| Author |
Topic: G2 Cross Shaft Video, Short Clip, Please Close |
Mickey Adams
From:
Bandera Texas
|
Posted 3 Dec 2009 2:22 pm |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2wFdm8pL3Q
_________________
ARTIST RELATIONS: MSA GUITARS
2017 MSA LEGEND XL D10, S10, Studio Pro S12 EXE9
Mullen G2, Rittenberry S10, Infinity D10, Zumsteel 8+9
Anderson, Buscarino, Fender, Roman Guitars, Sarno Octal, Revelation Preamps, BJS BARS, Lots of Blackface Fenders!
Last edited by Mickey Adams on 7 Dec 2009 10:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
 |
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 4 Dec 2009 10:09 am
|
|
Mickey,
Thank you for the video clip.
I noted with interest your statement that the bent cross shafts were initiated as a means of reducing production costs, that helps clear up the water.  |
|
|
|
Mickey Adams
From:
Bandera Texas
|
Posted 4 Dec 2009 10:51 am
|
|
I'm not sure thats a totally correct assumption. The idea was that if the changers were the same size, they would be interchangeable,yes. Del's idea was not based on a need to "cut a corner" by any means. After owning several G2 guitars, I honestly don't understand what all the fuss has been about. There seems to be a lot of players that think that this is a design flaw, when in fact its actually an innovative solution to the traditional offset changer assembly..I see no reason to assume that this design, versus the other, would have any positive, or negative affect on the tone that it produces. Those of us that know Del personally, know that his only goal, and focus, is to build quality guitars and continue to push the technology envelope, without sacrificing the 2 most important things...quality, and tone. Mick
_________________
ARTIST RELATIONS: MSA GUITARS
2017 MSA LEGEND XL D10, S10, Studio Pro S12 EXE9
Mullen G2, Rittenberry S10, Infinity D10, Zumsteel 8+9
Anderson, Buscarino, Fender, Roman Guitars, Sarno Octal, Revelation Preamps, BJS BARS, Lots of Blackface Fenders! |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 4 Dec 2009 11:01 am
|
|
Mickey,
I'm sure the bent cross shaft has no effect on tone.
I really appreciate the design of the G2's changer, very fine machining. |
|
|
|
Mike Mantey
From:
Eastern Colorado, USA
|
Posted 6 Dec 2009 2:50 pm
|
|
With all do respect. The design was in no way associated with production costs, absolute inaccurate statement.
Ever since the Royal Precision came out in '99 it incorporated 2 changers of the same size, which could be used on either neck. The endplates where changed to allow for the 1/4" difference of the 2 necks. So with that, you have 2 changers, same changer, but one (the E9th) is set further towards the top of the guitar than the c6th, there is 1/4" difference. The cross rods however do not follow this 1/4" offset. The cross rod is straight. So that means a rod on the C6th in the same hole in the changer and bellcrank would be straight, now the same rod in the same locations on the E9th, the rod angles towards the top of the guitar due to the difference in the mounting location.
Now on the G2, the design or question was how do we get the rods straight on both necks without going back to manufacturing 2 different changers (such as the original or HWP Mullen). The answer was we needed a crossrod that would bring the E9th side closer to the top of the guitar. Therefore the bent idea was formed. It did not start out as the way it ended up, it was at one time going to be 2 pieces that bolted together, after long hard work by Del he found a way to bend a cross rod and still make it operate for the function needed. It was perfect and there are some other advantages to this design that I won't get into now.
So is it cheaper than the Royal Precision way? No. Is it cheaper than 2 different changers? Not really, but this is the design that best suited the G2 and it is here to stay. |
|
|
|
Mickey Adams
From:
Bandera Texas
|
Posted 6 Dec 2009 2:56 pm
|
|
Thanks for the concise explanation Mike.Always better to go to the source!!..
_________________
ARTIST RELATIONS: MSA GUITARS
2017 MSA LEGEND XL D10, S10, Studio Pro S12 EXE9
Mullen G2, Rittenberry S10, Infinity D10, Zumsteel 8+9
Anderson, Buscarino, Fender, Roman Guitars, Sarno Octal, Revelation Preamps, BJS BARS, Lots of Blackface Fenders! |
|
|
|
Brad Malone
From:
Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted 9 Dec 2009 7:17 pm original or HWP Mullen were AOK
|
|
Now on the G2, the design or question was how do we get the rods straight on both necks without going back to manufacturing 2 different changers (such as the original or HWP Mullen<<
Yeah, so what is the big deal, there was nothing wrong with the HWP Mullen's. You put in two different changers and keep the crossrods straight...makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 9 Dec 2009 7:35 pm Re: original or HWP Mullen were AOK
|
|
| Brad Malone wrote: |
Now on the G2, the design or question was how do we get the rods straight on both necks without going back to manufacturing 2 different changers (such as the original or HWP Mullen<<
Yeah, so what is the big deal, there was nothing wrong with the HWP Mullen's. You put in two different changers and keep the crossrods straight...makes sense to me. |
There should be no big deal......this is the design that Mullen felt best suited their goals.
I played the guitar for at least 30 minutes in Dallas last year. The G2 played great, stayed in tune well and sounded killer. Like-it-or-not, the "bent rod" pull train works. I don't own a Mullen, but I'd have no qualms about buying a G2 because of this design. |
|
|
|
Chris Lang
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 11:01 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| Yeah, so what is the big deal, there was nothing wrong with the HWP Mullen's. You put in two different changers and keep the crossrods straight...makes sense to me. |
That's is what I always wondered. With the precision that Mullen has always been known for, I just can't see why they would design those crossrods in that way. Seems like a little step back, as for as the physics and design are concerned. Oh well, I guess to each his own.
 |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 11:08 am
|
|
Chris,
I agree, change isn't always for the better. 
Last edited by Erv Niehaus on 11 Dec 2009 11:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Tyler Hall
From:
Mt. Juliet, TN
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 11:38 am
|
|
Well here I go running my mouth again... 
I'm so sick and tired of hearing this crap. If you don't like it, then don't get one. The one's doing the bitching about the shafts don't even have a G2, so how do you know how it works? It's by far the best guitar I've had. The tone is incredible, and pedals and knees are the softest and smoothest I've ever played. THE BENT CROSS SHAFTS WORK. They don't move far enough to give any problem.
My guitar is nearly 2 years old and has lived under a bus or in a theater since the week I got it. I've never had any issues that you wouldn't have with other guitars (slack, etc...). My 2 G2's are used at least 5 or 6 days a week. That's a lot of playing. If there was any problem, I believe I would have stumbled across it.
BTW, thank God for change or we'd still be playing permanent Sho-Buds or P/P Emmons. I guess sometimes change is for the better.
I'm done now... 
_________________
www.joshturner.com
www.ghsstrings.com |
|
|
|
Brad Malone
From:
Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 11:57 am interchangeable...Why?
|
|
>>The idea was that if the changers were the same size, they would be interchangeable.<<
Seems to me it would be easier and better just to label or stamp the changers INSIDE NECK and OUTSIDE NECK...THAT WAY CONFUSION WOULD BE AVOIDED if a changer had to be replaced. Oh well, I guess to each his own way, it is the buyers that have to make the choice...they are the ultimate and final bosses. |
|
|
|
Chris Lang
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 2:01 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| I'm so sick and tired of hearing this crap. If you don't like it, then don't get one. |
Well Tyler, you don't have to read the threads. No one is forcing you. No need to "get sick and tired"
There happens to be a few of us on here that have a taste for being precise. Thats all. No matter what you think of your guitar, the basis of the "bent crossrods" is not physically correct. You do not have a crossshaft rotating from two different axis.
Why do you find that difficult to comprehend?
Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Cullifer
From:
Gallatin, TN
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 2:52 pm
|
|
I've played the G2s and I think they're excellent guitars. However, given the history of not doing this and given the difference in the heights of each changer (1/4 inch or less), I'm unsure of the overall impact. I have pull rods with much higher angles because the rods hook onto the outermost puller slot and one of the innermost changer slots in order to get the required leverage. Sometimes the rods have to be bent, but I can't imagine that changing based on the difference described.
Like I said, I think the G2 is a great guitar all around. Do I think the bent crossrods are unnecessary? Yes. Do they hurt anything? Probably not. Only time will tell. |
|
|
|
Danny James
From:
Summerfield Florida USA
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 3:00 pm
|
|
Why would you start a thread like this with a video, then have the video removed before those who would like to see it got a chance to?
Why also are the questions about the physics of how a bent shaft rotating between two stationary bearing points going unanswered?
Something here just doesn't make logical sense when the laws of physics are applied. Has some kind of scientific breakthrough occured here. I doubt it.
It would seem a respectful and accurate explanation is in order here. |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 3:01 pm
|
|
" the basis of the "bent crossrods" is not physically correct. You do not have a crossshaft rotating from two different axis. "
Chris, that is also my take. Because of the small rotation required, they work. But, I wonder what wear patterns they'll see down the road. |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 9:26 pm
|
|
Sometimes the least orthodox approach provides the most elegant solution.
For example, the idea of using an attenuated form of virus to inoculate someone against that same virus, probably didn't make sense to people initially....but it has almost entirely wiped out poliomyelitis.
The "bent-rod" solution might not work if the cross-shaft had to rotate more than a few degrees or had a steeper bends, but in this particular application it works well.....
If it didn't, would guys like Herby Wallace and Tommy Dodd be playing these guitars?
Last edited by Tony Glassman on 12 Dec 2009 12:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Al Miller
From:
Waxahachie Texas
|
Posted 11 Dec 2009 11:15 pm Mullen
|
|
Tyler & Mickey,
The Nay Sayers also said the space Shuttle wouldnt fly either. i used to work with a team of book smart engineers that designed and built UAV"s for the military that sometimes would baffle me by the things that were already in production and being used to defend our country that these same engineers would say "it would never work the physics arent correct.." Chris . it offends me that you would come here and say that "MULLEN GUITARS ARE NOT PRECISE" i have been playing a mullen guitar for going on 15 yrs now THE SAME GUITAR! and never had an ounce of trouble from it .. granted it doesent have the bent cross shaft but it seemed to be precise enough to last 5-6 sometimes 7 days aweek for 15 yrs and still stay in tune and basically looks like the day a carried it out of Billy Coopers shop.. To come on here and say that ANY!! Manufacturer of a steel guitar today is not precise shows little to no Class. Del Mullen and family put there heart and soul into every guitar that leaves that factory and besides that they are wonderful human beings. if you dont think it will work dont buy it!! im sure someone will be standing in line to purchase and charish the one you passed on. its your Loss not theirs. I havent seen any of you guys Name on a Guitar in the last 25 or 30 yrs like i have MULLEN!! so put your money where your mouth is and build us a guitar That is "PRECISE" and Superceeds The MULLEN G2 and we will play it. im astonished at the people in this world that try and hurt others business by the flapping of Jaws or keyboard in this case.. im finished now!!
Boo Miller
_________________
AL (BOO) Miller
Mullen D10
76 Emmons P/P
2022 65 Emmons Resound P/P D10 |
|
|
|
Danny James
From:
Summerfield Florida USA
|
Posted 12 Dec 2009 6:29 am
|
|
First let me say I in no way am saying that Mullen Steel Guitars are not well built with precision.
I was simply asking for a "respectful and accurate explanation here", of how the bent cross shafts mounted in stationary bearings on each end defied the laws of physics, and didn't bind.
I just went to the "Mullen Website" which by the way shows pictures of their under carriage with the bent cross shafts, and here is what Del Mullen says there---
" I can't believe that the bent cross shaft issue has created so much interest. It is really quite simple, but I can understand how it can fool you. Someday I will explain how it works"---
then he goes on and tells the reasons Mickey Adams has explained here for having bent cross shafts which I understand and it makes sense.
So my questions at this time go unanswered. That's Mullens and everyone else's priviledge to answer or not.
Let me make it very clear that I in no way am saying that Mullen don't know what they are doing or that they are not a precision made guitar. I firmly believe they are one of the best from all the testimony about them. That said, I still stand by my questions which I believe are ligitimate without malice or disrespect toward anyone.
I in no way have meant to offend anyone on this Forum by asking technical questions and I sincerely appologize if I have offended anyone.
I truly respect everyones right to their opinions and think there is a world of knowledge that can be gotten from the good people here that a few years ago before b0b started this forum just were not available to us. |
|
|
|
Jeff Evans
From:
Cowtown and The Bill Cox Outfit
|
Posted 12 Dec 2009 6:35 am Moo
|
|
| Quote: |
Pedal Steel
Instruments, mechanical issues, copedents, techniques, etc. |
Yes, how wildly wrong it is to discuss the angle of a dangle here. Should there be a next time, any questions should be made in this new section:
 |
|
|
|
Robby Springfield
From:
Viola, AR, USA
|
Posted 12 Dec 2009 7:31 am
|
|
I can’t believe we’re revisiting this already discussed and PROVEN topic! Just goes to show you that there are still plenty of those that believe the world is still flat. Oh NO…the sky is falling…run for your life! Anyone for Chicken Little Soup?
Thank you Del for such a brilliant design and for your ability to look where others dare not go. You saved your company an extra process in manufacturing and created the most wonderful machine I have ever played.
_________________
Robby
www.power3productions.com |
|
|
|
Bill Lowe
From:
Connecticut
|
Posted 12 Dec 2009 7:36 am G2
|
|
All the doubters should try one and see for yourself. It doesn't matter to me that it shouldn't work.....because it does!!!!!. Every thread that comes up about a G2 should not be hijacked. (Congrats Tommy Dodd, congrats Mr Cole)I have not heard a bad thing about these guitars from the owners or people who have played one. Only from the engineers complaining that they shouldn't work. 
_________________
JCH D10, 71 D10 P/p fat back, Telonics TCA 500C--12-,Fender JBL Twin, Josh Swift signature. |
|
|
|
richard burton
From:
Britain
|
Posted 12 Dec 2009 7:43 am
|
|
I think spherical bearings could cope quite easily with the small amount of rotation, maybe that's what Del has used.
 |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 12 Dec 2009 7:45 am
|
|
Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
The G2 might be a great playing, looking, feeling, smelling, etc, etc, guitar and Del is the best builder since Shot Jackson but the bent cross shaft is a violation of good engineering and physics principles.
Richard,
I don't think Del is using a self-aligning bearing.
I think he is using ball bearings on the end of the cross shafts. Ed Fulawka uses the self aligning bearing on his guitars.
I agree, that type of bearing would take care of the misalignment of the cross shaft supports.
Last edited by Erv Niehaus on 12 Dec 2009 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 12 Dec 2009 7:47 am
|
|
| Danny James wrote: |
| I was simply asking for a "respectful and accurate explanation here", of how the bent cross shafts mounted in stationary bearings on each end defied the laws of physics, and didn't bind. |
There's no binding because there's too small a bend/offset for the length of those crankshafts, too small an angle of rotation, and enough freeplay in those bearings. That's really all there is to it, and it isn't such an unusual construction although I haven't seen it in a PSG before. |
|
|
|
