• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Can anyone explain this difference in weight?

Ricko

New member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
198
2005 Standard Faded (swiss cheese): 9.2 pounds
2007 Vintaga Mahogany (chambered): 8.8 pounds
2007 Fender telecaster (solid): 9.2 pounds

question 1. theres only a 200gram difference between the faded and the VM! thats just a good size stake!, I thought the chambering was supposed to give a great difference in weight! and I honestly thing that 200g is not a great difference in weight...

question 2. (sorry about the non les paul question) I thought fender's were MUCH lighter than les pauls....

Not that i am concerned or anything. its just a thought that crossed my mind
 

usc96

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
235
That's a heavy tele. My Nocaster is 7.5 and my 2006 LP is 9 flat.
 

rrrcustom

New member
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
289
A certain amount of weight of a Les Paul is all the mandatory equipment(hardware, neck, fingerboard, truss rod, frets, inlays, screws, etc...). The wood only weighs so much, and it's not as much as people would like to thin. You never see a 6 pound Les Paul, do you?


As for the Fender, the tele is probably made of ash, and some of it can be very heavy. I forget which kind it is. I know swamp ash can be light, but not sure if there is haeavy swamp ash, or if that is the light stuff and the other variety's are heavy.
 

azlavalamp

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
140
Just imagine how much that VM would weigh without chambering.

arm-1.jpg
:lol http://www.wowbodybuilding.com/image/arm-1.jpg
 

reswot

Active member
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,295
Telecasters are generally thought of as lightweight guitars, but that's only for the ones made from swamp ash. As noted, hard ash can be very heavy, but most teles are actually made of alder these days (as strats usually are, as well).

Most of the recent Telecasters I've picked up have been quite heavy -- in the 9+ lbs range. As noted, a good swamp ash tele, though, can be in the 6.5 - 8 lbs range. Mine is actually a bit too light at around 7lbs, as the it sometimes feels as if it wants to take a nosedive... It sounds really good, though!

Now to Q1. Chambering does decrease weight as opposed to weight-relief holes, all things being equal. That means that in wood of the same density, chambering would lead to greater weight reduction. In practical terms, though, chambering allows Gibson to use heavier wood and end up with weight being approximately the same. Notice how the weights are hovering around 9lbs, which is about the average weight of a non-weight-relieved Historic?
 

cyberpunk409

New member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
238
...chambering allows Gibson to use heavier wood and end up with weight being approximately the same...

in other words, it allows Gibson to use MUCH cheaper planks of mahogany. It's a cost saving strategy, nothing more, nothing less.
 

Skoorbdooh

Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
184
I would be interested in knowing what model Tele that is. Fender is making bodies for their Mexican guitars that have SEVEN piece bodies. Some of those things make heavy Norlin era Gibsons seem normal. And as has been mentioned, Gibson is using heavier mahogany for the chambered guitars - my guess is that they have a lot of it and need to use it - so chambering is the solution that they came up with.
 

Angry Steve

New member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
287
2005 Standard Faded (swiss cheese): 9.2 pounds
2007 Vintaga Mahogany (chambered): 8.8 pounds
2007 Fender telecaster (solid): 9.2 pounds

question 1. theres only a 200gram difference between the faded and the VM! thats just a good size stake!, I thought the chambering was supposed to give a great difference in weight! and I honestly thing that 200g is not a great difference in weight...

question 2. (sorry about the non les paul question) I thought fender's were MUCH lighter than les pauls....

Not that i am concerned or anything. its just a thought that crossed my mind

Can anyone estimate how much wood is eliminated with either method of 'lightening'? How much mass would be removed in each method?

Also, a lot could have to do with the specific tree that the body came from. Was one in richer soil, get more water than the other? I read a quote from JT Riboloff (sp?) on this once - was interesting.

Also, that Tele really has as much a mass of wood as a Les Paul would. I wouldn't be surprised about the weight of a tele.
 

les strat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
5,194
Can anyone estimate how much wood is eliminated with either method of 'lightening'? How much mass would be removed in each method?

Also, a lot could have to do with the specific tree that the body came from. Was one in richer soil, get more water than the other? I read a quote from JT Riboloff (sp?) on this once - was interesting.

Also, that Tele really has as much a mass of wood as a Les Paul would. I wouldn't be surprised about the weight of a tele.

I believe in an old LPF thread, it was concluded that the 9 hole "swiss cheese" method of weight relief was in ounces..... no more than a pound. Almost like taking grovers and a heavy tailpiece off of one. Owning several of these, I know it really didn't make that much of a difference, but it also didn't make that big of a difference in sound as chambering. I would guesstimate the chambering to be cutting out 2-4 lbs. of wood (depending on how dense the wood was to begin with) since they look to be >80% gutted under the cap. Just a stab.
 

Edward

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
1,255
2005 Standard Faded (swiss cheese): 9.2 pounds
2007 Vintaga Mahogany (chambered): 8.8 pounds
2007 Fender telecaster (solid): 9.2 pounds

question 1. theres only a 200gram difference between the faded and the VM! thats just a good size stake!, I thought the chambering was supposed to give a great difference in weight! and I honestly thing that 200g is not a great difference in weight...

question 2. (sorry about the non les paul question) I thought fender's were MUCH lighter than les pauls....

Not that i am concerned or anything. its just a thought that crossed my mind

The simplest answer, and prob the least satisfying but true, is that every piece of wood's density/weight varies, even when the same species. There's a great bit of variance right there. Add to this the fact that Fender uses different regions of ash, or alder (lighter than ash), and ranges from one-piece to many-piece bodies, and you've got a recipe for little-no consistency. FWIW, my '80 Strat is 10lbs while my 95 Tele is just under 8; and my '05 LP Faded is a tick under 10. Ask other Fender owners and they'll quote Strats lighter than mine or Tele's heavier ...just as we have startling variances in LPs here on this board. You can make *some* generalizations with wood species, but there's still lots of variables inherent to wood ...just ask the guys who build acoustics!! :)

Edward
 

GreenManalishi

New member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Messages
1,236
The chambered guitar you weighed is at the upper end of the scale. 8.8 pounds is heaviest I've seen, but I've had them as light as 6.75 pounds, with the average of around 7.5 pounds.
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,318
Can anyone estimate how much wood is eliminated with either method of 'lightening'? How much mass would be removed in each method?

I measured the cavities in my Cloud 9 RI and created a 3D computer model of the mahogany slab that is to scale. I also modeled the slab in its non-chambered form. From these models, I'm able to extract mass property values for each. The volume of the slab on an un-chambered body is 244 cu/in. The volume of the chambered slab is 149 cu/in, a difference of 95 cu/in. I found on a website about various woods that the specific gravity of Mahogany ranges from about .40-.68. For purposes of calculation, lets assume that Gibson uses a slab of mahogany average in weight, it would have a specific gravity of .54. This equates to .019 lbs/cu-in. Thus, the average weight reduction as a result of chambering is .019 x 95 =1.85 lbs.

My Cloud 9 58 RI weighs 7.4 lbs. In an un-chambered form, it would have weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.25 lbs. I'm going to guess that the 8.8 chambered V.M. Les Paul mentioned in post #1 would have been close to 11 lbs if it hadn't been chambered.

historicslabpostmaple8ib.jpg

cloud9slabpostmaple17ba.jpg
 
Last edited:

Idge

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Messages
791
I measured the cavities in my Cloud 9 RI and created a 3D computer model of the mahogany slab that is to scale. I also modeled the slab in its non-chambered form. From these models, I'm able to extract mass property values for each. The volume of the slab on an un-chambered body is 244 cu/in. The volume of the chambered slab is 149 cu/in, a difference of 95 cu/in. I found on a website about various woods that the specific gravity of Mahogany ranges from about .40-.68. For purposes of calculation, lets assume that Gibson uses a slab of mahogany average in weight, it would have a specific gravity of .54. This equates to .019 lbs/cu-in. Thus, the average weight reduction as a result of chambering is .019 x 95 =1.85 lbs.

My Cloud 9 58 RI weighs 7.4 lbs. In an un-chambered form, it would have weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.25 lbs. I'm going to guess that the 8.8 chambered V.M. Les Paul mentioned in post #1 would have been close to 11 lbs if it hadn't been chambered.

historicslabpostmaple8ib.jpg

cloud9slabpostmaple17ba.jpg

Cool shit!:dude:
Hey, do that with the other chambering Gibson does. I think the C9 has more chambering.
Cloud 9 left, Standard chambering right.
Cloud9vsBFGXray800.jpg
 

les strat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
5,194
I measured the cavities in my Cloud 9 RI and created a 3D computer model of the mahogany slab that is to scale. I also modeled the slab in its non-chambered form. From these models, I'm able to extract mass property values for each. The volume of the slab on an un-chambered body is 244 cu/in. The volume of the chambered slab is 149 cu/in, a difference of 95 cu/in. I found on a website about various woods that the specific gravity of Mahogany ranges from about .40-.68. For purposes of calculation, lets assume that Gibson uses a slab of mahogany average in weight, it would have a specific gravity of .54. This equates to .019 lbs/cu-in. Thus, the average weight reduction as a result of chambering is .019 x 95 =1.85 lbs.

My Cloud 9 58 RI weighs 7.4 lbs. In an un-chambered form, it would have weighed somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.25 lbs. I'm going to guess that the 8.8 chambered V.M. Les Paul mentioned in post #1 would have been close to 11 lbs if it hadn't been chambered.

historicslabpostmaple8ib.jpg

cloud9slabpostmaple17ba.jpg


Good work Danelectro! Do remember that the density of the wood used on a USA will more often be more dense than that used in the Historics/Custom Shop LP's, so wouldn't the same amount of wood coming out wood weigh more?
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,318
Good work Danelectro! Do remember that the density of the wood used on a USA will more often be more dense than that used in the Historics/Custom Shop LP's, so wouldn't the same amount of wood coming out wood weigh more?

Correct. That's why I guestimated the un-chambered weight of the 8.8 lb VM may have been about 11 pounds (2.2 lb reduction as a result of chambering).
 

Edward

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
1,255
Wow Dan,

I can only guess at what you do for a living :)
BTW, may I ask how you found out what the routed patterns looked like?

Edward
 

les strat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
5,194
Correct. That's why I guestimated the un-chambered weight of the 8.8 lb VM may have been about 11 pounds (2.2 lb reduction as a result of chambering).

Gotcha. So, my not-so-scientific guess was close!!!
 

DANELECTRO

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2003
Messages
6,318
Wow Dan,

I can only guess at what you do for a living :)
BTW, may I ask how you found out what the routed patterns looked like?

Edward

As you can see, the the chambering is wide open to the control cavity openings. Using feelers and probes, I was able to reach the extents of the rout paths and take measurements back to various reference points that were accessible through the control areas. Some approximations were made on the fillet radii, although I'm confident that all of my measurements are with 1/16" of their true position. I do mechanical design for a living and occasionally there's the need to reverse-engineering products, so I've acquired some tools and techniques for doing so.

cr8401831jg.jpg

cr8401844ww.jpg

cr8401850su.jpg


The new USA chambered models are routed differently than the Cloud 9s. I suppose that Gibson wanted to conceal the fact that the body was routed, so they left a band of mahogany surrounding both control cavities. The chambering cannot be seen at all except with X-ray (or cutting the guitar apart).

BFGXray.jpg
 
Top