Kevan Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 thank for insinuating thats what i said. You're the master Kevan. Jeez Perry, you sure can read into stuff. Let me try it again, to make it crystal clear: Perry- you can pick at it, but you better be able to back up what you say. (note the line break here, and no personalization in the following paragraphs....) General Populus of the Forum-Posting things like "That idea sucks ballz." is not positive nor does it generate discussion. It certainly doesn't help the builder/inventor out either. The theme here has ALWAYS been to help each other out; not hammer them into oblivion. Some people get off on doing that, and they have 100,000 other forums they can jack around on. Start at Harmony Central and they can work their way down. If you have something good to say or positive to present, then post. If not, close the window and move on. Simple. Now, if you're done taking something that wasn't personal so personally, let's get back to the discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soapbarstrat Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 Perry, you need to add helpful ideas, like Oreo Cookie bridge saddles. Get hip to the ways of those who once sat in the back of the *short* yellow school bus.* Would Don's trem even need a "whammy-brake" device in the spring cavity to freeze it up ? I mean, does a hand resting on the bridge cause it to move any, or easily enough to be an issue ? ADMIN EDIT- Mmmmm...I smell suspensions cooking. Careful folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuitarGuy Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 I'm sorry, that wasn't very productive of me. But I don't recall saying the idea sucked. It just has too many moving parts for me. Heavy modifications, and just not fun to install in general. The linear idea is cool but like was said earlier it adjusts the scale length. There is never a guarentee that its going to come back to the full scale length. At least with a pivot trem the intonation change is lessened by the arc of the pivot and you have a visual representation of what is the normal location by the parallelness of the bridge to the body when the trem is in a resting position. There is another way that i have done up in cad right now, METAL MATT has seen it. But it is by no means perfect so im not going to flaunt the idea in an open forum. As far as commercial interests...If you patented it you have interests in selling it. No one gets a patent for fun. I can see if someone saw it on your guitar and said hey where did you get that? Then its different. But its not my forum so thats admin's prerogative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovekraft Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 I swear, I do believe that some of you lot would argue semantics with a box of rocks, just to get in the last word! Don't worry, Don - they're harmless, just working through some anger management issues, and the occasional lack of medication. Welcome, and good luck with your venture! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnA Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 In regards to string breakage, have you tried graphite saddles on your Wilkie? I'll bet ya dollars-to-donuts that would cure most of your string breaking. Also, where was the string breaking: Saddle? Nut? Above the pickups? Above the fretboard? Yeah, I have a Wilkinson, it used to break strings twice a week util I got some GraphTech saddles. I haven't broken a string since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregP Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 Very interesting reading, Don! Thanks for sharing, and congrats on your patent. I'm looking forward to seeing if it develops into a commercially-available product. Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pr3Va1L Posted February 14, 2006 Report Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) I really think the basic idea is really great... Love to see different things comming up. BUT this one, it really seems to me like it's over-complicated... There has to be a way to make the idea simpler! I'm not saying you haven't spent countless hours designing it and such, because it seems you have, but I think that it could work with much less moving parts, and therefore a much smaller cost. Anyways, congratulations for all your hard work, and I hope you'll be able to sell at least a few! Edited February 14, 2006 by Pr3Va1L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Quite a while back there was a thread concerning Floyd Rose's ill fated surface mount tremolo. I had this in the back of my mind when I saw this come to light, and I was kind of desapointed that the design retained the same lever/back spring set up. Stetsbar has shown that there is still an interest in this type of device but unfortunately floyd couldn't achieve it... This design of Don's triggered memories of this thread...I had thought when seeing floyds design with compact springs that the tillt action would have been better replaced with a fore-and-aft action like this...not sure how you would do it though! Anyway, I thought I'd drag this back from the archives... If there were a way of making a fore-and aft tremolo without the huge spring requirements of traditional tremolo's...if you could...you really would be onto something big... (those stetsbar's seem real ugly to me, but hey, I understand there is a market for anything like this that works!)... Here's that thread... Surface Mount Floyd Thread And here's a pic from it... Can anyone see a way to combine this action with a different springing system?? With a traditional tunomatic and stud style bridge there is a fair amount of height. I know washburn did something using tortion springing...khalers cam was close (still required a little routing though)... I realize whether fore-and-aft movement or tilting, the forces of string pressure are the same...but I thought I'd add this to the mix... Perhaps Don's design is a step along the way towards something like this... pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maiden69 Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 From the pics I have seen of Dons trem it still requieres the same rear rout that a floyd will. In the case of this Floyd, I contacted them when Litch posted this pic, and a few weeks later they posted on their web site that they wre going to re-release the one on the pics above but improved... It's been almost 2 years now, the link dissappeared from their site a long time ago, and I contacted them again, and the response was that it was still on the drawing board... I think that they encountered some more problems with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Thanks for that update... Yes, I can see some serious problems getting that floyd design to work. The don't have much leverage there at all...yet otherwise it is a traditional floyd. I just thought, with Don's innovative fore-and-aft action, this could influence the design of the springing somehow. I had this in the back of my mind when I saw this come to light, and I was kind of desapointed that the design retained the same lever/back spring set up. I acknowledge that this is still using the same spring system as traditional trems. However there are other ways...compression springs, torsion springs and leaf springs (used in Parkers system) and combinations that could work...whether you could do that in the space...hmmm Many people found that the Khaler cam trem to be very good...and very close to the ideal of no route trems on an LP (still needed a 1/2 route though) and an alternative to a floyd. The Wonderbar by washburn a little less successful, but really was a no route design. All of these were tilt action though! Anyway, wasn't sure if Don or other's had seen it. Also, interesting that a high profile guy like F.Rose is beset by the same problems as the rest of us, despite his better position to develop and produce such a system. It would not just be stud bridge type designs could benefit. Routing out that back spring cavity in any guitar does remove a lot of wood between the neck and the bridge...an effective alternative could influence the design of trem guitars in general, even if some moderate surface routing is required on strat type instruments with the bridge close to the guitars top. pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegarehanman Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 PSW, I got the oem stetsbar that I'll be using on my project in the mail a few days ago. The oem version has a much smaller base plate than the one that adapts to TOM equiped guitars. The oem's footprint is definitely no larger than that of a floyd. Actually, I like the looks of this trem more than a floyd, only because it has less adjustments. The reason I'm posting, is to tell you that I just found out that stetsbar is a linear trem. It doesn't pivot up and down, it slides back and forth(and it didn't cost $900 ). peace russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Ramsay Posted February 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Hello all, I appreciate all the thoughtful discusion this thread has inspired. You guys are such a great source for technical information, and for brainstorming input. One bit of explanation as to why I designed around the traditional rear spring arrangement and routing. I wanted to make potential retrofits possible with only minimal additional routing, and I wanted as much as possible, to keep that familiar "feel" that everyone is used to on the front arm. Went on a search starting last week so I could see the "credit" Luke promised for using my trem on the new Toto album "Falling in Between". Kept getting answers about future US release dates out into March or April. Found 1 copy of the Japanese import at a Virgin Megastore yesterday. Love this new album! Here is the credit: http://www.geocities.com/jbstratman/Lukecredits.jpg What a kick start! Will need to start making these things soon. Thanks again for all the feedback. It's all good. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Good luck with production, Don. Let me know if you need any help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 26, 2006 Report Share Posted February 26, 2006 Yeah....The bridge does move on the Stet's bar.... It's interesting isn't it...Stets has a simple rack and pinion system that moves the whole bridge, not unlike Don's for and aft bridge, but sprung by a couple of stout strings (not unlike what Khaler use on the cam trem by the look of them) behind the moving bridge plate part. When I was toying around with this idea, I did something similar but was trying out various types of "torsion springs" (twist springs) on the axle of the arm...also compression springs (the bigsby principle) and laminated leaf springs.... Here's a patent pic of the Stetsbar to give a better idea of how it works... Seems like a very expensive piece of "kit" thegarehanman, but by all reports it does work well as clearly guys like Luke and Vai seem to have taken to Don's idea (congrats...that is a dream to get on the album sleeve, eh!)... Would be inventors should note that the patent is dated 1995...a decade ago...you can see how long and how much work goes into something to get it up to a production stage...it takes a lot of faith and stamina...more power to you guys! Good Luck Don, and every success... pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevan Posted February 27, 2006 Report Share Posted February 27, 2006 Would be inventors should note that the patent is dated 1995...a decade ago...you can see how long and how much work goes into something to get it up to a production stage...it takes a lot of faith and stamina...more power to you guys! Not to discount anything you've said, but I remember seeing the Stetsbar advertised back in 1998 or 1999. What I find amazing is that he was issued a patent LESS THAN A YEAR(!!!) after he initially filed. That, my friends, is stunning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myka Guitars Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 (edited) Good to see the Stetsbar mentioned already. I was just going to do that. This is the only truly linear design I know of and it is truly surface mount (read: no routing). There is an OEM version that requires minimal routing (3/32" deep pocket) or a retrofit version that doesn't (which can also be installed on a new guitar). There really is no need to design a trem that removes even more material than a standard fulcrum trem, in my opinion. It looks like this new trem idea is a little of both the fulcrum and the linear design but not a simplified and better working example of either. It has all the drawbacks of the fulcrum setup without any of the benefits. The linear design is a good idea but why retain the fulcrum? The way I see it is that both linear and fulcum designs will ahve friction so why have both? Either a fulcrum trem or a linear tremolo would be much better than this combined bybrid design. As a luthier this design looks very complicated to install. I look at new trems to overcome the handicaps of the older trem designs. Mainly the big problem I have with tremolos is the massive amount of routing involved. From a tonal point of view this is not a good thing for a guitar to have so much wood removed in front of the bridge. The Kahler designs minimized this and the Stetsbar eliminated it completely. From a practical point of view the sheer number of parts and comlicated installation process would be a turn of to me and my clients. Let's say this tremolo does cost $900. If it takes me 6 hours to install and set it up it guess what happens to the price? Also there is the issue of the springs. Long springs like standard Strat trem style springs vibrate within the range of the guitar. Eliminating those will eliminate the dissipation of vibrational energy away from the strings (loss of sustain). Again the Stetsbar uses two small dense springs that do not vibrate at all within the guitar's frequency range. I personally do not like the faux reverb effect of trem springs. It takes away from waht I do in the first place which is to build a superior resonating body. These two issues are what would turn me off from this design. That and the fact that the linear tremolo is already made much more simply and efficiently with the Stetsbar. Why take a pure design like that and add the fulcrum back into it? Makes no sense to me. Thoughts from an independant builder. ~David Edited March 7, 2006 by Myka Guitars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Uh-OH.... I think this is my fault for comparing the two devices. Don has made it clear that he has not at all designed his device as in anyway (except for the fore and aft movement) related to the Stetsbar and the motivations of it's design..... One bit of explanation as to why I designed around the traditional rear spring arrangement and routing. I wanted to make potential retrofits possible with only minimal additional routing, and I wanted as much as possible, to keep that familiar "feel" that everyone is used to on the front arm. So it's not for comparison that I brought the two up. I think they are both worthy designs and deserve a better look at what they actually are (hence posting the patent pic) and making people more aware of them and to think about trem design in general. Good to see the Stetsbar metnioend already. I was just going to do that. This is the only truly linear design I know of and it is truly surface mount (read: no routing). ....There really is no need to design a trem that removes even more material than a standard fulcrum trem, in my opinion. It looks like this new trem idea is a little of both the fulcrum and the linear design but not a simplified and better working example of either. It has all the drawbacks of the fulcrum setup without any of the benefits. The linear design is a good idea but why retain the fulcrum? The way I see it is that both linear and fulcum designs will ahve friction so why have both? Either a fulcrum trem or a linear tremolo would be much better than this combined bybrid design. As a luthier this design looks very complicated to install. I look at new trems to overcome the handicaps of the older trem designs. Mainly the big problem I have with tremolos is the massive amount of routing involved. From a tonal point of view this is not a good thing for a guitar to have so much wood removed in front of the bridge. The Kahler designs minimized this and the Stetsbar eliminated it completely. From a practical point of view the sheer number of parts and comlicated installation process would be a turn of to me and my clients. Let's say this tremolo does cost $900. If it takes me 6 hours to install and set it up it guess what happens to the price? Also there is the issue of the springs. Long springs like standard Strat trem style springs vibrate within the range of the guitar. Eliminating those will eliminate the dissipation of vibrational energy away from the strings (loss of sustain). Again the Stetsbar uses two small dense springs that do not vibrate at all within the guitar's frequency range. I personally do not like the faux reverb effect of trem springs. It takes away from waht I do in the first place which is to build a superior resonating body. These two issues are what would turn me off from this design. That and the fact that the linear tremolo is already made much more simply and efficiently with the Stetsbar. Why take a pure design like that and add the fulcrum back into it? Makes no sense to me. Thoughts from an independant builder. ~David All good enough points...but there have been numerous designs that have attempted fore-and-aft movement of the strings (though not the bridge that I can think of) with various degrees of success. Your points are good and valid about the springing and such. Gibsons tailpiece designs such as the side-to-side-action pulled and released the strings, as effectively did the bigsby (when you think about it) also using a masive spring, without routing. The Washburn Wonderbar really did have no routing (but still tilted) and deserved to survive and evolve in my opinion, as a truely new take on things (torsion springing), but alas market forces prevail... Of previous fore and aft devices, these two are the ones that seem to offer a more modern smoother feel and action than the earlier ones. I agree with Myka though about the benefits of the lack of routing and the effect of the fulcrum tremolo on the instrument (large amount of wood removed, lighter longer springing, etc), I simply brought the two up together (in a semi hijack there (sorry Don)) because of the similar fore-and-aft movement and as new approaches to trem design. So. it would be unfair to compare them as if they were in competion with one another, or to take anything from either design in doing so...certainly that was not my intention. Still, what you have said David, does mirror earlier comments herre about the fulcrum/fore-and-aft setup of Don's device and a welcome critical and informed opinion I'm sure, but the two devices are not related in their intent, and I hope people take them for what they are...and perhaps speculate as to what they could be... (perhaps a spring cover on the Stetsbar would make it more attractive to me ) Anyway, all good debate that will interest and inform many and maybe get people thinking, so all good... pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myka Guitars Posted February 28, 2006 Report Share Posted February 28, 2006 Pete, no worries. I would have made the comparison anyway. The linear aspect of the design is very similar. I sure don't think it is a copy by any means but the new way of doing this (roller bearings between sliding plates) is exactly the method the Stetsbar employs. The fulcrum aspect however does place it in a category all its own. I do realise the intent is different. So you are correct, it's all good! ~David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Ramsay Posted March 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Pete and David, You guys are obviously very knowledgeable and I appreciate your deep consideration of 'trem science'. Only wanted to make a few small points tonight. They are not intended to argue that my design is in any way better than the Stet's design. They are just different. I never laid eyes upon the Stet's design until well after my own patent had been applied for and was "pending". I designed mine to drop into (yes, with some additional routing) the huge hole that was already on my Jeff Beck Strat and to make use of the spring and spring claw that were already there. I have never suggested cutting up any existing or vintage instrument. I was able to order a Warmoth body routed for the Fender 2 post and do fairly minimal extra routing to get my prototype up and running. The few requests I have had so far to cut into a Les Paul or Tele style guitar have all ended with my referral to www.stetsbar.com. I respect the though he put into his approach to his design, his focus upon the reversible "no mod" aspects for after-market installs and I am now very familiar with the many benefits to the linear approach. I do not really want retrofit work, and I will now investigate the possibility of licensing OEM builders. Here are a few "food for though" points. 1. A gear is a fulcrum mechanism. May not look one, but it's teeth are a series of levers arranged in a circle about a pivoting centerline. 2. My springs do not attach to the moving portion of the bridge. They attach only to the bottom of the fulcrum. I hear no spring noise coming through my amplifier (although I do have documented high frequency hearing loss...thanks bandmate Bill). 3. The fulcrum portion, although assembled from several separate parts, is locked together and behaves as one rotating lever assembly. 4. The sliding bridge assembly, which is also assembled from several separate parts (6 saddles, each with 2 height adjustment screws, a length adjustment screw and a separate clamp screw, a base plate with 2 crossed roller "V" guide rails) is also all locked together and behaves as one solid monolithic rolling bridge. 5. The slider is not spring (nor string) loaded onto the roller bearings. It is retained by the bearings in all directions except in the direction of the string pull. You could pick up the guitar by the bridge (unstrung). Cool discussion guys, Regards, Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myka Guitars Posted March 1, 2006 Report Share Posted March 1, 2006 Don, Thanks for the informative and clarifying post! ~David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.