| Author |
Topic: Mullen Pedal Steel |
Mark Quintero
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 19 May 2009 7:27 am |
|
Could someone tell me what the difference would be
in a Mullen Pre-royal and a Precision Royal. Any
answer would be greatly appreciated.
thanks
Mark |
|
|
 |
Mike Mantey
From:
Eastern Colorado, USA
|
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 7:07 am
|
|
Is there any difference between the changer on a Royal Precision and the G2?
I really like the looks of the changer on the G2 but am not really that wild about the "bent" cross shafts. The physics of such a design bothers me. |
|
|
|
Robby Springfield
From:
Viola, AR, USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 8:45 am
|
|
You should try playing one. Your fears should dissapear right away. I haven't found a flaw in this guitar yet and I've been playing the fire out of it for 4 months.
_________________
Robby
www.power3productions.com |
|
|
|
Roger Crawford
From:
Griffin, GA USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 9:46 am
|
|
| Erv, the physics say it shouldn't work, but it does! |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 9:52 am
|
|
I'll have to say like Red Skelton: "It just doesn't look right to me!"
I would be interested in a Mullen with the G2 changer and the straight cross shafts if such an animal is possible.  |
|
|
|
Mark Quintero
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 11:07 am Mullen
|
|
Hey Mike,
Thanks for the link you sent. This explains a lot.
Now I just need to find a Mullen to play. |
|
|
|
Chris Lang
|
Posted 20 May 2009 11:15 am
|
|
| Why does the cross rods need to be "bent" anyway? The pullrods pull slightly off to the side when the cross rods move. I don't understand the reason for this. Seems like a design flaw. I don't know. |
|
|
|
Junior Knight
From:
Eustace Texas..paddle faster..I hear Banjos...
|
Posted 20 May 2009 11:33 am
|
|
Take it from someone who knows Del..it AIN"T no design flaw!!! The G2s are great guitars with no flaws..and Robby knows what he's talkin about!!!
_________________
2006 Msa S-12 “milly” 8 & 5 1976 Msa D-10 Classic 8 & 6
. Peavey Nashville 1-12 Tommy Huff speaker cabs. Goodrich pedals & matchbro.Steeler Choice seats.. that is all..(for now) lol
www.msapedalsteels.com
texsteelman2@yahoo.com
Jagwire Strings
Facebook/ Junior Knight, Steel Guitar |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 11:49 am
|
|
The guitar may look, operate and sound great but it is a poor design principle.
You cannot take a shaft with the ends pivoting from a different center of rotation and not have it bind up.
I guess the limited amount of movement is what makes it work but it definitely defies good engineering. |
|
|
|
Tony Dingus
From:
Kingsport, Tennessee, USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 11:52 am
|
|
If I could afford it I would have a G2. I played a friend of mine's G2 and it was a great guitar. Sweet!
Tony |
|
|
|
Mike Archer
From:
church hill tn
|
Posted 20 May 2009 12:33 pm Iplayed the g2 mullen
|
|
I played a g2 in st louis last year
as well as a friends who bought a new one
I couldnt find anything wrong with the steel
tone or the mechanics....it was awesome all around
im playing my ole PP emmons and for me ill just stick with that
I do feel the price of the G2 is to high but then again many other brands as well
as for the royal P OR PRE ROYAL P i DONT CARE FOR THOSE
thats my thoughts on it Mike |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 20 May 2009 3:23 pm
|
|
| Erv Niehaus wrote: |
| .... I guess the limited amount of movement is what makes it work but it definitely defies good engineering. |
I think you're right about why it works. The shaft movement is so limited, and the deflection so shallow, the rod does not turn on its axes far enough to act like a "crank". Also there is no center rail to cause any shaft binding.
I don't think the G2 design is a result of poor engineering, I think it's actually an example of great engineering!
Del has taken design that might be limited in other applications, but works perfectly as a cross-shaft for a steel guitar. It tucks the knee levers up closer to the body for better mechanical advantage.
I played one in the Mullen Room at the Dallas 2008 show. It sounded great and played as good or better than my Zum.
Last edited by Tony Glassman on 20 May 2009 8:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Brad Malone
From:
Pennsylvania, USA
|
Posted 20 May 2009 6:52 pm good as gold
|
|
| Don't bet against Del his G2 is one of the most desired Steels on the market because of great engineering...if there were any flaws in this design it would be well known by this time. When guys like JK, RS and HW endorse a product its as good as gold IMHO |
|
|
|
Bobby Bowman
From:
Cypress, Texas, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 20 May 2009 11:59 pm Mullen G2
|
|
I don't have a couple of the questions answers, but I do have an answer for Erv and the G2 questions.
The G2 is the finest all pull guitar on the market at this time. You can argue "lodgic" and "physics" all you want to and/or anything else, I don't care. It is what it is and it happens to be the best.
Perhaps you should try one before you voice an opinion. I truely believe your opinion would change completely. I was kinda' like you when I first saw it,,,I said "naw, it wont work right",,,I even made my own crude prototype just to see, and it did work. But when I sat down to one and played it, even though I had no intentions of buying one or any other guitar for that matter, I came home from the Dallas show one very proud and satisfied owner of a brand new Mullen G2 and I'm so glad I did.
BB
_________________
If you play 'em, play 'em good!
If you build 'em, build 'em good!
http://www.bobbybowman.com |
|
|
|
Eddie Lane
From:
Branson, Missouri, USA
|
Posted 21 May 2009 5:08 am
|
|
I have been repairing steel guitars for approximately 35 years and have seen a lot of changes. When Zane Beck started building the BMI with the flat alumimum cross rods some people said it looked strange. The purpose of this was to provide for easier mount of the bell cranks and cut out unwanted flexing in the center of the crossrod. Del Mullen, IMHO, is one of the most talented builder/designers that we have today. The bend in the cross rods make them stronger in the center. (no need for center support). And it does not cause binding. The changer of the G2 is completely different from the other Mullen changers. From looking at it, I would say that it came about by years of planning. My hat is off to Mullen Guitar Company for new ideas. Well Done!! 
Eddie |
|
|
|
Junior Knight
From:
Eustace Texas..paddle faster..I hear Banjos...
|
Posted 21 May 2009 5:20 am
|
|
I don't play a Mullen now,I play Rains by Gary Carpenter..but I still beleave in anything Del Mullen designs!! None Better!
_________________
2006 Msa S-12 “milly” 8 & 5 1976 Msa D-10 Classic 8 & 6
. Peavey Nashville 1-12 Tommy Huff speaker cabs. Goodrich pedals & matchbro.Steeler Choice seats.. that is all..(for now) lol
www.msapedalsteels.com
texsteelman2@yahoo.com
Jagwire Strings
Facebook/ Junior Knight, Steel Guitar |
|
|
|
Glenn Suchan
From:
Austin, Texas
|
Posted 21 May 2009 5:40 am
|
|
| Erv Niehaus wrote: |
| I'll have to say like Red Skelton: "It just doesn't look right to me!" ... "I really like the looks of the changer on the G2 but am not really that wild about the "bent" cross shafts. The physics of such a design bothers me." |
Erv, The bent cross shafts are like an optical illusion. You'd think that the pivot point on one side would cause the opposite side to skew off-axis. This doesn't happen because of the symmetry: The pivot points lie on two parallel planes, and their pivots rotate at identical, relative points. Each opposing the other on their respective plane. If you look at the bends in the cross shafts you'll notice they are symmetrical. Each cross shaft has two bends. One bend on each of the two planes. The angles of each are equal in degree, and bend in opposite directions. Between the two bends is a short length of straight shaft which transitions the two planes the cross shaft lies in. The combination of the two bends and the short transitional length of shaft causes each bend to cancel out the rotational effect of the opposite's angle on the difference of the planes each cross shaft lies on. Hence, each cross shaft rotates as if it is a straight shaft. This applies to a full 360 degrees of rotation. Simple geometry, as it applies to the "physics' of the G2 design.
Does anyone know why Del decided to employ the bends, other than to follow the planes of the deck underside? Is there a distinct advantage over a straight cross shaft?
Keep on pickin'!
Glenn |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 21 May 2009 5:44 am
|
|
Glenn,
Thanks for enlightening me.
I guess I wasted my time and money on an engineering degree.  |
|
|
|
Glenn Suchan
From:
Austin, Texas
|
Posted 21 May 2009 6:00 am
|
|
Erv,
You probably just didn't notice. Since you have an engineering degree you can tell me alot that I don't know. I always enjoy reading your posts.
One thing I didn't mention before and need to qualify: The rotation of the bent shafts, as a "straight" shaft, are actually on a slightly diagonal plane which intersects the other two planes at the pivot points. So, to a very minute degree, the pivot points are not square with the aprons or deck.
Keep on pickin'!
Glenn |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 21 May 2009 7:14 am
|
|
Glenn,
I'm glad you qualified your previos post.
The bent cross shaft is NOT an optical illusion.
It is like a "crank" and subject to binding if rotated enough. |
|
|
|
Glenn Suchan
From:
Austin, Texas
|
Posted 21 May 2009 9:01 am
|
|
| I wrote: |
Does anyone know why Del decided to employ the bends, other than to follow the planes of the deck underside? Is there a distinct advantage over a straight cross shaft? |
I just looked at the Mullen website, and apparently one reason is as Del explains:
"...the reason for having this feature is to be able to align the pull rods on the same level as the changer...."
As he says, his older designs required two separate changers; one for the front neck and one for the back neck. The front neck changer accommodated the greater depth required for the pull rods to be level with the pull rods for the back neck changer.
While this is a minor issue regarding being esthetically pleasing to the eye, it also saves tooling and manufacturing expenses required for two changer designs on one guitar, as well as maintaining equal leverage advantage for all bell cranks on the same cross shaft.
Keep on pickin'!
Glenn |
|
|
|
Bobby Bowman
From:
Cypress, Texas, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 21 May 2009 9:20 am ???
|
|
What we have here is an interesting concept/conversation of what is suspossed to be, at least by proper and lodgical engineering teachings and the rules of physics, a manually operated leverage machine that should not work according to these teachings and laws of natural nature/physics.
I'm not an engineer and I have the utmost respect and admiration for Erv and all that are.
But, if I were, and I came across this contraption that contridicts all that I've been taught, rather than argue that it cain't possibly work, I think I'd try to find out why it does work and works so magnificently (I don't know how to spell the word),,,dongone well,,,,which it does and does it as well if not better than anybody elses contraption of the same.
BB
_________________
If you play 'em, play 'em good!
If you build 'em, build 'em good!
http://www.bobbybowman.com |
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 21 May 2009 9:46 am
|
|
I'm not saying it doesn't work because we have heard and seen the guitar in action.
The reason it works is because of the limited rotation of the cross shaft. It is not something that you need to spin around because that would not be possible.
Eddie Fulawka puts a unique mounting on his cross shafts. It is a brass ball, bored out for the cross shaft and this is mounted in a delron bracket. It is self aligning and if Eddie wanted to put a "crank" on his guitar, it could handle it very well. |
|
|
|
Rick Nicklas
From:
Verona, Mo. (deceased)
|
Posted 21 May 2009 10:13 am
|
|
| Physics or not.... I have a G-2 Mullen (Universal-12) that does not stay in tune after the pedals are pushed and this has been this way since arriving on my doorstep last year. I took it to Del at the ISGA for some corrections and it never has played correctly even after returned. I have tried to put up with two knee levers that kept binding up and my G# and B strings have never been true and come back sharp and flat intermittantly. I even sent it to Paul Redmond to look at it and also shorten it and make it keyless in hopes of eliminating some of the cabinet drop. Paul tried every thing he could think of to cure the drop and also detuning problem. He added a thick rib to the guitar and a new stop block. Absolutely beefed it up as much as he could and came to the conclusion that the culprit lies in the changer. I have completely given up on this guitar after two professional machinist's were unable to get a lasting cure for this. I spend all my time tuning and retuning this guitar. It goes under the bed tonight and I am returning to my trusty Kline. (I have given up and do not wish to discuss this problem with anyone any further). |
|
|
|
