|
estebanana -> RE: Need your help! (Mar. 16 2013 22:36:41)
|
Since the project is academic and putting numbers on it would probably not create a fight, but for some reason none of the guitar makers want to broach the subject so far. ..hmm.
One major thing missing from this work path is the idea of building a series supporting jigs, studio-shop furnishings like benches and smaller tools and specialzed appliances that are usualy hand made by the luthier. Those tools can take alot of time to build. Building a solera can take time and it needs to be done carefully.
And inevitably a fight could crop up over the use or non use of the dreaded radius dish. The radius dish, also known as The Orc's Discus or the Frisbee of Satan. [;)] Any fights woud be more about which widgets each person uses and the name calling that would ensue when there were clashes over tools and jig use!
If you wanted the project be realistic you would have to factor in more than the building of the guitar and the main thing I would say beyond the actual assembly time would be shop and fixture set up.
It is also difficult to place time values on many of the tasks the way they are parsed out on this chart. The listings don't really sail through what I would personally use as the critical path to build a guitar. Or for that matter the way I would descibe or do each task. And many of the tasks listed are not tasks I would do using the style of building I do.
For example I don't use individual sticks to make rosette tiles so the whole conceptualization of the types of sub assemblies and order they are done in is incorrect for me and the entire proceedural time line would have to totally rewritten for me to fit my method into that format. I would think most other guitrmakers systems and building rhythms are too personal and varied to be able to fit them into this format.
So the first thing I would do if I were an industial designer or engnieer is I would set aside time to research and consult guitarmakers on the way they prioritize sub assemblies in relation to the over all assembly. Then establish a format that could be used by several guitar makers to give input. The format would give each sub assembly section more choices for methodological variation.
A sample might be to break it down into into the actual ways guitar makers think about the critical path. Let the guitar maker establish the order of assembly of all the major constiutent parts. Some guitarmakers build the neck first and others begin with the top...for example. A better list of major sub assemblies might go like this:
Neck
Top
Sides
Back
So for example the rosette would not be aseparate task, but come under the heading of 'Top'
Neck would include subassemblies like headstock veneer.
------------
~Then within in each sub assembly a list of specific tasks pertinent to a particular makers style which you would learn by asking them more about the style they build.
~Then the path goes to the first assembly of the super structure, getting the guitar in guitar form as a whole.
~Next the post assembly sub routines like: fingerboard, binding, fretting, set up, finishing. Each of those tasks has a sub list of tasks if you wanted to go that far.
_________________________________________________________________
So the list as it is seems difficult to me to comment on because it does not fit the way guitarmakers basically think or refer to processes.
|
|
|
|
