.jpg

Body and neck no shims

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9634.jpg

Neck tilt

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9635.jpg

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9631.jpg

No tilt in body routed

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9636.jpg

Looks all original

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9637.jpg

http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg595/johanvg1/?action=view&current=DSCN9633.jpg

No marks or signs of aftermarket modifications.

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

That neck looks way way shimmed to me. By at least 1.5mm (probably more) at a guess. You need to shim the far end under the neck (very fkn odd that) or shave some wood off the neck where the bridge end fits in the cavity (I would really recommend this be done by a professional). In all my years, I have never known the back end of the cavity needing a shim...

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

I'd personally plane the neck where it fits in the cavity a little at a time. That's me tho, I'm like that. It looks as though you may be right & the neck is from another Hamer. It CAN'T be stock for that guitar...

[johanvg]

Hi Vic thanks for your feedback. It is hard to imagine that Hamer would have delivered this guitar setup like that. On the other hand the neck even has the body marks on it in the varnish (color that faded) so it is on there for a long time. Could you make a picture of your setup and especially where the neck meets the body or measure the thickness off the neck at the end. Like you mentioned and looking at it it seems to be off at around 1,5- 2 mm.

[Jem]

That doesn't look strange at all, it's not suppossed to sit in the recess at all (the recess is there for you to yank it backwards) and the necks were angled to give it a more traditional feel than say a Charvel where they raise the neck up like a Fender. It may be different from other floyded guitars you have but it certainly doesn't look weird compared to other Hamer's.

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

That doesn't look strange at all, it's not suppossed to sit in the recess at all (the recess is there for you to yank it backwards) and the necks were angled to give it a more traditional feel than say a Charvel where they raise the neck up like a Fender. It may be different from other floyded guitars you have but it certainly doesn't look weird compared to other Hamer's.

I beg to differ! There's no way that that bridge is supposed to be 16mm above the body. I'm a Floyd specialist & that setup is just way way wrong...

[tbonesullivan]

The bottom plate of the floyd on my diablo is about 2-3mm above the body of the guitar The neck is definitely angled up somewhat. I'll try to get some pictures later today.

[Jem]

That doesn't look strange at all, it's not suppossed to sit in the recess at all (the recess is there for you to yank it backwards) and the necks were angled to give it a more traditional feel than say a Charvel where they raise the neck up like a Fender. It may be different from other floyded guitars you have but it certainly doesn't look weird compared to other Hamer's.

I beg to differ! There's no way that that bridge is supposed to be 16mm above the body. I'm a Floyd specialist & that setup is just way way wrong...

http://s1245.photobu...nt=DSCN9628.jpg

Well if this is 16mm above the body then i'm a chinaman ! - and floyd specialist ?!?!?!?...........says who, i've probably made more floyd'd guitars than you've ever owned.

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

That doesn't look strange at all, it's not suppossed to sit in the recess at all (the recess is there for you to yank it backwards) and the necks were angled to give it a more traditional feel than say a Charvel where they raise the neck up like a Fender. It may be different from other floyded guitars you have but it certainly doesn't look weird compared to other Hamer's.

I beg to differ! There's no way that that bridge is supposed to be 16mm above the body. I'm a Floyd specialist & that setup is just way way wrong...

http://s1245.photobu...nt=DSCN9628.jpg

Well if this is 16mm above the body then i'm a chinaman ! - and floyd specialist ?!?!?!?...........says who, i've probably made more floyd'd guitars than you've ever owned.

That pic is with the strings on the frets. No need to be fkn stroppy about it mate with yer 'I've done this/I've done that bollocks...' I don't care what you've fkn done...

[tbonesullivan]

http://s1245.photobu...nt=DSCN9628.jpg

Well if this is 16mm above the body then i'm a chinaman ! - and floyd specialist ?!?!?!?...........says who, i've probably made more floyd'd guitars than you've ever owned.

16mm was measured by the owner. Also that picture is the height when the strings touch the tops of the frets. I will say that those frets look to be HUGE.

This is the picture of the guitar with the action set at 2mm I think:

if the picture doesn't work this is the link: http://i1245.photobu.../Chaptrem-1.jpg

It definitely is higher than the trem on my diablo, but there is 1-2 mm of space between the bottom of the bridge plate and the top of my diablo, not 16mm, Something is odd.

I am pretty sure floyds were originally made to have the bridge plate at or slightly above body level, not below. If it's too low that gives you ver little room to pull up.

[Jem]

http://s1245.photobu...nt=DSCN9628.jpg

Well if this is 16mm above the body then i'm a chinaman ! - and floyd specialist ?!?!?!?...........says who, i've probably made more floyd'd guitars than you've ever owned.

16mm was measured by the owner. Also that picture is the height when the strings touch the tops of the frets. I will say that those frets look to be HUGE.

This is the picture of the guitar with the action set at 2mm I think:

if the picture doesn't work this is the link: http://i1245.photobu.../Chaptrem-1.jpg

It definitely is higher than the trem on my diablo, but there is 1-2 mm of space between the bottom of the bridge plate and the top of my diablo, not 16mm, Something is odd.

I am pretty sure floyds were originally made to have the bridge plate at or slightly above body level, not below. If it's too low that gives you ver little room to pull up.

Your quite right, they are in effect about the same height as a TOM hence Hamer used to angle the heel rather than having the neck sitting higher in the body like a Strat but what i can't work out, now i've seen the picture you posted, is how it's gone from this: http://s1245.photobu...nt=DSCN9628.jpg to that to just lift the strings off the board by a couple of mm, normally you'd look at less than half the difference the OP has here. Now, this guitur is 20 years old and there's no way that it would have left the factory like that, nor would it 'become' like that unless the neck has taken the form of a banana or some 'expert' has 'fixed' it. Unfortunately, without being with the guitar it's difficult to pinpoint.

One thing i wuld say to the OP is take a break, look at some other guitars, check everything and do not under any circumstances start to plane the heel or anything like that, there is an answer and i've had occassions over the years where someone's brought a guitar to me that i've had to take apart and start again because so many thing's had been messed with you really didn't know where to start - be methodical in your approach.

On the subject of the neck being from another guitar - with Hamer this really shouldn't be a problem as i've swapped Cali's with Chaps, with Diablo's with Centaura's (as early as '88 and as late as '92) and they all fitted each other within say 5% (remember these were finished by hand) so it's unlikely - but knowing Hamer not totally out of the qestion.. A quick check will be that if you measure from the end heel to the fretboard it should be nominally 20mm, (the pocket around 18mm from memory) if it's not then let me know and i'll measure the drop from front to back but looking at your picture as where the neck / board sit's is pretty well in line with factory.

[johanvg]

Thanks for all the input. I measured 21,8 mm from the end of the heel to the fretboard and 20 mm from the beginning of the heel to the fretboard, the pocket is 19 mm.

[Jem]

Thanks for all the input. I measured 21,8 mm from the end of the heel to the fretboard and 20 mm from the beginning of the heel to the fretboard, the pocket is 19 mm.

Hmmm....all fairly standard stuff which makes it no easier to work out why to take the strings from the board to height takes so much travel. Another idea, have you checked that the saddles are in their correct positions (ie: tallest in the middle and shortest on the outside) as i did once have a mid line Ibanez brought where he'd taken all the saddles off and put them in back to front so when the outer strings were off the board the inner one's still touched and by the time you'd got the inner one's at the right height the outer one's were miles off the board - just a thought but may be worth investigating (they should be marked 1 / 2 / 3).

[johanvg]

Checked the saddles and these are ok.

[Victor (Fret Friend)]

It's not the saddles - that idea was way off the mark. It really can only be the neck!

[tbonesullivan]

how much relief do you have in the neck? adding some will enable you to lower the bridge somewhat.

Also, 2mm is the action measured at which fret? I usually set my strings with 1.5mm at the 12th fret. Many go as low as 1.2mm, which for gibsons is the stock high E action.

[johanvg]

I measure neck relief while fretting the first and 14th fret and have a little less then the thickness of a businesscard at the 7th fret. The hight of 2mm is what I normally setup at the 12th fret low E string. Pretty basic stuff. I own a lot of different guitars like Fender, Gibson, Music Man EVH. Ibanez JS1000, JEM, Gretch and set them up myself with no problem but this is the first time I come across something like this. Having owned a Hamer Centaura in the 90' and a Sunburst which I still regret selling I jumped on this one because they are quite rare in Belgium. When I first got the guitar everything looked original except for the high tremolo setup.

[FrankieIII]

I looked at your pics and I can tell you without a single doubt that that guitar left the Hamer factory like that. I've seen it on several other Hamers from the same era and also on several USA Jacksons (as well as other Mfrs.) from the same era. Tremelo acrobatics (up, down, and all around) were THE craze during that time.

To change the neck angle so the bridge could sit lower you would need to shave the neck heel or neck pocket of body to reduce the angle to taste. Be VERY careful if you choose to do this as very little goes a LONG way. I would highly recommend it being done professionally.

[cynic]

The neck where it fits into the pocket looks already planed to me. Did Hamer not finish this area? The only one I have handy is a Daytona neck and it's finished where it touches the pocket.

I'd be curious if you have another neck to see if it presents the same problem. Without another neck, if you lay this one frets up on a smooth, flat surface, does the entire flat section of the heel touch?