# Small cell foundation less frame design using 2x lumber



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

I am going to make some small cell frames from 2x stock. I use medium frames so I weakened the design somewhat to achieve the following goals:
* Simplify top bar design for faster build time.
* Reduce wasted lumber and maximize number of frames from 2x lumber
* Maximize operations done on wide 2x board.
* Reduce number of operations on the individual frame components.
* Maintain 3/8" bee space between top bars.

Please comment on the feasibility of the design. I am planning to use the frames for both brood nest as well as honey supers.

Here are the plans:


----------



## Dan the bee guy (Jun 18, 2015)

I made mine but the top bar was 15/16" and made them to take foundation small cell wired with hooks.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

pjigar said:


> I am going to make some small cell frames from 2x stock


So...which are you planning to make....small cell or foundationless?


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

beemandan said:


> So...which are you planning to make....small cell or foundationless?


Correction: Small cell frames i.e. center-to-center spacing of 1 1/4" which will result in small cells. No foundation.


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I was under the impression that for small cell construction the distance was 1 1/4 inch center to center, my bees will not make cells smaller than standard using 1 3/8 inch center to center.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

pjigar said:


> center-to-center spacing of 1 1/4" which will result in small cells. No foundation.


Where did this information come from?


----------



## Dan the bee guy (Jun 18, 2015)

Bees won't make small cell unless they are allready small .


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

And even then my small bees reverted to 5.2 or so any time I let them build natural comb, cut down end bars not withstanding.


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

Dan the bee guy said:


> Bees won't make small cell unless they are allready small .


I started two hives last year from packages and gave them 1 1/4" center-to-center spaced foundationless frames. Bees built 4.9 mm cells on their own. I don't have much experience but I trust bees will build what they need.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I had thought the ideal of 1.25 inch frames made for better drawn foundationless comb if the bees followed the comb guides. I have cut mine down in the middle of 1.25 and 1 and 3/8. I was worried about the top bar of the frame cause I was still leaving them 1 and 1/16th inch wide and was worried about bee space. I just started doing this and have not used any yet.
I can get 11 in a 10 frame box now.
gww


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

beemandan said:


> Where did this information come from?


http://www.bushfarms.com/beesnaturalcell.htm
http://www.bushfarms.com/beesfoundationless.htm


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I am confident that there is no scientific evidence that frame spacing has anything whatsoever to do with cell size. If I am mistaken....would someone please direct me to a legitimate source?


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

beemandan said:


> I am confident that there is no scientific evidence that frame spacing has anything whatsoever to do with cell size. If I am mistaken....would someone please direct me to a legitimate source?


The following pages have lot of historic references on frame spacing. I am assuming those are correct: http://www.bushfarms.com/beesframewidth.htm


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I would take with a grain of salt the precise accuracy of old references. I think if you were to do an objective computer search that sometimes old authors are quoted to authenticate a modern hypothesis yet in other areas of their writings questionable conclusions were passed on. I am not impressed with appeals purely to antiquity as authentication of anything.

_The good old days are oft remembered best by those with failing memory_


----------



## AR Beekeeper (Sep 25, 2008)

I don't mind when they quote an early writer, I hate it when they "half quote" or fail to add available information as to why they thought or managed their colonies the way they did.

I remember the "good old days" well, it's this morning that I have trouble with.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

crofter said:


> _The good old days are oft remembered best by those with failing memory_


Good one .


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

Thanks for the comments. I intend to do objective experiments with various frame spacing as I go along. And I will keep an eye on new research as well.


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

Thing is Pjigar, there are more variables than frame spacing. These would include climate and location, bee breed, flow patterns and season, among others. 

So we have some folks on Beesource who report their bees build natural comb at 4.9 size or smaller, even on standard end bar widths, and others who have been foundationless for years but cannot get their bees to build at 4.9. Where I am, natural comb at 4.9 doesn't happen, other than an odd cell here or there.

There is a tendency on chat sites for the groups of people who get a particular cell size, to disbelieve the experience of the groups who get other cell sizes. But really they are all correct, it's just that beekeeping is local. Find out what other beekeepers near you get for natural cell size, it's likely that's what you will get also.


----------



## Dan the bee guy (Jun 18, 2015)

pjigar said:


> I started two hives last year from packages and gave them 1 1/4" center-to-center spaced foundationless frames. Bees built 4.9 mm cells on their own. I don't have much experience but I trust bees will build what they need.


I got some queens from bweaver and they are very good at building small cell my carnys not so much.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Keep an open mind. Don't place too much faith in information gleaned from individuals on the internet but, if you are of an experimental mind, test the concepts that make intuitive sense to you. Don't bet the mortgage on them. And...if you are thinking small cell to eliminate varroa.....proceed with extreme caution.. 

Good luck


----------



## Clayton Huestis (Jan 6, 2013)

After 16 yrs of small cell I can tell you that going foundationless to get small cell rarely works out well. I have found that even using wax foundation is a struggle that never ended even after 16 yrs. Best to go with plastic if you want to save yourself 10 yrs of headache and comb culling or more. In the end I found that most bees were inclinded to approx 5.1 - 5.2 cell sizing. That no cell sizing was a "answer" to varroa, not saying there isn't some degree of effectiveness which I never could measure how much that was. For the effort made comb culling year after year it would be easier to by bulk honey and retail it and keep no bees at all and save tons of $$$. Of course I keep bees cause thats what I like to do, but I do need to have a decent profit to keep going also. Well I don't have as much time anymore and my wallet is broke. I'm not pusuing small cell anymore I'd rather focus on queenrearing which I enjoy way more than comb drawing and measuring. Well thats all for now.


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>>I started two hives last year from packages and gave them 1 1/4" center-to-center spaced foundationless frames. Bees built 4.9 mm cells on their own.
>I am confident that there is no scientific evidence that frame spacing has anything whatsoever to do with cell size.

You already have one person in this thread who says that is their experience. I know many more who write me or post that they have had similar experience. I'm confident that no one other than small cell/natural cell beekeepers have bothered to measure the difference in cell size by comb spacing. And, of course, you wouldn't trust them...

>...there are more variables than frame spacing.

Of course there are. But that is one of the variables in my experience.


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

Few build pictures.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

pjigar said:


> Few build pictures.


Pjigar, your first two pictures show that you shaped the entire (2x8?) before ripping it into individual end bars. What machine did you use for this?


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

dave w in virginia said:


> Pjigar, your first two pictures show that you shaped the entire (2x8?) before ripping it into individual end bars. What machine did you use for this?


I use bench saw with dado blades to cut the dados on both ends first. Then I used jointer to cut the side profile. And last step was ripping the individual end bars. I followed the same process for the top bars (as shown in the plans on the first post).

PS: Jointer was set to cut 1/8" in a single pass with a stop so I don't plane the entire length!


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

BTW Everything in my plans is all about saving number of operations by the order of magnitudes. First batch of frames I made were exact opposite process: Rip the pieces (top, side) and then shape them. Now my plans aims to achieve the exact opposite: shape everything as a biggest piece possible and then rip finally pieces as late as possible. My productivity has increased by 10-20 times!


----------



## JConnolly (Feb 21, 2015)

That's kind of how I do it. 

I don't have a jointer. For cutting the steps in the sides, before I rip the blank I have a sled I use on my table saw with a 3/4" dado blade. The sled holds the blank safely and I clamp a stop to the saw to stop the sled so that all of the plunge cuts stop in the same place. Then I plunge the blank on the sled into the blade, then move it over, repeat. I get an even cut with a radius step. I found that to keep the blank stable in the sled it works better if I cut the middle section out first, leaving a thin shoulder to help keep the blank flat, and removing the shoulders on the last two passes.

I rip the sides from the blank after the step is cut.


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

JConnolly said:


> I don't have a jointer. For cutting the steps in the sides, before I rip the blank I have a sled I use on my table saw with a 3/4" dado blade.


That's a great idea. I was looking for ways to cut profile on the side bar and the only things I can come up were a band saw cut or jointer. Band saw cut vertically kind of felt unsafe so then I had a perfect excuse to buy a jointer! By the way I went with a light duty 6" bench top jointer model from Porter Cable (sold at Lowe's).


----------



## rolftonbees (Jul 10, 2014)

I put an empty frame in a hive as a spacer and forgot to trade it out. I ended up with three combs from that top frame bar. One was a near tear drop of the largest cells I.have ever seen.larger than drone cells. A nearly perfect circle shape of combo one side has the smallest cells I have ever seen. The circle perfectly overlapped the tear shape sitting above it and another oval sharp of smaller but not tiny cells were on the other side sitting above the center comb.

They were gorgeous and I really appreciated that bees are indeed marvelous looking at those. I wondered what had factored into those various cell sizes. I wish I remembered if the combs on each side were /wavy in how deep the cells were.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I use the jointer now for the sides of the frame. I got that ideal from here. My jointer will only do a 6 inch board and so I usually rip a 2x8 in half. before I used the jointer, I would just raise the table saw blade as high as it would go and would rip that cut. I had a table saw that would cut to a 3.5 inch and was only doing mediums. This left the top unbeveled part just a little long but they seem to be working just fine in the hive. It is always hard to try and explain stuff with words but I hope this can be understood.
Good luck.
gww


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

You can rip the strips of your end notched slab (that is wider than your jointer) and then put them over the jointer in groups of 8 or ten to reduce their lower ends. It is sure a bit trickier and more dangerous. I think I would be inclined to rip your slab at half way mark so it is narrow enough for the jointer and then do the operation on the jointer before you make the final rip cuts on the strips. You may loose one endbar for being a bit under thickness unless you are good at calculating just where to split your slab in two.


----------



## jwcarlson (Feb 14, 2014)

The thing that's great about 4.9mm comb is the mite density in the broodnest is so much higher. So it's easier to kill them with formic acid when the time comes. 

Seriously though, my colonies with Italian bees from California on 4.9mm broodnests are always the most mite loaded. But of course that's the same regardless of what cell size they have in their broodnest.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> The thing that's great about 4.9mm comb is the mite density in the broodnest is so much higher. So it's easier to kill them with formic acid when the time comes.


 4.9 cells put more cells total into a smaller area. 1.25 end bars give a similar effect.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Crofter
I now do it like your picture. I usually am using lumber I milled myself and so I usually end up with about 3 inch wide stuff that I do on the jointer before ripping to individual peices and I do get a lot of thin end peices that if I did the math on could have been saved but, I have a wood stove in the shed and so in the end, nothing goes to waste.

I do love when people have pictures showing what they are doing. I just made some more frames yesterday but I broke my phone screen the day before and now I am back to using a phone that I don't know how to get the picts to the computer. The other phone had a usb cord. I don't have data plans and so losing the other phone has made me picture mute. 

Your picture does show how I do it now.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Jeff L (Dec 13, 2016)

I did the profile by cutting a 45 degree angle at the top of the profile on both sides then used a bandsaw to finish it, and finally cut out the individual ends.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I gave up on the theoretical benefit of higher density, smaller cells in narrower frame spacing. I am in a lot colder climate than most users here. Even the plastic 4.9 foundation gets a lot of adjustment cells built every 3 inches or so that are a jumble of drone and blank wax construction ridges before the bees revert to following the pattern. The bees did not seem to appreciate my efforts to downsize them. The net result sure did not seem like more efficient use of hive space but admittedly I did not allow the experiment much time to ripen!

I have seen some video on the web where fellows were using a router to reduce the bottom sidebar width.


----------



## rookie2531 (Jul 28, 2014)

I've been following this post for making my own frames and see the width of the side bars keep coming up in reference to cell size. I do not care about cell size, but what I do care about is comb width, bridge comb and spacing in-between frames and super walls.

Pjigar, Now that you have some built, have you put them in your box? How many are you fitiing in? I'm asking, because I'm concerned about that 1.25" end bar. If I have done the math correctly, that would be 11 frames in a 10 frame box?

I made some homemade frames a couple years ago and left out both dado's on the end bars. But the end bars are 1 3/8"" in width, which is the standard and i only fit 10 frames in with a 1" gap(when new).

They are foundation less and the wire being pulled tight probably helps keep them from ratcheting. So they are glued, nailed through top and sides and wired tight with 50 lb. Test fishline.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

gww said:


> Crofter
> I now do it like your picture. I usually am using lumber I milled myself and so I usually end up with about 3 inch wide stuff that I do on the jointer before ripping to individual peices and I do get a lot of thin end peices that if I did the math on could have been saved but, I have a wood stove in the shed and so in the end, nothing goes to waste.
> 
> I do love when people have pictures showing what they are doing. I just made some more frames yesterday but I broke my phone screen the day before and now I am back to using a phone that I don't know how to get the picts to the computer. The other phone had a usb cord. I don't have data plans and so losing the other phone has made me picture mute.
> ...


I also love to see how other's solve problems. They are always different, and about half of them are an improvement.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Rookie
I haven't used it yet in my brood box but have built where 11 frames are going to fit in the ten frame box. I am going to run them that way untill it gets crouded for the reasons you were considering it (not as fat of comb). When I get some built out, I can always pull one and have only ten later if inspecting starts getting too hard from not being able to move them into empty space. I did it purly in the hope of getting better foundationless frames built out not to get small cell. Some one told me it would help with that and I intend to test it. I have built a couple hundred this way and hope it works.
Cheers
gww


----------



## gunter62 (Feb 13, 2011)

I have made a bunch of frames with thinner end and top bars. They work fine, and I use 9 in my 8-frame brood nests. I am also a cabinetmaker with 30 years experience. Next time I need more frames, I'll just stick with the Mann-lake PF frames which I also use. For me, making frames isn't worth the effort, and I was pretty efficient.


----------



## rookie2531 (Jul 28, 2014)

These have propolis from being in hives that didn't finish drawing, so they were taken out at end of season. They are relatively new, so I can't say how well they will compare to frames with the dado on them.

They are glued and have a staple going in the top bar and have Brad's going in from the sides.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

gunter62 said:


> I have made a bunch of frames with thinner end and top bars. They work fine, and I use 9 in my 8-frame brood nests. I am also a cabinetmaker with 30 years experience. Next time I need more frames, I'll just stick with the Mann-lake PF frames which I also use. For me, making frames isn't worth the effort, and I was pretty efficient.


I understand why people claim that DIY frames are inefficient. But I made 400 frames for my mini nucs in just about 4 hours. I wasn't really watching the clock so it could have been longer. But because I needed a custom size of 5.66" I had to make them instead of buy them. The trick for speed was to use butt joints and not special daddies which need me to handle each piece of wood for 4-5 different cuts. It became a lot faster. I also used a table saw instead of a bandsaw for speed. Although a bandsaw would have been quicker, the scrap wood was free and my time wasn't.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

<The trick for speed was to use butt joints and not special daddies which need me to handle each piece of wood for 4-5 different cuts. It became a lot faster.> 

Yes, the devil is in the details. Those 4 or 5 different cuts is what creates the integrity of the frame. You can take shortcuts but every one is a compromise; when one pulls apart in the hive I bet the person dealing with it wont be impressed with how quick they were to cut out Then it is payback time! I have seen some of this type of frame in hives and my thought was that it was done to sell nucs. I became owner of a bunch of frames that came about that way. They had had the ears of the sidebars shaved. They get badly bridged between the top bars because it violates bee space. Aside from that they are good strong conventional construction frames.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

crofter said:


> <The trick for speed was to use butt joints and not special daddies which need me to handle each piece of wood for 4-5 different cuts. It became a lot faster.>
> 
> Yes, the devil is in the details. Those 4 or 5 different cuts is what creates the integrity of the frame. You can take shortcuts but every one is a compromise; when one pulls apart in the hive I bet the person dealing with it wont be impressed with how quick they were to cut out Then it is payback time! I have seen some of this type of frame in hives and my thought was that it was done to sell nucs. I became owner of a bunch of frames that came about that way. They had had the ears of the sidebars shaved. They get badly bridged between the top bars because it violates bee space. Aside from that they are good strong conventional construction frames.


I think we are talking about two different things. It sounds like you have found DIY frames that were the wrong size and were stuck by propolis. This seems to be a letter of incorrect size rather than origin of manufacture. Or am I missing something from your post?


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Yes, we are talking past each other. The shaved sidebars was an improvised modification to standard design frames. I suggest that someone got a deal on them and pawned them off via nuc sales.

What I said is that I have seen on other occasions, frames that had been made with simple butt joints and were obviously very flimsy; when I saw them, my thought was that they were made for nuc sales to an unsuspecting customer. I am not suggesting that is your intention but it _has_ been done. I have even seen it joked about on forums.

The original poster of this thread had a design that only sacrificed a small bit of the integrity of the common hoffman frame. He retained the notched sidebar and a notch on the underside of the topbar. For the reasons he stated it seemed a reasonable compromise. Depending solely on fasteners and end grain glue bonding does not give enough utility in my opinion.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

crofter said:


> Yes, we are talking past each other. The shaved sidebars was an improvised modification to standard design frames. I suggest that someone got a deal on them and pawned them off via nuc sales.
> 
> What I said is that I have seen on other occasions, frames that had been made with simple butt joints and were obviously very flimsy; when I saw them, my thought was that they were made for nuc sales to an unsuspecting customer. I am not suggesting that is your intention but it _has_ been done. I have even seen it joked about on forums.
> 
> The original poster of this thread had a design that only sacrificed a small bit of the integrity of the common hoffman frame. He retained the notched sidebar and a notch on the underside of the topbar. For the reasons he stated it seemed a reasonable compromise. Depending solely on fasteners and end grain glue bonding does not give enough utility in my opinion.


I see what you're saying. It actually is my intent to use butt frame joints on full size frames too. But not because I want to pass them off to an unsuspecting public. Because they are for my own use. As a beginner, yours is the first opinion I've heard that these joints will not hold up. I plan on using two staples per joint, and also using thicker wood than the manufactured frames I see. I thought that would be strong enough but I may be wrong. 

Time will tell. When I was a young carpenter I was told that the glue joint was stronger than the wood. The wood would actually rip apart before the glue joint would give.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

I might be in for a big awakening. I quit glueing and also went down to just one staple down through each side of the top bar and one staple up through the bottom bar. I will tell you in a couple of years just how bad that decision was. I am makeing all the cuts in the frames that the bee scource plan calls for but not utalizing them buy putting glue on them.

I read on here one other guy who does it this way and said he had no problims and so I am going to try it for a while.

Time will tell, I am not selling stuff to others yet and so will reap any punishment myself.
gww

Ps
I am using oak and hickory for my frame and maby that will make a differrence.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

gww said:


> I might be in for a big awakening. I quit glueing and also went down to just one staple down through each side of the top bar and one staple up through the bottom bar. I will tell you in a couple of years just how bad that decision was. I am makeing all the cuts in the frames that the bee scource plan calls for but not utalizing them buy putting glue on them.
> 
> I read on here one other guy who does it this way and said he had no problims and so I am going to try it for a while.
> 
> ...


My opinion is that if you're going to use one or the other, the use of glue will do you more good than a double staple. If wood is too thin and you accidentally get the air pressure too high on your stapler, two fasteners can cause more damage than benefit.

While oak and hickory are strong woods, they are also tough and less forgiving than softwoods. So I would recommend just one staple, unless like me, your wood is large enough for two. But unless they are green and straight grained, those should be hard enough to get in one staple, let alone two.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Dave
I believe my fingers may not have said what my brain told them to say. I am using one staple down through the top bar into the side bars. I used to staple sideways into the tob bar also but no longer do that either. I get quite a bit of waste and sometimes a hard spot in the wood will fold a couple of staples before I just throw it in the fire.. I glued the first hundred or so but got tire of it and really the stapled ones with out glue seemed ok.

I also probly get a littloe more splitting with the wood I use but it is what I have.

I only have about 60/70 frames drawn out so far but the bees don't seem to care. I will see how long they last and adjust later if needed.
Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify my mistake.
gww

Ps You can not get the air turned too high on my stuff. I have it at 125lbs and adjusted for full depth and it just barily seats the staple and sometime I have to finish with a small ballteen hammer. My wood is hard or my stapler is not tough. It is a bostitch stappler.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

dave w in virginia said:


> I see what you're saying. It actually is my intent to use butt frame joints on full size frames too. But not because I want to pass them off to an unsuspecting public. Because they are for my own use. As a beginner, yours is the first opinion I've heard that these joints will not hold up. I plan on using two staples per joint, and also using thicker wood than the manufactured frames I see. I thought that would be strong enough but I may be wrong.
> 
> Time will tell. When I was a young carpenter I was told that the glue joint was stronger than the wood. The wood would actually rip apart before the glue joint would give.


That about the glue joint being stronger than the wood is one of those "all depends" situations:Side grain to side grain yes; end grain absolutely not. 

It is the interlocking shoulders of the sidebar and the matching shoulders created in the top bar that braces the joint against twisting and shearing. That takes the main forces off the glue and fasteners. In the conventional joint the buttressing effect of the shoulders takes the majority of the strain. 

It is not the straight up pull that is the most trying to the connections. Watch someone sometime loosening and pulling frames with a frame gripper. Make me grind my teeth!

This design has been discussed before but has not come up for a while. The question of the benefit of glue has been discussed at great length.
I dont remember hearing of any commercial beekeepers questioning the value of glueing. One in particular bought a bunch of assembled frames to save time and found the poorly glued but well stapled frames caused him endless grief. Frame joints get a lot of flexing over the years; it is not a simple straight pull out factor like a test on a newly assembled frame. 

I have done a bit of boat building as well as building flying radio control model aircraft. That will make you a believer in thorough glue and good joint design.

I have the pictures and the tee shirt


----------



## rookie2531 (Jul 28, 2014)

I'm not sure everyone has looked close enough to my pics, but the topbar and the endbar are not just butt jointed, but rabbet jointed. The bottom bar is butt jointed, but instead of glued and nailed from the bottom, I have them glued and nailed in the sides. The added benefit of the wires pulled tight also aid in the end bars being squeezed tight to the top bar and the bottom bar.


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

FWIW my first batch was conventional hoffman frames to the dot. I only stapled the first batch (not glued) and they became loose after few hard prying/twisting. I plan to glue every joint going forward. Thankfully I did not assemble the whole batch but just what I needed so not all is wasted! The next batch will be certainly glued.

By the way, I was able to make about 1000 frames of the design in the first batch in 3-4 days (8 hours work day). I didn't;t kept track of exact time but is is my rough estimate.


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

beemandan said:


> I am confident that there is no scientific evidence that frame spacing has anything whatsoever to do with cell size. If I am mistaken....would someone please direct me to a legitimate source?


I don't suspect anyone will be posting a link to legitimate source.


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Just to be clear, I am not trying to get anybody to imulate what I do. I just wanted some stuff to get started. I make about 400/500 frames so far to try out and get going and just like I didn't feed my swarms this year till the last minute or treat, I am trying to learn the bare minimum that will work with the intention that if I stick with it and expand that I can adjust up. I guess you could say I am looking and creating a worst case senario so that I can figure what really needs done and also so I can see what improvements in my bee keeping style really do for me. I am not a purist but more a reinventing of the wheel so I can see the differrances and understand them for myself.

The first thing I will change next year is I will feed the next swarm I catch and guage that against what I did this year.

I am a first year guy and do not think it would be wise for anyone to do what I do.

In five years, I may have a differrent view and may be on the side that cuts down the lack of glue or may defend. This does not mean that I disstrust any of the guys that have did it longer words on the issue. I just have a flaw in that I like to see the good and the bad.

I suck up every tidbit you guys throw out, cause I am expecting adjustments on my end and trying to learn every option availible.

I can't even remember the member that said he didn't glue and it was no issue. I do remember he wasn't shy and so because it was easier, I thought I would try it. I believe that everybody glueing is done for a reason cause I see it on every thread about building frames. I am still going to try it with out glue though.
Cheers
gww


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I can't say if it matters or not for bees adapting small cell. I can say that I had a relatively easy time converting to small cell with my 1.25 inch spaced frames. My bees seemed to take right to it as compared to some of the war stories at the time about having bees that refused to draw small cell foundation.

I am a total glue fanatic. Every frame is glued with an abundance of titebond 3 and the frame joints are designed for maximum strength and support. I too tried frames sans glue in my early years. That was 40+ years ago. Never again. I took frames that I made in 1977 out of commission last spring. They were glued and nailed with 10 nails. They had been through a lot over the years but were still reasonably sound.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

crofter said:


> That about the glue joint being stronger than the wood is one of those "all depends" situations:Side grain to side grain yes; end grain absolutely not.
> 
> It is the interlocking shoulders of the sidebar and the matching shoulders created in the top bar that braces the joint against twisting and shearing. That takes the main forces off the glue and fasteners. In the conventional joint the buttressing effect of the shoulders takes the majority of the strain.
> 
> ...


Frank, I agree with all that you say. Butt joints connect end grain to side grain and are not the strongest. I think that my thicker wood will help but I won't know for sure until I've used them for a while.


----------



## dave w in virginia (Dec 28, 2016)

rookie2531 said:


> I'm not sure everyone has looked close enough to my pics, but the topbar and the endbar are not just butt jointed, but rabbet jointed. The bottom bar is butt jointed, but instead of glued and nailed from the bottom, I have them glued and nailed in the sides. The added benefit of the wires pulled tight also aid in the end bars being squeezed tight to the top bar and the bottom bar.


Rookie 2531, I'm not misreading your post, and hope I didn't sidetrack your thread. I'm not trying to say you don't have quality joints.

I was trying to bring in a perspective on speed and the use of butt joints was the reason it went fast. I did 400 mini frames quickly by using butt joints, and that took your thread off a little different angle there. I hope you don't mind.


----------



## RayMarler (Jun 18, 2008)

I think that making the frames 1.25" on center spacing will prevent drone and honey storage sized cells and make it mostly worker sized cells. I do not think it implies all small cell, but just that you get worker cell instead of drone cell. Large cell vs small cell. See?

I think they have trouble doing drone comb on that frame spacing because drones require deeper cells than worker bees.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

rookie2531 said:


> View attachment 30422
> View attachment 30423
> View attachment 30424
> View attachment 30425
> ...


This confused me and I did not notice the small rabbet in the underside of the top bar which receives the end of the sidebar. That rabbet will have a positive effect on strength but is shallow compared to the engagement where the ears of a notched sidebar project all the way up the sides of the top bar.

The top bar detail certainly is the time consuming part of recreating a no compromises frame. If a person invests the time to make efficient jigs and is disciplined enough to make large runs of the same cut before changing operations, (and you get free wood), you could turn out frames with a fairly low cash outlay. I enjoy doing a proof of concept thing but my mind wanders terribly on a repetitive task! The attention span of a Lab puppy!


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Crofter


> I enjoy doing a proof of concept thing but my mind wanders terribly on a repetitive task! The attention span of a Lab puppy!


x2

That is the reason for my small batch inefficiant building of stuff.
Cheers
gww


----------



## frustrateddrone (Jan 31, 2015)

gunter62 said:


> I have made a bunch of frames with thinner end and top bars. They work fine, and I use 9 in my 8-frame brood nests. I am also a cabinetmaker with 30 years experience. Next time I need more frames, I'll just stick with the Mann-lake PF frames which I also use. For me, making frames isn't worth the effort, and I was pretty efficient.


Wow! That's a statement I would never have thought! 
I am a plastics company owner. I look at a 2x4 lumber and the price of it. I then say to myself how much if I order frames? It's a NO BRAINER in that concept that building frames is certainly going to the option for me. Sure my frames don't have the complicated cuts, but I have yet to break a frame. Glue and staples are you kidding me. I am not a commercial bee keeper that pulls frames or boxes in transport. Even if I did break a frame, no worries, I have frames and rubber bands. I've simplified frame building to suit myself. I'll even be honest, going through 50 frames about 3 to 5 are trashed due to bowing naturally drying. I love pulling up to a construction of a house asking the foreman or worker if I can have cull lumber. I have yet to be told "NO"
I am in reality of Time/convenience/laziness VS Cost/Time. The only things I bough wooden-ware were my first 20 frames/foundations 1 bottom board/Lid The bottom board and Lid I just wasn't sure about, so looking at them and then building them was reassurance. 

I understand not everyone has the equipment nor the patience. I am just a backyard bee keeper, not a commercial or large scale


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

rookie2531 said:


> I've been following this post for making my own frames and see the width of the side bars keep coming up in reference to cell size. I do not care about cell size, but what I do care about is comb width, bridge comb and spacing in-between frames and super walls.
> 
> Pjigar, Now that you have some built, have you put them in your box? How many are you fitiing in? I'm asking, because I'm concerned about that 1.25" end bar. If I have done the math correctly, that would be 11 frames in a 10 frame box?
> 
> ...


I finally assembled some frames and yes, I can fit 11 frames in a 10-box hive. The box is a picture is actually 19 7/8" x 16 3/8" (due to my mistake in cutting lumber).


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

gww said:


> I might be in for a big awakening. I quit glueing and also went down to just one staple down through each side of the top bar and one staple up through the bottom bar. I will tell you in a couple of years just how bad that decision was. I am makeing all the cuts in the frames that the bee scource plan calls for but not utalizing them buy putting glue on them.
> 
> I read on here one other guy who does it this way and said he had no problims and so I am going to try it for a while.
> 
> ...


I would like to comment on the importance of gluing. My first batch of frames were conventional hoffman frames with 1 3/8" spacing and I only stapled them: One staple on top bar and one staple on the bottom bar. Too bad I listened to fatbeeman! These frames started twisting and getting weaker by the week.

So now I glue the joints as well as put an additional horizontal staple underside the ears as well. I can't twist or pull these frames with considerable force. I am just going to stick with glue from now on, pun intended!


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

Dan the bee guy said:


> I got some queens from bweaver and they are very good at building small cell my carnys not so much.


I didn't comment earlier. But my queens are from bweaver in central Texas as well.


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

Update: I have been making these frames for more than a year now and the only new thing I have noticed is that the top bars will have a slight bow (in vertical plane so not a big deal) after ripping the 2x in the last step. I have noticed that if I let the board dry up significantly (over 6 months) then bowing is minimized.


----------



## lobottomee (May 3, 2015)

I make my own frames but stopped making the side bars a long time ago. For deeps I make a simple top bar and a simple bottom bar. Then I drill a hole at each end, put a bit of glue on both ends of a 3/8 dowel cut to the right length, and then push the ends of the dowels into the holes in both top and bottom bars and let it dry. For shallow I don't even bother with the bottom bar. Top bar, a hole in each end, insert dowel with a bit of glue. The bees will build their comb right around the dowel following it down and will stop building at the bottom with perfect bee space to the frame below. Just make sure the dowel's are inserted square and the frame isn't twisted, and that the hole in your top and/or bottom bars are aligned correctly to give you the right bee space on the outside edge of the dowels. If you want to run wires just drill a small hole through the side of the dowels, just like the conventional side bars. If you want more strength just up-size to 7/16 or 1/2 inch dowels. Have been building frames this way for a long time and has worked great, plus they are a lot simpler to build.

lobo


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

lobottomee said:


> lobo


Cant get much simper than that! Interesting; thanks


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

Made a video about the frame making.


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

pjigar said:


> Correction: Small cell frames i.e. center-to-center spacing of 1 1/4" *which will result in small cells.* No foundation.


Coming in very late on this resurrected thread ... 

I've been running foundationless for 'ever', and have been making my own frames for some years now. My bees are all of a 'Natural' size (NOT small-cell - it's rather more the case that commercial-sized bees are LARGE-cell !).

Frame-spacing and cell-size are certainly related - but the OP has this the wrong way around: it's that bees build everything in proportion to their body size - including comb spacing. It may well be true that offering bees a tighter spacing may influence them, but it's being allowed to build cells without the pre-existing constraints of foundation which is responsible for the reduction in cell size - gradually, over several generations, towards 4.9 - 5.0mm or thereabouts.

So - if you're planning on regressing your bees to a smaller, more natural cell-size, then it's a good idea to make frames with adjustable spacing. I use tiny (3mm x 25mm) wood-screws to achieve this, and am finding that my bees have 'levelled-out' at around 33-34mm. But - should I ever spot any signs of 'unhappiness' with that, such as inter-comb adhesions, then it's simplicity itself to wind the spacing screws inwards by a millimetre. The other BIG advantage of screws is that the propolis build-up seen with Hoffman side-bar spacers has now become a thing of the past.
(With further reduction in unwanted propolis in mind, I'm now working on a standing-frame modification for standard boxes - more on that in another thread)

FWIW, I make all my own frames (for internal apiary use) from 10mm x 22mm battens - making the frame itself (without top bar) first, then adding the top bar afterwards. The resulting 20mm 'double thickness' top bar held by it's lugs can then easily support a 56lb weight suspended centrally from it, without bowing. The same weight has been used to test the 'glue-only' joints with 100% success. No nails or other fixings are used in standard frame construction. The only exception to this is when building the much deeper Layens frames, where I do insert a single 3mm wood-screw in each corner of the frame.
LJ


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

gww said:


> I am a first year guy and do not think it would be wise for anyone to do what I do.
> 
> In five years, I may have a differrent view and may be on the side that cuts down the lack of glue or may defend. This does not mean that I disstrust any of the guys that have did it longer words on the issue. I just have a flaw in that I like to see the good and the bad.
> 
> ...


Quick comment here on Glue on frames. I have never glued frames. When My grandfather was showing me the ropes he did not use glue. I guess we are creatures of habit. Can you rip the top off of a frame that is not glued?, well of course. Do I? not real often. In the last 8 or so years, I have tore 2 tops off deep frames that were very propolized into the sides of the box. both times I said "self, you are about to tear the top off the frame...**** the top came off" I guess you get a "feel" for what a frame can take when it comes to twisting and prying.
I know just about when the frame comes apart. and don't go there. Seems to be similar to twisting off a screw or bolt, if the torque is high enough it will break. Can most guys twist off bolts ? sure,,,do they? only till they figure out the limits. With the right size pry bar or grips can tear a frame apart that is glued as well. I would say glue allows more flexibility in using excessive force... My 2 Cents. Some of my hives love to propolize, if your bees are that way then glue can help, so can requeening IMO. Do what works. if you find you need glue then by all means use it. I build 50 frames last night, 50 more a night till I am done. Non Gluer and ok with it.

GG


----------



## Gino45 (Apr 6, 2012)

Gray Goose said:


> Quick comment here on Glue on frames. I have never glued frames.
> 
> Another quick comment: Grooved bottom bars often pull out
> without glue....solid bottom bars not so much.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

little_john said:


> Coming in very late on this resurrected thread ...
> 
> I've been running foundationless for 'ever', and have been making my own frames for some years now. My bees are all of a 'Natural' size (NOT small-cell - it's rather more the case that commercial-sized bees are LARGE-cell !).
> 
> ...


Little John, quick question. With the smaller space in between combs 1 bee vrs 2 bees that the closer spacing offers, Do you see where the Supercedure Queen cells are attached to both combs rather that the one the cell originated from? I have noticed in the past with close spaced combs that during an inspection, when removing frames the Q cells in between get tore in half. Has that been your observation from working the close spaced combs? I am just concerned that If I have a failing queen and I inspect I may destroy the sealed Q cell while inspecting.
thanks
GG


----------



## pjigar (Sep 13, 2016)

Gray Goose said:


> Little John, quick question. With the smaller space in between combs 1 bee vrs 2 bees that the closer spacing offers, Do you see where the Supercedure Queen cells are attached to both combs rather that the one the cell originated from? I have noticed in the past with close spaced combs that during an inspection, when removing frames the Q cells in between get tore in half. Has that been your observation from working the close spaced combs? I am just concerned that If I have a failing queen and I inspect I may destroy the sealed Q cell while inspecting.
> thanks
> GG


Yes, I have tore a queen cell last year with narrow frames!


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Gray Goose said:


> Little John, quick question. With the smaller space in between combs 1 bee vrs 2 bees that the closer spacing offers, Do you see where the Supercedure Queen cells are attached to both combs rather that the one the cell originated from? I have noticed in the past with close spaced combs that during an inspection, when removing frames the Q cells in between get tore in half. Has that been your observation from working the close spaced combs? I am just concerned that If I have a failing queen and I inspect I may destroy the sealed Q cell while inspecting.
> thanks
> GG


Sorry for not replying - how did I miss that ?

Our normal spacing is 35mm - I run at around 33-34mm, so there's not a huge amount of difference. 



> With the smaller space in between combs 1 bee vrs 2 bees that the closer spacing offers


It doesn't work like that: the inter-comb space (which is where the supersedure q/cells are formed, of course) is still 2 bee-spaces, it's just that those bee-spaces are smaller. The brood combs themselves are slightly thinner (less thick) too - all these reductions result from keeping the smaller 'natural-sized' bees. All comb dimensions are scaled-down accordingly.

There will always be a risk of slicing the side off a supersedure cell if a frame is lifted out vertically (I've done this myself a few times) - the best technique is to lift an end frame out first, then pull each frame back into the space that's created - only lifting out a frame with q/cells on when you can see that it's clear to do so ...

Again, sorry for not replying earlier. 
LJ


----------

