Fender 1000 And Its Credits

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 26 Jul 2006 5:37 am

My intention in this Fender 1000 post was to appeal to former owners of the instrument to share some of their interesting and unusual past experiences. To date, it is quite apparent that something is amiss, in that my own pitched battles with Fender's cables, dictate, that others were making repairs in that time period. For my part, I soon became aware of the cable surprises that would surface, usually at inopportune times. Each time that I went under the "hood" of the Fender my determination to "conquer" was responsible for my acute inclination to overcome Fender's weak point. Just as a chain is as "strong" as its weakest link, the cables of the F. 1000 (early) models were subject to poorly soldered connections. My intervention became routine, as I commenced to redesign weak points, left and right. The sturdy spacing of the "legs" and wide expanse of the double eight string had not been overlooked as improvements were made on a regular basis. The changes resulted in a single "neck" with 4 knees, beautifully tooled leather with eagles, and colorful American Indian designs. I will refer to one weak point in the cable attachments. The wonderful little pulleys facilitated entrance of the cable tip to be soldered within. The slippage and disconnect became a probability. To counter that mechanical failure, I purposely drilled on a bias an opening whereby the cable tip would be in a workable position to flare and resolder. Actually, the challenges became an enjoyable pursuit, that is to say, learn as you go.

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 26 July 2006 at 06:41 AM.][This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 26 July 2006 at 06:44 AM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 26 Jul 2006 5:51 am

You gotta admit it's an illogical numbering sequence:

S-8 is 400
S-10 is 800
D-8 is 1000
D-10 is 2000

Right? Makes no sense to me.

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 26 Jul 2006 6:46 am

In my experience, the Fender 1000 was a tank, a "workhorse" that never complained from rough-handling or the extremes of temperatures while being hauled or stored in car trunks.

However, I never did find an appropriate use for those mechanical mutes, nor was I ever able to find out what the intent was to install them?

Here is a pic of one of the two 1000's I owned back in the 1960's.

<img width=600 src=http://genejones.bizland.com/index.10.jpg>

------------------
<img height=100 width=70 src=http://genejones.bizland.com/Scan10095.jpg>
www.genejones.com

[This message was edited by Gene Jones on 27 July 2006 at 04:30 AM.]

basilh · Post by **basilh** » 26 Jul 2006 11:00 am

Gene, If you want to hear the mutes in use as they were intended, check this .. http://www.waikiki-islanders.com/assets/multimedia/1-25clip.mp3
Basil

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 26 Jul 2006 12:16 pm

Basil, thanks for the demonstration clip.....well played and effective use of the mutes.

Gene

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 26 Jul 2006 12:47 pm

Bill asked about the pulleys, and why the cables didn't come loose from them as often as the other places I mentioned. If memory serves me correctly, the cables were staked into the pulleys, and then soldered.

One interesting mod on these guitars is eliminating the pulleys, but keeping (and improving) the all-cable setup. I'll elaborate on that one later!

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 26 Jul 2006 1:59 pm

Donny,

The little pulleys with their steel on steel (cable & pulley apertures) were a hostile medium for common solder. The solder would hold fast on the cable, due to its tendency to seek out "crevices". The pulleys featured no nonferrous gripping edges to bond with the solder. When the cables pulled free, no solder remained in the pulleys in question.

Jody Carver · Post by **Jody Carver** » 26 Jul 2006 2:54 pm

I am enjoying Bill and Donny making their idea's and thought's to all of us. I think that Fender missed the boat by not having you
as Research and Development on board with us back then.And thanks to Basil for the clip on the mute's. I never used them, but they did sound fine.

Great thread and a fine photo of my Cowboy friend Gene Jones.

My Best to all of you who have made this thread so interesting.[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 26 July 2006 at 03:56 PM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 26 Jul 2006 3:52 pm

Bill, ferrous or non-ferrous materials isn't the issue. If the pulleys were properly cleaned and tinned, and a seperate flux was used (a must with large parts), there wasn't a problem. Soft soldering reliably to steel is no big deal (check your pantry), it's done all the time to tin cans!

The problem was probably that most amateur repairmen/players religiously oiled the pulleys (and that oil wicked everywhere), and then they didn't clean them thoroughly come soldering time. You see, there ain't many things that will stick well to oily metal, solder included.

Casey Lowmiller · Post by **Casey Lowmiller** » 26 Jul 2006 5:32 pm

With all the allegedly new & improved Solder out on the market & all the info from the forum, anyone with a good ol' Fender Cable guitar is set!!!

Casey

------------------
Known Coast to Coast as
"The Man with The Plan"

Carter-Starter, Fender Pedal 800, Fender Champion, Guyatone Double-neck, a cheap Artisan & a Homemade Double-neck!

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 26 Jul 2006 6:34 pm

"If rollers didn't improve the guitar, I assure you that no one would be using them, they're costly to make and assemble." Accepted "fact"?

Yep. But only in the steel world. Simply - many 6-string guitar companies made...and then discontinued...them in the 70's/80's. They didn't have an affect on breakage, and hurt tone. Steel companies still use them...because they do. Because somehow it got accepted as "fact" without any data.

I've seen lots of technical issues/discussions (like the infamous "total string length" issue) that were dead long ago in that "other" guitar world, where engineers actually studied the facts.

The roller concept proved to be inconsistent. The break angle is far more important than friction, and there's little break angle at the bridge on a 1000. Rollers DO help reduce string breakage to a small degree - but far more strings break at the changer or hog rings (due to the extreme bend and the immediately weakened metal) than the bridge, unless the bridge has a burr. And the rollers HAVE been proven to kill some sustain and hurt tone, so the 6-string world went back to non-rollers, even on a lot of the trem guitars. I like the prototype "shims" on my 1000, as they don't seem to compromise the tone, and IF there is a friction problem it's overcome. But it's solved just as well with teflon or another decent lube.

There are folks who think rollers are a MUST. That's OK. Just realize that there's no hard fact behind it, and in the early late 50's early 60's tooling costs were not the gigantic expense they are nowdays - things could be tried, adapted, tweaked...all without cost accountants and focus groups! there was a lot more experimentation, because a guitar didn't HAVE to be exactly like some other one mechanically to be marketable. But now, if you DON'T have rollers...well, you MUST be wrong.

Tell that to all the Strigbender Tele players who have been sawing away at bars of metal for years - I NEVER broke a string in about a 20-year period of steady Stringbender playing - and that B string go a LOT of pulls over steel, brass, stainless...amazing though that if you pull the string with a *pedal* you MUST have a roller....there must be a huge scientific difference in the tension or something....right?

And FWIW I like both types of pickups - they have different sounds, just like Jazzmasters and Jaguars do. And the inconsistencies are part of the charm of those decades. When you find a GOOD one, you guard it with your life!

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 27 Jul 2006 2:55 am

But only in the steel world.

Uhhh...I thought that's what we were talking about?

I could care less about straight guitars, and whether or not they have rollers.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 27 Jul 2006 4:49 am

Right Donny - but whether you "care" or not, the physics have been thoroughly analyzed on another instrument and proven NOT to be as significant as the steel world thinks.

And I would think that we're all "musicians" first, "steel world residents" second - and if "gadget" rules are similar, we should learn from them.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 27 Jul 2006 4:57 am

All metallic fumes produce a deleterious effect systemically. Avoiding the breathing of solder fumes is not always an easy task. After working with 1/16" cables extensively, soldering became an issue necessitating special attention. The manufacturing and retail outlets offer subtle warnings on labels, such as, "use proper ventilation" or "avoid breathing fumes". Some situations arise making "proper ventilation" difficult. I've had passing thoughts that solder fumes may have been the causation for steel guitar builders to focus on 1/8" rods to replace cables, as a means of changing pitches. I realized that by forcing the fumes to stay away from my breathing area was a must. I set out to enlist an antiquated fan, old, but effective for driving the fumes out and away from my bench. Of course, the ideal arrangement would be a suction fan lifting the fumes to an outlet,
as restaurants do to remove smoke, steam, and cooking odors. I regret not knowing the type of solder that was used in the 50's Fender steel guitars. Someone must have focused intently on the variety of choices at the time. I was told by a trusted source that silver solder was used. The same source pointed out that ash was the chosen wood. Another element of pursuasion to transfer capabilities, and move to rod construction, was the needle sharp splintered cables. Lessons are quickly learned, while removing or replacing broken cables. Sadly, cables do in fact offer advantages over rods, due to the flexure and resiliency of their makeup. Once educated on proper handling of the cables, their values markedly increase. I can envisage a well constructed cable drive instrument that would be affordable, and feature accurate pedal responses. Cables are without a doubt, one of the most useful commodities within reach, serving man in a multitude of variations.

Ian Finlay · Post by **Ian Finlay** » 27 Jul 2006 7:13 am

I made up some new cables using stainless steel bike brake cable and original Fender parts. I didn't want to use lead solder for the health reasons you outline, so consulted my Wife who makes jewellery.

Regular Silver solder wouldn't hold the stainless (although regular steel cables may be OK), so we used some specialist stuff which I can look up if anyone's interested. The flux is VERy important too.

Ian

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 27 Jul 2006 8:16 am

Bill, ever been to a "Ham Fest"? They're loaded with old guys like us, and they've spent their lives soldering this and that. Unless you're "soldering for a living", doing it 40 hours a week for decades, you really have nothing to worry about.

Jim, the straight guitar has little in common with a pedal steel, but still you insist on trying to make comparisons. Why? Also, those old Fender steels (with no rollers) had very poor sustain compared to modern guitars (that all have rollers).

Since you're so "hot" against rollers, do you mind 'splainin' that to us???

I eagerly await your next retort.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 27 Jul 2006 9:00 am

I added a roller nut to my Sho-Bud Maverick and immediately realized the twin benefits of less string breakage and better tuning stability. I assume that people playing Fenders experience the same benefits.

A pedal steel changer has little in common with string bending on the fretboard of a standard guitar. A roller bridge assists the former and is irrelevant to the latter.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

Steve Zinno · Post by **Steve Zinno** » 27 Jul 2006 9:45 am

I would think that the change in scale from 24.5 to 23 was very significant in reducing string breakage. That high G#/A is really tight at 24.5 (just try it on your average les paul), sometimes almost impossible just to tune it up. No problem at all at 23 though. I don't know exactly where this fits historically with our Fenders evolution, but scale length and string tension is a huge contributor to the tone and behavior of stringed instruments (along with all the fine points mentioned so far of course.)

------------------
steve z.

Russ Tkac · Post by **Russ Tkac** » 27 Jul 2006 10:29 am

I've had little string breakage with my Fender 400 though I tune to B6. I broke one of the high strings at the ball with the modified E9 I had on a sunburst with the cam bridge and roller nut but the string was old stock I had. I think the problem is the bend at the ball and leaving them on too long.

My telecaster with a palmpedal pulls against a fixed tun-o-matic bridge with no rollers and a bone nut. I've had no breakage problems since 1974.

Just my 2 cents

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 27 Jul 2006 11:48 am

Donny,

At this stage of the "game" I choose to opt for prioritization as it applies to hazardous materials; solder fumes not the least of all things to avoid. Donny, I admire your spunk and stalwart demeanor.

ebb · Post by **ebb** » 27 Jul 2006 3:39 pm

rollers are neccesary to minimize the hysterisis

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 27 Jul 2006 5:23 pm

Donny, I admire your spunk and stalwart demeanor.

Funny, wifey calls it "narrow-minded bull-headedness"

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 27 Jul 2006 7:08 pm

"Jim, the straight guitar has little in common with a pedal steel, but still you insist on trying to make comparisons. Why? "

Because they DO have almost everything in common. Stringed instruments (using the same types of strings), electromagnetic pickups, bodies built of metal and wood (metal truss rods in those "other" guitars), similar bridges, nuts, same tuners. Add a tremolo or a Stringbender and you have a similar action at the bridge/nut. The *primary* difference is you play one with a steel bar, the other with your fingers.

Donny, I understand you aren't *interested* in "regular" guitar. But to deny the similarities is rather hardheaded...and I guess you sort of admit that anyway.

Rollers do not sustain better than a piece of steel - you lose vibrations through more moving parts. That's been proven. The Fender's "lack" of sustain has a lot more reasons behind it than the bridge; there are changer mass questions, headstock design, and certainly pickup design is a key factor. But oddly, I don't notice a lack of sustain. Nor a "thin" tone - in fact, they sound "fatter" than most "normal" steels IMO.

Ed said "rollers are neccesary to minimize the hysterisis" - OK, he probably knows more about that than I ever will (I wouldn't know "hysteresis" if it slapped me, I guess - "Mechanical energy loss occurring during loading and unloading of a spring within the elastic range" or "The lag between making a change, such as increasing or decreasing power, and the response or effect of that change"???? The pedal steel world seems to define it as something else, but having read several threads on the subject I STILL don't know what THAT definiton is!).

Bobby - the "Stringbending" I'm talking about and Russ also mentioned is EXACTLY the same as a pedal steel. It is NOT manual bending, it's pulling a string over a fixed bridge, usually a full step. And most players get addicted to it and use it TOO often!

Like I said, over 2 decades of daily pulling a rather delicate "B" string over a piece of steel or brass with a much more significant break angle than on steel - and no breakage - leads me to the conclusion rollers are NOT the string breakage solution, and non-rollers are not the "cause".

You might want to try this site for info on Stringbenders so you'll be more familiar with the concept - and try the Bigsby site for Russ's Palm Pedal, and Hipshot for another version, and Brad Higin's site for another, and bill Bore's for another....Heck, Fender made a licensed production model of bender Tele for years. Leo also made two of his own prototypes - I played one of them, and it was also the same idea as early Fender steels - pull a string over a fixed bar. and this was long after the "improved" model with a cam bridge/changer. Funny how Leo didn't seem to think a roller was needed (there's a patent drawing somewhere out on the web).
www.stringbender.com

(not really off topic - because the first one, made for Clarence White, was constructed partially of Fender pedal steel parts!)

Oh - and while breakage most certainly could be related to scale length and resulting string tension, for some goofy reason I could NOT break an .011 3rd tuned up to G# on my 1000. It was there for months until I changed strings and put on the "shim roller" prototype. Moot point as I think I'm dumping E9 anyway - it just doesn't work for me. B6 works really well, and actually Al Perkins' E7 seems a much more natual-feeling tuning for one neck on the 1000 (Personally, I don't seem to relate well to the chromatic strings). And he sure didn't seem to have any sustain problems using that tuning/guitar on the Burritos live stuff he recorded.

I think the 1000 and the 400..and to a lesser extent, the 800 and 2000...will live a long life when maintained well. Some excellent suggestions regarding solder and cable have been give, things I will look into. My main quest right now is for something similar to the small, flat pulleys that are part of each cable assembly - if I could find those, upgrading the entire cable system would be relatively easy - or if there was an alternative to the pulleys, that would be interesting as well.

Well adjusted/lubed, and with a few spring changes, they play very smoothly, very quickly and stay in tune. It's no wonder there's been a sort of resurgence of interest - they have a unique tone, and can be great playing, reliable guitars.[This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 27 July 2006 at 08:23 PM.][This message was edited by Jim Sliff on 27 July 2006 at 08:30 PM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 27 Jul 2006 9:58 pm

"Rollers are neccesary to minimize the hysterisis" - in other words, to keep it returning to the proper pitch when you both raise and lower a string.

Like I said, I experienced the benefits of less string breakage and better tuning stability when I added a roller bridge to my Sho-Bud Maverick. I assume that's why the Sho-Bud pro models had rollers, and why most manufacturers today have roller bridges.

Jimmy Day tuned his Fender to D9th instead of E9th to solve the high G# breakage problem. Many Fender players of the era did the same.

Strings are better now, but do Fender players today actually enjoy the "zero breakage" aspect of most modern pedal steels, without a roller bridge? Do they have the same tuning stability of modern guitars, when raising and lowering a string?

To me the main benefits of the Fender 1000 are its unique sound and it's wider string spacing. On the minus side are its unique tone (not always what's desired) and the musical limitations of 8 string necks.

If the acoustic transfer benefit of a solid bridge makes sense, why doesn't a Fender 1000 sustain better than a Mullen, an Emmons or a Carter? I'm sure there's an answer that has nothing to do with roller nuts.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 28 Jul 2006 4:18 am

Should an interested individual partake in becoming aware of the resonating qualities found in different metals, it may shed some light on sustain. Silver coins deliver a special ring compared to the copper alloyed "el cheapos". Scrap metal dealers are very much aware of the dull thud of cast iron compared to the ringing of hardened steel. Silver was alloyed up to 18% in old ship bells for good reasons.
The echo of a shout reverberating along canyon walls is interesting in the study of sound transmission.
Resonance, vibrations, sustain, and construction materials, help to explain differences in steel guitar sound qualities. Wood produces a low grade resonating quality when it is in "chunk" form. Slice it thinly, as in spruce top guitars, and presto, a reasonable facsimile of a canyon wall. Steel guitar strings will collect materials that adhere to surfaces on the bottom. After time the collection will increase and produce a muting effect. All of this in defense of the Fender 1000's sustaining properties. Further, sustain may not be defined as better in every situation. Try placing an acoustic guitar near a "live" mike. This is the premise that may lead to better explanations concerning sustain.