Author |
Topic: Cabinet drop and the back apron |
James Collett
From: San Dimas, CA
|
Posted 13 Mar 2008 2:40 pm
|
|
I was tuning my steel and came up with an idea- Does a steel with the shaped back apron have more cabinet drop than an otherwise identical rectangular back apron? Anyone ever thought along the same lines?
Thanks, _________________ James Collett |
|
|
|
Jim Bob Sedgwick
From: Clinton, Missouri USA
|
Posted 13 Mar 2008 3:13 pm
|
|
No |
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From: London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 13 Mar 2008 6:42 pm
|
|
I say in theory the answer would be yes. That is because when you hit a pedal, the aprons flex. The wider and thicker the apron is, the less flex and the less potential for cab drop. |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From: The Great Northwest
|
Posted 13 Mar 2008 7:17 pm apron
|
|
I don't know about apron flex, but I've always wondered if a truss rod on the underside of the cabinet (w/ the convex side bowing up towards the strings and the ends anchored to the endplates) would combat cabinet drop. |
|
|
|
Eric West
From: Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 13 Mar 2008 7:31 pm
|
|
My Marrs Retrofit/Reman has a piec of angle running along the front that the axles pivot in. A vast improvement on screwing the bearings into the front apron. Mainly becase a row of screws in line with the grain is a poor idea, but It probably helps cabinet drop too.
I've never been convinced what 10lbs or so more stress on a steel guitar body can produce cabinet drop. Probably more along the lines of the nain finger axles moving, or ...
Anyhow. A Truss rod is an idea, but my MArrs seems to have the best idea I've seen.
I have none that I can measure.
My ProIII finally had quite a bit. I think it was the finger axles after a few thousand gigs, and 25 years..
EJL |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From: The Great Northwest
|
Posted 13 Mar 2008 11:37 pm
|
|
An interesting experiment might be to buttress up the cabinet w/ 1 or 2 additional temporary "legs" evenly spaced between the front legs.....something like those expanding shower curtain rods, that lengthen by twisting. They should provide a counterforce to eliminate cabinet drop, it that's the problem.
If the "detuning" doesn't diminish, that would argue for changer axle deflection being the culprit. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 14 Mar 2008 4:22 am
|
|
Certainly, it might have an affect, but I'd think that affect would be minimal. Anyhow, most of the strain is on the front of the cabinet, caused by the downward pull of the pedal rods. |
|
|
|
Chris Lucker
From: Los Angeles, California USA
|
Posted 14 Mar 2008 1:46 pm
|
|
I have a Bigsby and a Sho-Bud with no rear aprons and an Emmons with so little rear apron that there is no place to mount cross shafts, and I notice no appreciable cabinet drop. |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From: Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 14 Mar 2008 3:57 pm
|
|
Well, there is plenty of good opinion that changer slack contributes to cabinet drop. But here's a simple experiment anyone can do. Watch a tuning meter on any string while you put your hands near the middle of the cabinet and put some weight on the body. And, related to this, the weakest part of the body is where the changer hole takes a big chunk out of it all the way across its width. I'm thinking all of the above, including the apron. |
|
|
|
Bill Ford
From: Graniteville SC Aiken
|
Posted 14 Mar 2008 4:23 pm
|
|
fwiw...I used a small crescent wrench to pull the "A"pedal with the bellcrank...no detune on E/4th string, did the same on the "B",same results.... "A", and/or "B" activated with the pedal(s)caused about a 3 cents drop on both my guitars. My CLR has a 2"X1/4" aluminum angle across the front for the crossrods bushings, and pedal stop mounts, also the front, and back apron is full 3/4" maple, the top is 5/4" maple.
Tony..A friend of mine, who is a fine PSG builder, and PP mechanic suggested basically the same as you did, also he mentioned a linear support system,as Eric mentioned.
Personal opinion...If it were a simple fix, you would think all the PSG builders would have it on their guitars. _________________ Bill Ford S12 CLR, S12 Lamar keyless, Misc amps&toys Sharp Covers
Steeling for Jesus now!!! |
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From: London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 14 Mar 2008 5:49 pm
|
|
My homebuilt SD10 is made out of 7/8" birdseye maple.
(It weighs 41 lbs.)
One day I measured a half cent cab drop. Another day , 2.5 cents.
2.5 was the most I ever measured.
Since it not likely has to do with the day of the week, the reason for the difference must be that I stomped harder on the pedals.
What say you all?
edited to say: BTW, my back apron is a full width. No cutout. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 15 Mar 2008 6:08 am
|
|
Pushin' too hard on the pedals will cause tuning problems on almost any steel.
Best not to do it. |
|
|
|
John Billings
From: Ohio, USA
|
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From: London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 16 Mar 2008 4:36 pm
|
|
That's gotta be one of my favorite color schemes |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 18 Mar 2008 1:49 pm
|
|
That looks like a piece of thin sheel metal that someone has added to cover the wooden apron? I'm no expert on 'Buds, but I can't recall having seen one like that before. |
|
|
|
John Billings
From: Ohio, USA
|
Posted 18 Mar 2008 1:54 pm
|
|
Donny, I put that guitar up as sort of a joke. It's advertised as a like new, under-the-bed guitar. In my book, it's not even a Shobud anymore. It's been refinished, looks to have a Marrs undercarriage, and the aluminum back apron is just a piece of metal screwed onto the wooden back apron! "Under the bed"???Pshaw! |
|
|
|
John Billings
From: Ohio, USA
|
Posted 18 Mar 2008 1:58 pm
|
|
It sold for $2,576. I hope whoever bought it isn't expecting a "real" Shobud! This guitar was for sale here on the Forum earlier, with the same false description. It was debunked here! |
|
|
|
John Fabian
From: Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 5:23 am
|
|
The rear apron makes little difference since there is little force applied to it. |
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From: London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 6:22 am
|
|
John Fabian wrote: |
The rear apron makes little difference since there is little force applied to it. |
Then I would submit, John, that if we weed away all the parts that "little force is applied to", that soon we will have a guitar that would be terribly prone to drop.
Why do some (most?) manufacturers install the reinforcement rod across the bottom of the guitar from apron to apron? Is this not to counteract the movement of the aprons as they are flexed when pedals are applied?
If so, one would think that the narrower (and thinner) a back apron is, then this apron would be prone to twist and flex and contribute to the overall instability of the guitar. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 7:30 am
|
|
Bent Romnes wrote: |
If so, one would think that the narrower (and thinner) a back apron is, then this apron would be prone to twist and flex and contribute to the overall instability of the guitar. |
Bent, the way I read John's reply is, "It matters, but not enough to worry about". Personally, I think the whole "cabinet drop" thing is a moot point for modern steels. Not one I've played has enough for it to be considered what I would call a significant problem. That's a far cry from some steels I played 40 years ago that had so much cabinet drop, not only was tuning and playing difficult, but the whole center of the guitar visibly sagged!!!
Some guitars have a little drop, some have a little more, while others have none. If it doesn't affect the playing of the instrument, best to just forget it and move on. |
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From: London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 8:31 am
|
|
Donny Hinson wrote: |
Bent, the way I read John's reply is, "It matters, but not enough to worry about". Personally, I think the whole "cabinet drop" thing is a moot point for modern steels. |
Donny,
Yes, I can agree that the point is moot. But the question was posted and answers were given. Not that I lose sleep over cab drop, I also see it as a very small irritant, but at the same time a very interesting one. Any questions risen on this subject I usually try to reply as best I can in my attempt to learn.
I can't see how John's answer could be interpreted any differently than what was written. He wrote in plain enough English. To the point, nothing evasive.
The same with my answer to John: addressing his post exactly.
No doubt that some of the steels of yesteryear had tremendous drop. So things have improved to the point of almost perfection. Still I think it is a valid point to be fielded since some cab drop is still there and every manufacturer are at least concerned about it. |
|
|
|
John Fabian
From: Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 9:07 am
|
|
Bent Romnes wrote: |
Then I would submit, John, that if we weed away all the parts that "little force is applied to", that soon we will have a guitar that would be terribly prone to drop.
|
I did not say you could "weed it away". Little is not the same as none. The downward force of the pedals hitting the stops mounted on the FRONT apron are far greater than those applied to the rear apron. Also the force gets spread over a larger area as you move away from the front apron and that also lessens the effect.
I think that this particular statement of yours is an example of the debating technique of Reductio ad absurdum.
Bent Romnes wrote: |
Why do some (most?) manufacturers install the reinforcement rod across the bottom of the guitar from apron to apron? Is this not to counteract the movement of the aprons as they are flexed when pedals are applied? |
To prevent the cross shafts from falling out when the wood in the cabinet swells up due to atmospheric changes. |
|
|
|
John Billings
From: Ohio, USA
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 10:04 am
|
|
"To prevent the cross shafts from falling out when the wood in the cabinet swells up due to atmospheric changes"
That's gotta be a joke, right? |
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From: London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 10:23 am
|
|
John,
Excuse me, I did not write this with the intent to be argumentative, throw your knowledge into doubt or anything that you might have thought when you said my my statement is a reduction to an absurdity.
If you took my words as such, and you were offended by them in any way, I will certainly apologize and point to my explanation above and reiterate that I am only here to learn.
'Weed it away' were my words, not yours and I did not attribute them to you. But you will have to agree that if one strengthening factor is taken away (weeded), however minuscule, will weaken the whole structure
Yes, I agree, a lot more force is applied to the front apron.
As for your other explanation, I put a question mark by that one, like John Billngs did. How can one cross brace, mounted underneath from apron to apron, prevent the cross rods from falling out due to atmospheric changes? All the material I have read on this brace is that it is there to help prevent flexing |
|
|
|
John Fabian
From: Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 19 Mar 2008 11:13 am
|
|
It's no joke. If what you are talking about is the piece of steel attached to the bottom of the front and rear aprons, its main purpose is to prevent the aprons from bowing and having the cross shafts fall out ( or locking up if it bows inward). Think of it as a cabinet stabilizer. |
|
|
|