The Steel Guitar Forum Store 

Post new topic Cabinet drop and the back apron
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Reply to topic
Author Topic:  Cabinet drop and the back apron
James Collett

 

From:
San Dimas, CA
Post  Posted 13 Mar 2008 2:40 pm    
Reply with quote

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, Wink
_________________
James Collett
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Jim Bob Sedgwick

 

From:
Clinton, Missouri USA
Post  Posted 13 Mar 2008 3:13 pm    
Reply with quote

No
View user's profile Send private message

Bent Romnes


From:
London,Ontario, Canada
Post  Posted 13 Mar 2008 6:42 pm    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Tony Glassman


From:
The Great Northwest
Post  Posted 13 Mar 2008 7:17 pm     apron
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message

Eric West


From:
Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.
Post  Posted 13 Mar 2008 7:31 pm    
Reply with quote

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..

Smile

EJL
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Tony Glassman


From:
The Great Northwest
Post  Posted 13 Mar 2008 11:37 pm    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message

Donny Hinson

 

From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
Post  Posted 14 Mar 2008 4:22 am    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Chris Lucker

 

From:
Los Angeles, California USA
Post  Posted 14 Mar 2008 1:46 pm    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

David Doggett


From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
Post  Posted 14 Mar 2008 3:57 pm    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Bill Ford


From:
Graniteville SC Aiken
Post  Posted 14 Mar 2008 4:23 pm    
Reply with quote

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!!!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Bent Romnes


From:
London,Ontario, Canada
Post  Posted 14 Mar 2008 5:49 pm    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Donny Hinson

 

From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
Post  Posted 15 Mar 2008 6:08 am    
Reply with quote

Pushin' too hard on the pedals will cause tuning problems on almost any steel.

Best not to do it.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

John Billings


From:
Ohio, USA
Post  Posted 15 Mar 2008 6:36 am    
Reply with quote

Here's a Shobud with an aluminum back apron.
http://tinyurl.com/2qcbq2
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Bent Romnes


From:
London,Ontario, Canada
Post  Posted 16 Mar 2008 4:36 pm    
Reply with quote

That's gotta be one of my favorite color schemes
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Donny Hinson

 

From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
Post  Posted 18 Mar 2008 1:49 pm    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

John Billings


From:
Ohio, USA
Post  Posted 18 Mar 2008 1:54 pm    
Reply with quote

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!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

John Billings


From:
Ohio, USA
Post  Posted 18 Mar 2008 1:58 pm    
Reply with quote

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!
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

John Fabian


From:
Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 5:23 am    
Reply with quote

The rear apron makes little difference since there is little force applied to it.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Bent Romnes


From:
London,Ontario, Canada
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 6:22 am    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Donny Hinson

 

From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 7:30 am    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Bent Romnes


From:
London,Ontario, Canada
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 8:31 am    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

John Fabian


From:
Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 9:07 am    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

John Billings


From:
Ohio, USA
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 10:04 am    
Reply with quote

"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?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Bent Romnes


From:
London,Ontario, Canada
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 10:23 am    
Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

John Fabian


From:
Mesquite, Texas USA * R.I.P.
Post  Posted 19 Mar 2008 11:13 am    
Reply with quote

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.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website


All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Jump to:  

Our Online Catalog
Strings, CDs, instruction,
steel guitars & accessories

www.SteelGuitarShopper.com

Please review our Forum Rules and Policies

Steel Guitar Forum LLC
PO Box 237
Mount Horeb, WI 53572 USA


Click Here to Send a Donation

Email admin@steelguitarforum.com for technical support.


BIAB Styles
Ray Price Shuffles for
Band-in-a-Box

by Jim Baron
HTTP