Fender 1000 String Breakage

[Dean Parks]

When I talked to Ralph in Dallas this spring, he said that in those days, he found coat hangers very useful.

[Donny Hinson]

Just an outsider looking on trying to understand this. So why do the Fenders have a bigger problem with string breakage than all the 24" and 24 1/2" scale pedal steels that followed?

Well, on the early ones, the long string length sure didn't help...especially in conjunction with the radii (of the bridge, and where the string hooked), the string length past the bridge, and the fact the strings were dragging on both ends. As Jim said, some of this can be assuaged with lubrication and polishing, but not all. And, remember the 400 and 1000 were never designed for E9th tunings. Leo and his crew had never contemplated players using a high G or G# on there! (Jim...that's also the main reason straight guitars don't break the G# string - they don't have one!)

After the E9th and C6th became the standard, Leo adapted by (finally) using rollers and a cam-type bridge, along with the shorter string length. Those guitars had nowhere near the problems of the older ones, but the damage was done. No matter that string breakage problem practically went away - the 2-pull limitation (along with the inherent "sponginess" of the cables, and the occasional loop breakage) just doomed the brand.

To Leo's credit, he made many changes on his original design (41 in all, at my last count), and he even added longer lowering springs - an improvement that most all new guitar makers today STILL haven't adopted!

No, it was never the perfect guitar, and probably never would have been. But then again, neither are any of them that are made today. They all have faults. As in life, everything is compromise.

[Don Blood]

David,
My opinion, based on the Fender 1000 that I used to own, the string doesn't attach to a roller as it does on my Sho-Bud. There was a roller on mine, but the roller was small in diameter, and the string was pulled over the roller at a fairly sharp angle. On most steels, the ball end and twisted thicker part of the string is mounted on the roller, but on the fender, it is not attached to the roller. I fixed my problem by adding another link to add to the hog ring to make the twisted part ride over the roller, but not too far over as to cause a change in the tone. I went from lots of broken strings, to no broken strings. I made the link out of coat hangar wire, and put a 90 degree twist in it.

Don Blood

[Jim Sliff]

Leo and his crew had never contemplated players using a high G or G# on there! (Jim...that's also the main reason straight guitars don't break the G# string - they don't have one!)

That's true, but the break angle of the string over the saddle with a Parsons-White is normally quite a bit sharper than on a Fender steel, which is at least as significant; some of the other b-bender designs use an internal pull mechanism and the string turns about 60 degrees rather than the shallow angle of the steel angle.

Additionally, the 6-string saddles were never designed to have anything slide over them at all and are generally not very smooth. The multiple-groove saddles are particularly tough to dal with, but can still be smoothed out - so the polishing/burr removal becomes just as critical.

It seems there are those who try to play E9 and break stringss, and those that try to play E9 and don't. The ones that don't have done, at least from my email conversations, the same care in setup I'm suggesting. I can't say it will eliminate breakage, but you can certainly make it manageable without having to change your tuning or just give up.

And I'd never put the ball-attachment windng on the bridge. That'll just wipe out the response and sustain of that string - you're not allowing the string to vibrate properly.

[Don Blood]

And I'd never put the ball-attachment windng on the bridge. That'll just wipe out the response and sustain of that string - you're not allowing the string to vibrate properly.

On virtually every steel I've owned with roller's for the bridge, including my Sho-Bud, the ball attachment winding is on the bridge. The Fender was the only one that didn't do that.

[b0b]

The bridge in this case is a small roller, like the roller nut on a modern steel. I agree with Jim that the winding should not sit on top of the bridge.

[Don Blood]

b0b,
I agree to a point also, but after much experimentation, and having lubed and polished, and still breaking strings, I found that this works perfect, providing that you don't go too far over the bridge. If the winding goes past the center point, the tone will be affected. If the furthest travel stops right at the center point, or a little on the bridge side, strings will last a long time. I've spent several hours finding the perfect place however, and most people aren't that patient.

Hope you resolve your issue, I really like the sound of the vintage Fenders.

Don Blood

[Eddie Cunningham]

I have an old "1000" that I put on a shorter fret board and moved the nut closer by 1 3/4 inches and E 9th plays fine with hardly any .012 G# breakage. I have the "bent hook" on the string puller to give a better ( straight pull ) angle. Works fine for me !! Eddie "C" ( the old geezer )

[Jim Sliff]

If the winding goes past the center point, the tone will be affected.

True - and the implication was that the winding was on top of the roller, which is what my comment was about.

I've had a couple Shobuds as well where the windings are on the roller - on the BACK of it. They just, as b0b says, should not be on the *top* where the contact point is.

[Tim Whitlock]

b0b - Curious to know if any of these sure fired guarantees are working on your guitar?

[b0b]

I'm sort of slow at getting things done. I'll probly get my round tooit later this week.

[Jim Sliff]

Tim - Note I didn't gie "sure fire guarantees"....just what's worked in the past. I still advise changing a high G# fairly often if that tuning is used, and honestly I do think they are better suited for other, lower-range tunings. That's why quite a few of us have adopted Sneaky's B6, or some partial version of it (you can get the stripped-down essentials of it with 4 pedals!).

However, for those who want to play E9, in my experience the guitars, wen set up carefully, work fine and string breakage is not a severe problem. It's been an issue for years because most players would string them up, oil the bridge, and play...and that G# unsurprisingly would snap before too long (or in some cases right away). The care taken with the saddle in fine-polishing it is something I've just adapted from 30 years of work with various versions of stringbenders - and not, as Donny implies, just ones with looser strings. I've had them on mandolins, .009 E strings (using the bender and then bending another full step by hand) and various guitars with much sharper string angles at the bridge than on long-scale Fenders.

Guaranteed to work? No. One major reason is that the player's right hand has a huge effect on string breakage on ANY guitar. I know players who don't bend strings on 6-string electrics and break at least one string a night; I bend like crazy, and when I was actively playing 6-string I don't think I broke a string on stage for almost 15 years. Part was guitar setup, but I'm convinced another large factor is string attack - force, direction and distance from the bridge. "Touch" players who tend to pick lightly, turn their amps up, and use piick attack as a volume control seem to suffer much less breakage than players who use a fairly constant attack. Not having played steel that long but having observed many players, I see more "constant attack" among steel players with the volume pedal used to control the "punch".

That could certainly be an issue as well - I rarely use my volume pedal, and I had noticed over the years Sneaky didn't use his "normally" either - using two feet on the pedals forces you to control a lot of things with your right hand. Just some more "food for thought".

[Tim Whitlock]

Ok, but you hurt my feelings (sniff) when you implied I don't know how to take care of my guitar or was just some kind of gossip.

it's not the problem alot of folks make it out to be, who either didn't know how to maintain their guitars to lessen the potential problems or in some cases haven't even played one and are just repeating posts they've read.

I understand you are offering your experience with the bender guitars and your 1000 (short or long scale?), but I tell you my long scale 1000 does not like the G# - A pull. You can barely get a .011 tuned to G#. By the time you get it up to pitch the tuner will barely turn. Then when you apply the pedal - snap! I guess a smaller string would help but then you lose so much volume it throws your strings out of balance with the lower strings being so much louder.

I do admit I have not tried bending the hog ring to 90 degrees. That would probably lessen the stress on the ball end of the string. Also it would no doubt help if the offending note was not used as the first string because the angle at the nut is so severe. Since b0b is using it as his third string, he may be able to get by maybe in combination with bending the hog ring. I think the guitar will still be breaking strings at a good rate. b0b - please keep us posted on your findings when you get around to it.

[b0b]

I'm going to drop it to D9th. That should fix it.

I just got some new return springs, too. That should improve the pedal action.

[Donny Hinson]

The long-scale Fenders just didn't like the G#. When most of the N'ville players were using them, they were brand new, and that bridge was polished, chromed, case-hardened steel. No matter, everyone had trouble with the E9th tuning, and that's why the overwhelming majority just went to a D9th. My ol' long-scale 1000 was my only guitar for 7 1/2 years - and I played it day-in, and day-out. I know of no other "string breakage" problem on those guitars, other than the 3rd when you tried to coax it up to E9th.

I also don't know of anyone today making an E9th (keyed) guitar with a 24 1/2" scale...

...and I think I know why.

[Roger Shackelton]

I believe Sierra still makes a 25 inch scale guitar.

[Bob Tuttle]

Sierra only makes the 25 inch scale in the keyless model.

[Jim Sliff]

and that bridge was polished, chromed, case-hardened steel.

Bu they still were nt a smooth as they could have been - they didn't need to spend the money to nail things down to really precise tolerances.

It's been acknowledged that the guitars were not designed fr that kind off tuning. But it will work, and not everyone breaks string son them immediately. The inconsistency in breakage indicates inconsistencies in setup and/or technique; both can be adjusted if you want to use one for E9 to get the tone and feel o f the long-scale Fender.

It's odd that there seem to be players against the whole idea - why? If it's worked for some players, is it not worth trying? I don't quite get the whole negative attitude.

[b0b]

I don't have a problem going to D9th. E9th is pretty high, and if you have both chromatic strings it doesn't go low enough anyway.

[Jim Sliff]

Actually I prefer the idea of D9 - I don't care for the high sound of E9, and B6 works for me (with an .015 1st string). D9 with the right strings and amp should get a nice, fat tone.

[b0b]

I replaced the springs and strung the front neck up to Dmaj9. It sounds really sweet! Here's what I settled on: [tab] P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8
.014 E
.016 C# -C
.013 F# +G
.016 D +D# -C#
.019 A ++B
.024 F# +G
.030 E ++F#
.034 D -C#
-------
.015 D
.014 E +F
.017 C +C# -B
.019 A ++B
.024 G -F#
.030 E -Eb
.036 C +C#
.042 A
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 [/tab]

[Paul Redmond]

b0b - I had bad breakage problems on my BMI D-11 years ago due to the fact that the guitar was basically a D-12!!! On the front half of the tuner housings, the position of the tuning heads was moved out one whole position from what it would have been on a 10-string neck. That added over an inch of unnecessary string length making the small diameter strings prone to breakage. I wound up using a George L's .010-1/2 and have not had a problem since.
True, these long-scale guitars were never intended to pull a G# up to A. There are limitations no matter how you cut it. Didn't Jimmy Day tune down to D-9th just to avoid the breakage problem?? The D-9th (or like Red Rhodes --- Eb-6th/diatonic) tunings can and often do make a lot of sense. I think the E tunings were an evolutionary thing anyhow. E is not a key that any orchestra ever enjoys playing in. Eb is a very palatable choice though. D only involves two sharps and is easily played. I really don't think we've even come close to finding the ultimate tuning for pedal steels. I think we're on the cusp of a whole new way of thinking on the instrument. The 'double-neck' way of thinking is all but dead. Most present-day players want to find it all on one neck. I truly believe this is possible. I've posted many times re: my 'short Uni' 10-string setup where I leave the other 20+ pounds of guitar at home because I find 95% of what I want on 10 strings instead of 12, or worse yet, 20 or 24. ALL tunings are compromises. There IS no IDEAL 100% cure-all tuning. To compensate for this, we all must learn to do something that all non-pedal players have known all along. . .we must use the bar!!!
PRR

[David Doggett]

Um, I have nothing in particular against a D tuning. But I would like to say that the E tuning makes great sense for a steel, and is way beyond "evolutional." Most steelers come from guitar, and so the E tuning is easy to understand and already familiar as sort of the home key for guitar; and bar positions are the same as F barre type chord positions on guitar. Also, most steelers play with guitar bands, not orchestras. It's a guitar world. The guitar friendly keys of E, A, G, C and D all work out well on an E neck steel. And these same keys are good for orchestral strings and keyboards.

The keys of Eb and Bb are loathed by orchestras and keyboards, and are only liked by horns in those keys. The concert keys of Bb and Eb are played as C and F, respectively, on Bb instruments; and as G and C, respectively, on Eb instruments. Therefore, they have few sharps or flats for straight major harmonies. However, when you get into all the flats involved in rock-blues or blues-based jazz, C, F and G loose their advantage even for Bb and Eb horns; and the guitar keys of E, A, G, C and D are not so bad. I play Bb and Eb saxes, and because of playing so much with guitar bands, I have gotten use to the guitar friendly keys, and actually find the concert keys of Bb and Eb not very familiar or useful. So I think E is a fine key for steel, and don't see the point of a steel tuned to a flat key. D would seem to be an okay steel key also, as is A or C.

[b0b]

I play various tunings because I have several steel guitars. I like playing in flat keys on C6th or on marimba (a keyboard instrument), but they always seem awkward on the E9th.

The Fender 1000 is a historical instrument. I'm not concerned with making it do all of the things that a U-12 or my D-12 Williams Crossover can do. I'm happy to have it work as its designers intended.

That said, the D9/C6 combination seems to work really well on this guitar. The front neck has a solid country flavor, and the back neck sounds wonderful for blues, swing and Hawaiian music. The main things missing are triad rhythm parts (both tunings are sort of high) and the volume pedal sound (I need both feet on the pedals).

I charted out an alternative front neck Sacred Steel E7 copedent which would work well if I wanted to play more rock, but for now I'm going to stick with the D9 and maybe even play a few country gigs on it. You Fender guys are right - it's absurdly easy to change the copedent on these guitars. I can change pedals around in less than 5 minutes. It takes longer to think up a change than it does to put it on the guitar.

[Jim Sliff]

The main things missing are triad rhythm parts (both tunings are sort of high)

That's one thing that moved me to B6 after several tries at E9 or close variants - everything sounded too high to me compared to 6-string. With the B6 tuning I'm close to the low end on6-string guitar (one step higher with a low F# on the steel) and "pedals down" gives me the same fret positions as 6-string. At the high end, the open string is a D# - a half-step lower than 6-string. So the overall output is in a range I'm used to hearing, and it made a huge difference in being able to "play what I hear", which is not E9 pedal steel stuff but Stringbender guitar parts. Having gotten used to the genral positions, changes and sounds it's become much easier to simulate steel guitar parts I want to play and also play a lot of what I used to on guitar - exactly what my original goal was. E9 didn't cut it for that, and C6 lacked the changes I "heard" - it took mesing with the Fender and Sneaky's copedent to find what works for me.

And interestingly (at least to me) it ported over to my 10-string GFI really well, with the GFI also having a somewhat "Fender-ish" tone as well. The difference there is that it's much more difficult to change things around, and the feel changes your playing - Fenders push you into a certain way of playing. Some like it, some don't - but they do have a different feel than any other guitar.

And yes, one of the coolest things about a Fender is being able to change copedents almost instantly. Makes experiments with small modifications and trying new things a breeze.