Slide widths

Login to Reply
Q
quiethorn
Posts: 204
Joined: Mar 24, 2018

by quiethorn »

Is there a resource anywhere for slide widths? Not bore sizes--widths. Manufacturers don't seem to include side width measurements in their specs, but it's a pretty important part of how a horn fits on your face.

Small horns tend to have narrow slides, large bore horns have wide slides, but I'm more interested in the widths of various horns in the middle. If no resource exists, we could easily create one here with forum members' input.
S
SwissTbone
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by SwissTbone »

Here's a good start

https://trombonechat.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10924
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot » (edited 2025-06-27 4:15 p.m.)

I've combined everything I could find in the archives, plus some additions (and minus Bruce's contributions that were measured to a different standard). Let's keep this going!

  • <B>Outer-tube-to-outer-tube width measurements only, measured away from oversleeves/thicker-drawn sleeves/ferrules/brace flanges.</B> Easiest to avoid any of these if you measure at the outer tubes, just above the crook ferrules or extrusions. See photo below.
  • <B>Measurements in mm, rounded to the nearest whole number. </B>There are bound to be minor variations between examples of the same model arising from the exact fit of straight ferrules onto slightly curved crook ends, or from past realignments - higher levels of precision would complicate more than inform. <B>1" = 25.4mm.</B>


<ATTACHMENT filename="slide width.jpg" index="0">[attachment=0]slide width.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

<TABLE>[table]
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]Width (mm)</TD>
<TD>[td]Model</TD>
<TD>[td]Remarks</TD>
<TD>[td]Reporter</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]63</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 44H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]64</TD>
<TD>[td]Olds Standard</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]FEWeathers</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]64</TD>
<TD>[td]Olds Super</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]FEWeathers</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]65</TD>
<TD>[td]Olds Ambassador</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]FEWeathers</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]65</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 30H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]FEWeathers</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]66</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 32H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 6</TD>
<TD>[td]NY and Mt. Vernon examples</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 16M</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]BellEnd</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]Holton TR102</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]King 3B</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]FEWeathers</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]King 3B+ (2125)</TD>
<TD>[td]serial #897xxx</TD>
<TD>[td]jorymil</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]King 606</TD>
<TD>[td]1981</TD>
<TD>[td]although</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]King 607F</TD>
<TD>[td]90s</TD>
<TD>[td]jorymil</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]XO 1632</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]68</TD>
<TD>[td]XO 1634</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]dcslideman</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 8</TD>
<TD>[td]NY</TD>
<TD>[td]calcbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 16M</TD>
<TD>[td]M/K Drawing</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Besson 10-10</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 48H</TD>
<TD>[td]1959</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Courtois AC402 Xtreme</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Jiggs pBone</TD>
<TD>[td]color not specified</TD>
<TD>[td]quiethorn</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]King 2B 'Liberty'</TD>
<TD>[td]1938</TD>
<TD>[td]Estraven</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]King 2B</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]soseggnchips</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]King 2BL Jiggs Whigham</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]King 2B+</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Schilke ST30</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Schilke ST31</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]'Universal small tenor'</TD>
<TD>[td]M/K Drawing</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]69</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 891Z</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Amati ASL 601</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 6H</TD>
<TD>[td]Elkhart 1952</TD>
<TD>[td]although</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 6H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]FEWeathers</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 48H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 100H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Getzen 1050</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Martin TR4501 Urbie Green</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Rath R1 </TD>
<TD>[td]pre-modular</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Reynolds Emperor Model 15</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]AtomicClock</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]70</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 653</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]PhilE</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]71</TD>
<TD>[td]Olds Recording</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]FEWeathers</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]71</TD>
<TD>[td]Olds Recording</TD>
<TD>[td]M/K Drawing</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]71</TD>
<TD>[td]Olds Recording</TD>
<TD>[td]1954</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]71</TD>
<TD>[td]Rath R10</TD>
<TD>[td]2021</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]72</TD>
<TD>[td]DEG Classic alto in F</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]AtomicClock</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]72</TD>
<TD>[td]Selmer Bolero</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]BellEnd</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]72</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires MD</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]72</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires MD+</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]74</TD>
<TD>[td]Lawler 'Big Boy' .525</TD>
<TD>[td]old model, 1999</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]75</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL-671 alto</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]AtomicClock</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]78</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 88H</TD>
<TD>[td]Elkhart 1969</TD>
<TD>[td]Estraven</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]78</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 88HTCL</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]Ted</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]78</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn sl4747</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]78.5</TD>
<TD>[td]Kühnl & Hoyer Bart van Lier .500</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]K&H</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]78.5</TD>
<TD>[td]Kühnl & Hoyer Bart van Lier .512</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]K&H</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Blessing B8</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]soseggnchips</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 88H</TD>
<TD>[td]Abilene 1978</TD>
<TD>[td]although</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn sl2525</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]B&S 3085B</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]johnjenkins</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Rath R4F</TD>
<TD>[td]#3XX</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires .525</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]Walleye</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 356</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]Matt K</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 445</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]dcslideman</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 448</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]dcslideman</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 641</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]PhilE</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]79</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 882O</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]Claudio</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]80</TD>
<TD>[td]Besson 940 / 941</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]BellEnd</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]80</TD>
<TD>[td]King 4BF</TD>
<TD>[td]1980s</TD>
<TD>[td]Ted</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach LT36B</TD>
<TD>[td]Corp., early/mid 60's</TD>
<TD>[td]Estraven</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 36</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]Walleye</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]Benge 190</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]soseggnchips</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 62HI</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 70H</TD>
<TD>[td]1955, opera wheel</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 72H</TD>
<TD>[td]Elkhart</TD>
<TD>[td]johnjenkins</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]'Conn/Reynolds bass'</TD>
<TD>[td]M/K Drawing</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]81</TD>
<TD>[td]Wide Glide</TD>
<TD>[td]aftermarket</TD>
<TD>[td]BellEnd</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]82</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 88H</TD>
<TD>[td]Abilene</TD>
<TD>[td]Estraven</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]82</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 72H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]82</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 78H</TD>
<TD>[td]1967</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]82</TD>
<TD>[td]Conn 79H</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]82</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YBL-322</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]Ted</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]83</TD>
<TD>[td]Rath R4F</TD>
<TD>[td]#721</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]86</TD>
<TD>[td]Benge 290</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]87</TD>
<TD>[td]Kühnl & Hoyer Slokar Performance</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]Hawaiyan</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]87</TD>
<TD>[td]Rath R9</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]88</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 42</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]glenp</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]88</TD>
<TD>[td]B&H Sovereign Bass</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]PhilE</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]88</TD>
<TD>[td]XO 1240</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]johnjenkins</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]88</TD>
<TD>[td]Yamaha YSL 820GII</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]PhilE</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 50B</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]fwbassbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 50B</TD>
<TD>[td]early Elkhart Corporation</TD>
<TD>[td]Hawaiyan</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Courtois Challenger II</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]johnjenkins</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Edwards STDN</TD>
<TD>[td]wide tenor slide - yellow brass crook - early 2000s</TD>
<TD>[td]johnjenkins</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Getzen 3047AFR</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]quiethorn</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Holton TR156</TD>
<TD>[td]dual bore .547-.559, serial #634xxx</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Holton TR181</TD>
<TD>[td]recent, Elkhart</TD>
<TD>[td]ithinknot</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Kanstul 1662i</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Olds S20</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]hyperbolica</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Besson Sovereign BE942</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]PhilE</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]89</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires QB62</TD>
<TD>[td]Q36 bass</TD>
<TD>[td]boneberg</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]90</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires QTW47</TD>
<TD>[td]Q30 large tenor</TD>
<TD>[td]boneberg</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]91</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 50</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]91</TD>
<TD>[td]Edwards B-DBN</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]91</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires B62-78 BOL</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]92</TD>
<TD>[td]Greenhoe GB5</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]fwbassbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]93</TD>
<TD>[td]Bach 42</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]93</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires q Series large bore</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]93</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires TW47G</TD>
<TD>[td]TBC</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]94</TD>
<TD>[td]Holton TR256</TD>
<TD>[td]dual bore .547-.559, serial #613xxx</TD>
<TD>[td]Crazy4Tbone86</TD>
</TR>
<TR>[tr]
<TD>[td]94</TD>
<TD>[td]Shires TB47NLW</TD>
<TD>[td]</TD>
<TD>[td]SwissTbone</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
H
harrisonreed
Posts: 6479
Joined: Aug 17, 2018

by harrisonreed »

Interesting that the 79H is a cm wider than the 88H slides
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="harrisonreed"]Interesting that the 79H is a cm wider than the 88H slides[/quote]

? 82mm versus 78.5ish...

The minor difference between the two modern 88H slides is just a rounding discrepancy based on the narrower outer tubes on the .525 - it's possible that the same crook is used for both.
H
harrisonreed
Posts: 6479
Joined: Aug 17, 2018

by harrisonreed »

[quote="ithinknot"]<QUOTE author="harrisonreed" post_id="136118" time="1609757617" user_id="3642">
Interesting that the 79H is a cm wider than the 88H slides[/quote]

? 82mm versus 78.5ish...

The minor difference between the two modern 88H slides is just a rounding discrepancy based on the narrower outer tubes on the .525 - it's possible that the same crook is used for both.
</QUOTE>

Oh, wow, somehow I displaced a number in my head slydexically. In read the 89 on the next line. Pay me no heed.
S
SwissTbone
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by SwissTbone »

Keep in mind those may be rough measurements. I'm not sure everyone has a caliper to measure slide width. So some measures may be off by 1 or 2 cm.

Is still gives a very good idea as to the ergonomics of a slide if someone needs a wider slide
F
FEWeathers
Posts: 98
Joined: Jan 04, 2019

by FEWeathers »

Scratching my head over that Olds Ambassador measurement, 'cause mine is the same as the Super, and Standard, though a little shorter than them. So, 64.5 (2.54").

Got another one for the list: King 3B - 67.8 (2.67").
B
boneberg
Posts: 216
Joined: Dec 19, 2020

by boneberg »

What about Shires TW47 and TB47?
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="FEWeathers"]Scratching my head over that Olds Ambassador measurement[/quote]

I looked again at the M/K website - they give an inner width of 2.75", but the center-to-center measurement indicates a much smaller crook, in line with your measurements. So that must be a typo. Thanks -that's been corrected, and I've added the King to the list.
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="SwissTbone"]Keep in mind those may be rough measurements. I'm not sure everyone has a caliper to measure slide width. So some measures may be off by 1 or 2 cm.

Is still gives a very good idea as to the ergonomics of a slide if someone needs a wider slide[/quote]

Hopefully they're off by 1 or 2 mm :good:

But yes, and that's why we needn't worry too much about decimal accuracy... the value of the info is comparative, rather than absolute.

Keep 'em coming!
S
SwissTbone
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by SwissTbone »

[quote="ithinknot"]<QUOTE author="SwissTbone" post_id="136121" time="1609762614" user_id="62">
Keep in mind those may be rough measurements. I'm not sure everyone has a caliper to measure slide width. So some measures may be off by 1 or 2 cm.

Is still gives a very good idea as to the ergonomics of a slide if someone needs a wider slide[/quote]

Hopefully they're off by 1 or 2 mm :good:

But yes, and that's why we needn't worry too much about decimal accuracy... the value of the info is comparative, rather than absolute.

Keep 'em coming!
</QUOTE>

Oh yes. Mm not cm.
P
paulyg
Posts: 689
Joined: May 17, 2018

by paulyg »

Wouldn't it make more sense to compare center-to-center distances? Add one outer tube diameter to that inside measurement, or subtract one tube diameter from an outside measurement.
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

[quote="paulyg"]Wouldn't it make more sense to compare center-to-center distances? Add one outer tube diameter to that inside measurement, or subtract one tube diameter from an outside measurement.[/quote]

Yes, center to center would be better, but the error factor would go up. At least inside to inside gives hard stops to measure to,

My measurements were made with a 4 place (imperial) digital caliper. Nearest MM seems a little limiting. One decimal in mm wouldn't be overkill.
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="hyperbolica"]Yes, center to center would be better, but the error factor would go up. At least inside to inside gives hard stops to measure to,

My measurements were made with a 4 place (imperial) digital caliper. Nearest MM seems a little limiting. One decimal in mm wouldn't be overkill.[/quote]

Same here - or .01mm, if I want. For the purposes that this info might be used - "is it likely to fit around my 'roid-enhanced monster neck?" - extra precision didn't seem necessary.

My intention was to avoid discouraging those without calipers from contributing, in the hope that we would get more models covered :good:
S
SwissTbone
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by SwissTbone »

Here are some more:

Bach 50: 91

Edward's B-DBN: 91

Shires B62-78 BOL: 91

Rath r4f 721: 83

Shires tw47g: 93 Anyone can confirm that?

Bach 42: 93

Shires tb47nlw: 94

Shires q Series large bore: 93

Lawler big boy old model: 74
B
boneberg
Posts: 216
Joined: Dec 19, 2020

by boneberg »

Thanks SwissTbone! Especially for the specs on the Shires and Bachs.

Anybody have anything from Getzen large tenor and bass?
Q
quiethorn
Posts: 204
Joined: Mar 24, 2018

by quiethorn »

Thanks, guys. This is awesome. In particular, the .525 horns are what I'm after, so good to see the Bach 36 and others on there.

I don't have calipers, but my Getzen 3047AFR looks to be about 89mm.

I'm also interested in the widths of the medium-bore Yamaha horns if anyone has one. I played one for a couple years a long time ago, but I can't remember what I thought about the slide width.
P
paulyg
Posts: 689
Joined: May 17, 2018

by paulyg »

[quote="SwissTbone"]Here are some more:

Bach 50: 91

Edward's B-DBN: 91

Shires B62-78 BOL: 91

Rath r4f 721: 83

Shires tw47g: 93 Anyone can confirm that?

Bach 42: 93

Shires tb47nlw: 94

Shires q Series large bore: 93

Lawler big boy old model: 74[/quote]

Notice how the Bach 42 and Bach 50 yield different measurements under this system. The real center-to-center measurement should be exactly the same, since they have the same crook, but since the Bach 50's outer slide tubes are bigger, the measurement here is smaller.
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="paulyg"]Notice how the Bach 42 and Bach 50 yield different measurements under this system. The real center-to-center measurement should be exactly the same, since they have the same crook, but since the Bach 50's outer slide tubes are bigger, the measurement here is smaller.[/quote]

No one's disagreeing with you, and the reason for the (ergonomically insignificant) discrepancy will be obvious to anyone who cares enough to think about it.

The point here was to be able to retain measurements already reported in the forum archives and, more importantly, to make it as easy as possible for other users to contribute without necessarily requiring calipers or calculations.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed so far!
E
Elow
Posts: 1924
Joined: Mar 02, 2020

by Elow »

I was wondering why the bollinger slide had a smaller distance than the other shires
L
LeoInFL
Posts: 252
Joined: Apr 19, 2018

by LeoInFL »

[quote="ithinknot"]<QUOTE author="paulyg" post_id="136189" time="1609807320" user_id="3299">
Notice how the Bach 42 and Bach 50 yield different measurements under this system. The real center-to-center measurement should be exactly the same, since they have the same crook, but since the Bach 50's outer slide tubes are bigger, the measurement here is smaller.[/quote]

No one's disagreeing with you, and the reason for the (ergonomically insignificant) discrepancy will be obvious to anyone who cares enough to think about it.

The point here was to be able to retain measurements already reported in the forum archives and, more importantly, to make it as easy as possible for other users to contribute without necessarily requiring calipers or calculations.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed so far!
</QUOTE>
It would take at most (2) additional measurements to get the center-to-center distance on any outer handslide.

'Worst' case is a dual bore slide (assuming the difference in bore isn't accomplished by using a thicker gauge inner slide tube):

1) measure the full width of the top outer tube then divide that by 2

2) measure the inside gap between the outer tubes

3) measure the full width of the bottom outer tube then divide that by 2

4) add those (3) numbers together will give you the center-to-center distance

A single-bore handslide is easier (per the example above, think of it as half of the top tube + half of the bottom tube = just the full width of either top or bottom):

1) measure the full width of either top or bottom outer slide tube

2) measure the gap between the outer slide tubes

3) add those (2) numbers together will give you the center-to-center distance
R
ronnies
Posts: 61
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by ronnies »

[quote="Elow"]I was wondering why the bollinger slide had a smaller distance than the other shires[/quote]

Dual bore slide so thicker lower tube makes the gap smaller?

Ronnie
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

Blerg, internet. I've explained the practical reasoning enough. If you'd like to provide a longer list, measured to a standard of your choosing, go right ahead.

You're offered a free cookie. Take the cookie, or don't.

Don't ask for a white, gluten-free Ford Bronco instead.
S
SwissTbone
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by SwissTbone »

I think the way it is done here is good enough. ithinknot made a great job compiling the data. Thanks for that!
T
Ted
Posts: 66
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by Ted »

My 88HTCL: 78mm

YBL-322: 82mm

King 4BF (80s) 80mm
Q
quiethorn
Posts: 204
Joined: Mar 24, 2018

by quiethorn »

[quote="SwissTbone"]I think the way it is done here is good enough. ithinknot made a great job compiling the data. Thanks for that![/quote]

Yep, it'll be a great help for those poking around online for used horns wondering "I wonder how wide the slide is compared to my XX horn."

Hey, here's another one to add: Jiggs pbone 69mm :mrgreen:
J
jjenkins
Posts: 364
Joined: Apr 22, 2018

by jjenkins »

Using a digital caliper, I've measured the following:

78.5 mm - B&S 3085B

81 mm - Conn Elkhart 72H

88 mm - Jupiter XO 1240

89 mm - Courtois Challenger II
Q
quiethorn
Posts: 204
Joined: Mar 24, 2018

by quiethorn »

I like the remark on my pBone, "color not specified" :biggrin:

It's red, btw. :pant:
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="quiethorn"]:biggrin:[/quote]

<span class="emoji" title=":wink:">😉</span>

... and thanks, John and Ted.
P
PhilE
Posts: 97
Joined: Apr 26, 2018

by PhilE »

This is great information.

I have a YSL 653 in mint condition but it is so uncomfortable to play because of the narrow slide.

I recently went to a local music shop to try out some of the latest Yamaha medium and large bore tenor bones with F attachment.

On every one of them the slide width was such that the valve made contact with my jaw.

I'll post a few measurements from my collection shortly.
J
jjenkins
Posts: 364
Joined: Apr 22, 2018

by jjenkins »

89 mm - Edwards STDN (wide tenor slide - yellow brass crook - early 2000s)
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

Courtois ac402 Xtreme, .508 bore - 69.0 mm
C
Crazy4Tbone86
Posts: 1654
Joined: Jan 14, 2020

by Crazy4Tbone86 »

There was a time, possibly late 1980s, in which Holton had some exceptionally wide slides. I have a TR-256 (dual bore .547-.559, serial #613xxx) slide that is 94 mm.

I remember finding and installing a Holton bass crook on a custom horn several years back. The shop I bought it from said that the crook had been sitting in a parts bin for many years and was simply labeled "Holton Bass." It was VERY large/wide....wider than my TR-256 and noticeably wider than the standard Bach 42/50 crooks. I remember that the inside bore was .608 inch and I would estimate that the width of the slide was at least 95 mm. Now I wish that I would have measured and recorded the width!
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="glenp"]I decided to get a new K&H Bart Van Lier .500. I contacted K&H and they measured both the .500 and .512 between the top and bottom tubes, and they were 78.5 mm.[/quote]
P
PhilE
Posts: 97
Joined: Apr 26, 2018

by PhilE »

YSL641 79 mm

YSL653 70 mm

YSL820GII 88 mm

Besson Sovereign BE942 89 mm

B&H Sovereign Bass 88 mm
S
soseggnchips
Posts: 92
Joined: Jan 29, 2021

by soseggnchips »

Another one for the list:

King 2B - 69mm
O
Oslide
Posts: 205
Joined: Apr 03, 2018

by Oslide »

[quote="ithinknot"]I've combined everything I could find in the archives, plus some additions (and minus Bruce's contributions that were measured to a different standard). Let's keep this going![/quote]

I wanted to know a few slide widths, remembered there was something on the forum, and found your fine compilation.

I know it must have been quite some work to pick out all the data, and I want to give you a big "Thank You" for your efforts!
J
Joebone
Posts: 74
Joined: Aug 02, 2018

by Joebone »

This is a seriously useful thread, deserving of sticky status! Thanks to all whom made this happen...
F
fwbassbone
Posts: 131
Joined: Apr 07, 2018

by fwbassbone »

Here are two more. Greenhoe GB5 92 and my 50B 89. I don't know why my 50 is slightly narrower than the others listed. I measured it twice just to be sure.
H
Hawaiyan
Posts: 15
Joined: Apr 19, 2018

by Hawaiyan »

I have a Bach early Elkhart Corporation 50B single with 89. Also my K&H(Kühnl & Hoyer) Slokar Performance is 87.
O
Oslide
Posts: 205
Joined: Apr 03, 2018

by Oslide »

Can anybody quote the slide width (outer-tube-to-outer-tube) of the Yamaha YSL-356G which is the dual bore model (.500 - .525)?

Thank you!
M
Matt_K
Posts: 4809
Joined: Mar 21, 2018

by Matt_K »

[quote="Oslide"]Can anybody quote the slide width (outer-tube-to-outer-tube) of the Yamaha YSL-356G which is the dual bore model (.500 - .525)?

Thank you![/quote]

If you don't get an answer in a few weeks, message me and I'll have access to mine and can measure for you
E
Estraven
Posts: 122
Joined: May 05, 2021

by Estraven »

I’ll add in my $0.02, for what it’s worth. All four of these are in my possession.

Conn 88H, Abilene (I think, s/n is obliterated): 81.5mm

Conn 88H, Elkhart ‘69: 78.0mm

King 2B “Liberty”, ‘38: 68.7mm

Bach “Corp.” 36B, lightweight slide, early/mid 60’s): 80.5mm

That Abilene slide measurement is interesting (so interesting, I remeasured both slides twice) because its so different from the Elkhart and from the Gen II slides. The slide end crooks are also different designs.
A
although
Posts: 72
Joined: Feb 13, 2019

by although »

Here are some more data points!

Conn 88H (Abilene 1978) 79

Conn 6H (Elkhart 1952) 70

King 606 (1981) 68

Cheers!

mike
M
Matt_K
Posts: 4809
Joined: Mar 21, 2018

by Matt_K »

Just measured my 356 slide; it's 3 1/8" (3.125") or 79.375 mm for the 356 I have.
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

Olds Recording 1954 2.80 inch 71.1mm

78h 1967 3.23 in 81.97mm

48h 1959 2.72 in 69.2 mm
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="Crazy4Tbone86"]There was a time, possibly late 1980s, in which Holton had some exceptionally wide slides. I have a TR-256 (dual bore .547-.559, serial #613xxx) slide that is 94 mm.

I remember finding and installing a Holton bass crook on a custom horn several years back. The shop I bought it from said that the crook had been sitting in a parts bin for many years and was simply labeled "Holton Bass." It was VERY large/wide....wider than my TR-256 and noticeably wider than the standard Bach 42/50 crooks. I remember that the inside bore was .608 inch and I would estimate that the width of the slide was at least 95 mm. Now I wish that I would have measured and recorded the width![/quote]

...and the one I'm looking at here (not far off in serial no - #634xxx and still long pre-CS acquisition) is 89mm. Holton does seem full of shenanigans
Q
quiethorn
Posts: 204
Joined: Mar 24, 2018

by quiethorn »

Kind of a long shot, but does anyone have a measurement on a JP Rath JP331 or JP231 since I'd guess they're the same?
C
Claudio
Posts: 23
Joined: Dec 03, 2021

by Claudio »

very useful table

my Yamaha Xeno Bb/F is 78.6mm (by caliper) inner slide
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="Claudio"]very useful table

my Yamaha Xeno Bb/F is 78.6mm (by caliper) inner slide[/quote]

Could you tell us the exact model number/letters? I don't think all the Xeno models are the same in this regard.
C
Claudio
Posts: 23
Joined: Dec 03, 2021

by Claudio »

[quote="ithinknot"]Could you tell us the exact model number/letters? I don't think all the Xeno models are the same in this regard.[/quote]

YSL882O

380415
D
dcslideman
Posts: 134
Joined: Mar 23, 2022

by dcslideman »

XO 1634RLT 68.3mm

Yamaha 445 79.2mm

Yamaha 448 78.5mm
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

This chart is a little disappointing. Measuring inside widths doesn't at all get to what people want to know, and as a mechanical engineer, it's a pointless measurement.

Still, it's what we have. If someone would like to include measurements for Getzen 3508 and 1050 (especially center to center measurements), I'd be interested in that...
O
OneTon
Posts: 757
Joined: Nov 02, 2021

by OneTon »

[quote="hyperbolica"]This chart is a little disappointing. Measuring inside widths doesn't at all get to what people want to know, and as a mechanical engineer, it's a pointless measurement.

Still, it's what we have. If someone would like to include measurements for Getzen 3508 and 1050 (especially center to center measurements), I'd be interested in that...[/quote]

I am not sure what you want to know.
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

[quote="OneTon"]I am not sure what you want to know.[/quote]
The inside-to-inside measurement vs the center-to-center. Inside-to-inside measurement doesn't give a true picture of the width of the slide. The information you really need is from the inside of the bottom slide to the centerline of the top slide (center of mouthpiece). The things most people are worried about with the width of the slide are if the neckpipe will press into your neck, and the general design of the horn (wide vs narrow slide). Any figure from the manufacturer is going to be center-to-center.

For the Getzen measurement, as long as you state how it was measured, I can figure out what I need.
O
OneTon
Posts: 757
Joined: Nov 02, 2021

by OneTon »

[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="OneTon" post_id="180871" time="1655215903" user_id="13549">
I am not sure what you want to know.[/quote]

For the Getzen measurement, as long as you state how it was measured, I can figure out what I need.
</QUOTE>

Exactly. :-)
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="hyperbolica"]Inside-to-inside measurement doesn't give a true picture of the width of the slide.[/quote]

But it's easily obtainable, and it gives a perfectly good comparative picture of what's going on. (If you're equipped to accurately measure tube ODs, then you can generate center-to-center measurements to your heart's content... and the bore size discrepancy is relatively insignificant when you consider that none of the 70mm slides will be a .562", and none of the 90mms will be .485".)

[quote="hyperbolica"]The things most people are worried about with the width of the slide are if the neckpipe will press into your neck, and the general design of the horn (wide vs narrow slide).[/quote]

Exactly. Which is why excess precision (be it inside-to-inside or center-to-center) is largely useless here; as a mechanical engineer, you'll be well aware that the center-to-center width still doesn't tell you exactly what's going on with the neckpipe, as its proximity to your neck depends on its curvature and/or the angle of the receiver (and that's before valves get involved).

All you can get from these slide measurements is a sense of general design, for which everyone will already have a point of comparison - 'standard small bores (68-70mm) are usually fine but anything significantly smaller won't fit', or '88H (c.80mm) is too narrow but 42B (c.90mm) is ok'.
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

It's a non-standard measurement that requires goofing around to get even comparative information. When manufacturers list a dimension, it's c-to-c. Better to adhere to a standard than worry about people who can't take measurements.
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot » (edited 2022-06-14 2:01 p.m.)

[quote="hyperbolica"]goofing around[/quote]

Well, I'm sorry this has been weighing on you for the last 18 months :tongue:

Serious question: where have you seen a manufacturer list a c-to-c slide width measurement? (I'm not talking about general practice in technical drawings.)

I've never seen an actual numerical value (of any standard). M/K Drawing gives center and inside widths on their replacement crooks, but I've never seen horns listed with anything other than 'wide' and 'narrow' in the few places those options exist... Shires, for example.

[quote="hyperbolica"]Better to adhere to a standard than worry about people who can't take measurements.[/quote]

I'm temperamentally predisposed to agree with you but, in this particular case, I think collecting a greater number of 'not hugely accurate but usably indicative' data points is of vastly greater public utility than having fewer models covered albeit with higher quality data.
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

[quote="ithinknot"]Serious question: where have you seen a manufacturer list a c-to-c slide width measurement? (I'm not talking about general practice in technical drawings.)[/quote]

It only grates on me when I look at that chart and have to figure out what kind of left-handed calculation is needed to find equivalent spacings or max width.

Where have you seen anything other than c-to-c measurement shown? I guarantee that they all have a drawing with a c-to-c dimension shown for each model slide, and I'd be surprised to see anything else.
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="hyperbolica"]I guarantee that they all have a drawing with a c-to-c dimension shown for each model slide, and I'd be surprised to see anything else.[/quote]

Of course, but they're not providing that information publicly - hence the Fisher-Price method for encouraging community participation.

(Again, the slide width alone still won't always give you what you want for 'buying without trying' confidence. If the slide measurement is borderline for you, a few degrees difference at the neckpipe/receiver is going matter a lot more.)
B
brassmedic
Posts: 1447
Joined: Dec 14, 2018

by brassmedic »

[quote="hyperbolica"]<QUOTE author="ithinknot" post_id="180891" time="1655227819" user_id="9763">
Serious question: where have you seen a manufacturer list a c-to-c slide width measurement? (I'm not talking about general practice in technical drawings.)[/quote]

It only grates on me when I look at that chart and have to figure out what kind of left-handed calculation is needed to find equivalent spacings or max width.

Where have you seen anything other than c-to-c measurement shown? I guarantee that they all have a drawing with a c-to-c dimension shown for each model slide, and I'd be surprised to see anything else.
</QUOTE>
I've only seen inside to inside dimensions in any technical drawings I've ever seen, but I haven't seen the secret manufacturer drawings you're alluding to. I've only seen measurements of existing trombones. But if you were drawing up blueprints to manufacture a trombone, what use would a center-to-center dimension be? That's certainly not how you would build it. If you're drilling holes in a framework where bolts are going to be inserted, I would understand the centerline measurement, but if you're attaching tubes at their outside diameter to be a set distance apart, wouldn't you need to know the length of the brace rather than a calculated dimension to a centerline that would never be physically measured?
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

The cut on the end of the brace has to be concentric and equal radius with the cork barrel, which is concentric with the slide tube. The centerline is the datum. If it just touches at a tangent point, any number of things could be wrong with it. If you're calculating back to find the tangent point, that's ok, but you're calculating back from a set of concentric relationships between parts. The datum is the center. Check your GD&T tolerancing standards.

The CNC code runs off of centers. Lathes are built around the concept of center, and how much of a trombone is cut on a lathe? You have to build fixturing, where each hole is cut using a center. As a designer, the tolerance has to be run off of centers and diameters, not tangent points. A tolerance for a mating slide wants to know where the centerline is. If you're manufacturing tube, it is specified/inspected by straightness of the centerline and diameter. Imagine trying to place a slide tube inside a cork barrel without using centers. If your tubes were all rectangular, then yeah, measure to the sides.

When you manufacture a frame from pipe cut on a laser cnc, it's all centers and diameters. When you bend pipe on a cnc pipe bender, it's all centers and diameters. You can back other information out of that, but to get there, it's all centers and diameters.
D
Doug_Elliott
Posts: 4155
Joined: Mar 22, 2018

by Doug_Elliott »

If your were making tooling for manufacturing, for example a wood form for bending slide crooks or tuning slides, that form would only concern itself with the inside radius... You might bend different diameter tubing on the same form. Center-to-center would be different depending on the tube size.

I think you're trying to force current CAD concepts onto a manufacturing process that is hundreds of years old, and brass instruments are still built that way for the most part.
B
brassmedic
Posts: 1447
Joined: Dec 14, 2018

by brassmedic »

Many parts are made on a lathe, but the trombone is not assembled on a lathe. The braces are actually cut square. There is a socket with a flange that matches the outside circumference of the slide tube. I don't see what that has to do with any centerline.

As Doug said, crooks are bent around a form. Strictly inside diameter.
B
brassmedic
Posts: 1447
Joined: Dec 14, 2018

by brassmedic »

Also, if I'm say for example, making a cork barrel on a lathe, I need the inside and outside diameter measurements. I would take the center for granted, because it's a lathe. I don't understand how the center would come into play there. I don't need to measure where the center is. Placing it over the slide tube? You use some sort of a jig.
H
harrisonreed
Posts: 6479
Joined: Aug 17, 2018

by harrisonreed » (edited 2022-06-15 7:15 a.m.)

Most trombone designs predate lathes or CNC machines. I agree with the above -- the design is built into the bell mandrels and jigs. If you wanted to make Conn trombones, you need the jigs, not the measurements. To say nothing of HOW you use the jigs and mandrels.

That's me, with no real knowledge about instrument design. But yeah, talking about CNC lathes seems odd. They weren't and aren't using those.
E
elmsandr
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by elmsandr »

[quote="hyperbolica"]The cut on the end of the brace has to be concentric and equal radius with the cork barrel, which is concentric with the slide tube. The centerline is the datum. If it just touches at a tangent point, any number of things could be wrong with it. If you're calculating back to find the tangent point, that's ok, but you're calculating back from a set of concentric relationships between parts. The datum is the center. Check your GD&T tolerancing standards.

...[/quote]
So, having seen many of the manufacturer's blueprints... There is no GD&T on almost all the drawings. None. Zero. Zilch. Just an annotated cartoon with nominal values and assumed tolerances.

This is a build process that is still adapting to the industrial revolution, not even mid-century manufacturing.

FWIW, this 62H print does use center to center for tuning slides, tho. (BUT also note the dimension to the inside of the back bow from the valve center. Easy to pick off the valve center, not easy to pick off the center of a tapered bow).
<ATTACHMENT filename="62H Print.jpg" index="0">[attachment=0]62H Print.jpg</ATTACHMENT>

Cheers,

Andy
P
PhilE
Posts: 97
Joined: Apr 26, 2018

by PhilE »

As one who dabbles in mechanical engineering and design for a living, I can say that centre to centre dimensions have their place.

In most machinery design and some structural applications it is the norm, particularly for features that have obvious centres eg bearings, shafts, pipe work etc.

The chart created by ithinknot is a great resource. Inside to inside measurements are an appropriate dimension for the purpose.

quoting ithinknot "All you can get from these slide measurements is a sense of general design, for which everyone will already have a point of comparison - 'standard small bores (68-70mm) are usually fine but anything significantly smaller won't fit', or '88H (c.80mm) is too narrow but 42B (c.90mm) is ok'."

Which is exactly how I use it.

Moderators : any chance it could be made into a sticky note so it is easier to find?

Thanks

Phil
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

[quote="elmsandr"]FWIW, this 62H print does use center to center for tuning slides, tho. (BUT also note the dimension to the inside of the back bow from the valve center. Easy to pick off the valve center, not easy to pick off the center of a tapered bow).

62H Print.jpg

Cheers,

Andy[/quote]

Yeah, this drawing is all centerlines with one exception. The distance from the line connecting the centers of the rotors to the tangent point of the inside of the bell crook. Crooks aren't true circular or toroidal features, so there is no real center.

GD&T started as a military standard in the 40s, but didn't really make much of an impact on general manufacturing until 90s or later, so it's not surprising that a hand drawing of a hand assembled product doesn't use that. I'd be willing to bet that a company like Yamaha uses it, though. Still, that's not the issue here, the issue is that the product, even on hand drawings, was designed referencing centerlines for distance between tubes, not tangent silhouette edges.

User image
B
BGuttman
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mar 22, 2018

by BGuttman »

I'm not a trombone manufacturer. I want to comfortably hold the instrument. The distance from the bottom of the top cork barrel to the top of the bottom cork barrel is the information I need. Is it a perfect predictor? Probably not. But a centerline to centerline distance isn't any better. Unless I wanted to make an instrument myself, I wouldn't get my panties in a twist about not reading center to center.
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

If you wanted to fit a horn to a case, you'd need an outside to outside dimension. If you want to fit to your neck, you'd need a bottom to center dimension. And you'd have to make sure it wasn't measured at a ferrule, barrel or oversleeve. C-to-c is the same everywhere it doesn't matter where you measure it.

It's just a left handed technique to get a goofy dimension.
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

It doesn't interest you, but others have found it useful.

Let's leave it there.
C
calcbone
Posts: 225
Joined: Jun 11, 2018

by calcbone »

WIth the renewed "interest" in this thread, I finally looked at the table.

I noticed that the Bach 8 was not listed... I have a NY 8 that measures 69mm.
O
OneTon
Posts: 757
Joined: Nov 02, 2021

by OneTon »

I like it the site the way it is. I can get a quick idea of whether something will work or not. I know how it was measured. The tool or jig used to fabricate the parts typically becomes the part definition and any drawings are reference only. CAD definitions have a tolerance and that can worsen in tight bends. Find the true center of a irregular tube.

Thanks to the people that created the thread and update it.
B
brassmedic
Posts: 1447
Joined: Dec 14, 2018

by brassmedic »

[quote="OneTon"]I like it the site the way it is. I can get a quick idea of whether something will work or not. I know how it was measured. The tool or jig used to fabricate the parts typically becomes the part definition and any drawings are reference only. CAD definitions have a tolerance and that can worsen in tight bends. Find the true center of a irregular tube.[/quote]
Ha, I just noticed that after you mentioned it. All of the center to center tube measurements are marked 'ref' on that drawing.
S
soseggnchips
Posts: 92
Joined: Jan 29, 2021

by soseggnchips »

Couple of additions:

- Benge 190 80.5mm

- Blessing B8 79mm
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

Does anyone have measurements for Conn 32h or Yamaha ysl356?
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="hyperbolica"]Does anyone have measurements for Conn 32h or Yamaha ysl356?[/quote]

Yes ...you :good:
[quote="hyperbolica"]Conn 32h 2.60"[/quote]

356 is also on the big table - and it's the same part that's on your 350C.
G
glenp
Posts: 161
Joined: Oct 31, 2020

by glenp »

There's a problem with the King 2B measurements. The King 3B is listed at 68mm, yet the King 2B is listed at 69mm which is wider. But the 2B that I owned was definitely narrower than the 3B that I currently own. I measured my 3B and can verify that listed measurement is correct. Unfortunately, I cannot verify the 2B since I sold it.

Also, I can add Bach 42 is 88.25 MM.
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

Oh, I see the problem. I've got one set of posts collapsed, so they don't work for find in page... And... the 350c isn't at home right now.
I
ithinknot
Posts: 1339
Joined: Jul 24, 2020

by ithinknot »

[quote="glenp"]the 2B that I owned[/quote]
Well, there's variation out there, and in any case a lot of slides are out .5mm (or worse) over their length. Some of the 2B measurements were taken by me, so I'm not too dubious about the others matching.

I've added your 42.
G
glenp
Posts: 161
Joined: Oct 31, 2020

by glenp »

[quote="ithinknot"]Well, there's variation out there, and in any case a lot of slides are out .5mm (or worse) over their length. Some of the 2B measurements were taken by me, so I'm not too dubious about the others matching.

I've added your 42.[/quote]

Thanks.

Do you think that any of the variations actually resulted in a 2B being wider than a 3B?
B
Burgerbob
Posts: 6327
Joined: Apr 23, 2018

by Burgerbob »

[quote="glenp"]<QUOTE author="ithinknot" post_id="186382" time="1660581226" user_id="9763">
Well, there's variation out there, and in any case a lot of slides are out .5mm (or worse) over their length. Some of the 2B measurements were taken by me, so I'm not too dubious about the others matching.

I've added your 42.[/quote]

Thanks.

Do you think that any of the variations actually resulted in a 2B being wider than a 3B?
</QUOTE>

Smaller tubes too.
G
glenp
Posts: 161
Joined: Oct 31, 2020

by glenp »

[quote="Burgerbob"]Smaller tubes too.[/quote]

:good: Ahh yes; wasn't thinking about that.
B
boneberg
Posts: 216
Joined: Dec 19, 2020

by boneberg » (edited 2023-03-11 4:37 a.m.)

Does anyone have measurements for these medium bore slides:

Shires TW25(LW)

Getzen 1036
B
boneberg
Posts: 216
Joined: Dec 19, 2020

by boneberg »

I just measured the following:

Shires QB62 (Q36 bass) - 89 mm

Shires QTW47 (Q30 large tenor) - 90 mm
B
boneberg
Posts: 216
Joined: Dec 19, 2020

by boneberg »

Correction: Shires QTW47 (Q30 large tenor) - 90 mm
H
hyperbolica
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mar 23, 2018

by hyperbolica »

Getzen 3508 = 70mm

Holton tr159 = 89.7

King 1480 (1961) = 82.4
S
Sesquitone
Posts: 291
Joined: Apr 25, 2022

by Sesquitone »

[quote="SwissTbone"]<QUOTE author="ithinknot" post_id="136126" time="1609764154" user_id="9763">

Hopefully they're off by 1 or 2 mm :good:

But yes, and that's why we needn't worry too much about decimal accuracy... the value of the info is comparative, rather than absolute.

Keep 'em coming![/quote]

Oh yes. Mm not cm.
</QUOTE>

As long as we're being careful about distinguishing between the symbols for centimetres and millimetres, let me remind everyone never to start a sentence with an SI symbol: Mm is a megametre! Nor to use italics or capitals (for symbols) for emphasis. Spell out the name, instead. And also to leave one space between the numerical value and the symbol.

[Sorry to sound 'picky'—I was intimately involved in the redefinition of all the SI base units not too long ago, especially the kilogram and mole. So I feel 'duty bound' to comment.]

.
A
AtomicClock
Posts: 1094
Joined: Oct 19, 2023

by AtomicClock »

Reynolds Emperor Model 15: 70 mm

Yamaha YSL-671 alto: 75 mm

DEG Classic alto in F: 72 mm