| Author |
Topic: Zum updated mechanics question |
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 26 Apr 2008 8:39 am |
|
Do most of you Zum players think that the new solid bell cranks which require cotter pins to hold the pull rods in place, are really an improvement over the old dual slotted pullers?
Making changes is quick with the old system. I use a electric screwdriver w/ a hex head to loosen the tuner nuts, push the rod forward and free of the bell crank slot. The only glitch is getting to the screws that hold the crank on the cross shaft (which are parallel to the body).
Still, I think it's much more difficult to make changes having to remove and (especially) install those tiny cotter pins in the cramped environs of the undercarriage. It almost seems easier to just pull the crank off the cross shaft where you have better access to the pin.
Part of my problem may be that my axe is a '97 so it has primarily slotted bell cranks which have a greater front-to back dimension compared to the new pullers. The reason I added the newer style pullers was to install 2 knee lever kits and the older parts were not still available. ......Changes might be easier made if all the bell cranks were the newer small ones. |
|
|
|
Jerry Overstreet
From:
Louisville Ky
|
Posted 26 Apr 2008 9:19 am
|
|
Perhaps on initial build and not considering many changes from that, the old design makes a lot of sense in that it may take up less space and allow straighter pulls by routing same string pulls through them.
If you're making major changes and adding a lot of new pulls, getting wrenches in there to loosen or tighten those horizontal cap screws can be a real bear particularly as you move towards the right end.
Seems to me, the newer bellcranks would simplify the procedure. I think it's a huge improvement over the old ones, and will save a lot of time doing set-ups. A small pair of long nosed pliers and/or a cheap pick set are all that's required to handle the hairpin clips. No big deal.
They're a lot like my Mullen cranks, and setup changes are a breeze on it. JMO. |
|
|
|
Bo Borland
From:
South Jersey -
|
Posted 26 Apr 2008 10:15 am
|
|
| I saw a "cheap pick" set at the True Value hardware store yesterday. I was buying a set of T handle SAE hex wrenches. Seems like the right thing to use. |
|
|
|
Jerry Overstreet
From:
Louisville Ky
|
Posted 27 Apr 2008 4:52 am
|
|
I should have written inexpensive  
but yeah, you can find a little 4 pc. set at many hardware stores for just a few bucks.
The hairpin clips are really small and easy to drop, so losing one could be a problem. A small pencil type magnet or a little pocket screwdriver with a magnet in the handle would be helpful in retrieving loose ones. |
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 27 Apr 2008 11:21 am
|
|
I think the new bell cranks are an improvement. It is one of the few designs out there that allow easy access to the bell crank screw, as it is not covered by the pull rods. And even though it is a side pull, it is designed to handle the torque well. Another improvement is that the pull rods cannot slip out inadvertently under any circumstances.
But I have the same problem mentioned above. Most of my pulls have the old system. A few new pulls have the new system, and I was barely able to make them work together, and it makes the space very cramped. Someday, I would like to replace all the old pulls with the new system, but that will require a complete dissassembly and reassembly. Not looking forward to that.  |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 27 Apr 2008 12:24 pm
|
|
| Anybody got a pic, so I can see what youse is talking about? |
|
|
|
Danny Letz
From:
Old Glory,Texas, USA 79540
|
Posted 27 Apr 2008 4:14 pm
|
|
| Some of the changes were done to ease the manufacturing process. It's a lot easier to cut a little slot for a hairpin than it is to drill a 1/16th hole dead center in a 1/8th rod. (I've tryed) |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 27 Apr 2008 10:15 pm
|
|
Don't get me wrong......I think the Zum is well designed, well built and great sounding. The only exception is the cotter pin.
I'd rather use the Sho-Bud carburator clip or Chuck Back's Desert Rose Spring clip for affixing a right angled pull rod to the new style bell crank. I'm sorry but I just hate cotter pins, they give me nightmares about working on my old ZB.
That said.......The Zum is the best playing guitar I've ever owned. Sounds great too. |
|
|
|
Paddy Long
From:
Christchurch, New Zealand
|
Posted 28 Apr 2008 1:29 am
|
|
Tony the new design Zum bell crank uses a small pin clip that fit's in a small slot in the end of the rod, not a cotter pin. Here is a pic of the new design undercarriage.
 |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
|
|
|
Erv Niehaus
From:
Litchfield, MN, USA
|
Posted 28 Apr 2008 8:53 am
|
|
The only thing I could really find fault with with the old Zums was the comb type bellcranks.
They were fairly "flimsy" and you had to kind of bend them together so the pull rods with the 1/16" pin would hang on.
Also, sometimes you had to run another pull rod through the bellcranks and if the bellcrank was squeezed together too much, the pull rod would hang up on it.
It was also hard to get to the screw to move the bellcrank around.
The new style is DEFINITELY an improvement. 
Thanks Bruce! |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 28 Apr 2008 9:29 am
|
|
misfire !
Last edited by Tony Glassman on 28 Apr 2008 10:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Michael McGee
From:
Everton, Missouri, USA
|
Posted 28 Apr 2008 9:30 am
|
|
I grant that the cotter pins can get tough to use in a tight spot. But when I have pulls on adjacent strings, I like the fact that I can use only one of the newer-style cranks to pull both strings.
We players are truly blessed to have many great guitars being built these days, to the point that it's getting hard to decide what to buy. I find "the devil to be in details". IMHO, when I start really examining Bruce's ideas underneath, I find a LOT of little details, like the one I mentioned, that might slip by at first glance. I can't help but admire the way he designs his guitars. |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 28 Apr 2008 9:34 am
|
|
My point is: Although the new bell crank is far superior....The hairpin attachment is not.
I think Chuck Back's idea of using a tubular spring on the pull rod with a coil bent out 90 degrees that slips over the exposed right angle of the pull rod which passes through the bell crank, would secure the pull rod equally well but would greatly simplify changes. |
|
|
|
Scott Swartz
From:
St. Louis, MO
|
Posted 28 Apr 2008 9:43 am
|
|
The tubular spring with extension retainer works excellent, have those on my Williams, I think Williams was the first brand to use it
_________________
Scott Swartz
Steeltronics - Steel Guitar Pickups
www.steeltronics.com |
|
|
|
Paddy Long
From:
Christchurch, New Zealand
|
Posted 28 Apr 2008 3:12 pm
|
|
Tony I have never had an issue with the hairpins - with a pair of needle nose pliers they come off in a nano-second and you can move a rod and replace the pin in a jiffy (slightly longer than a nano-sec) ! As also pointed out, the screw holding the bellcrank to the crossrod can be accessed easily if it needs to be moved as well.
Speaking of Bruces innovations - my new Hybrid guitar, which has 9 pedals, has got the edge shaved off the right hand side(looking from the back) of the 8th pedal, so you don't get your foot hooked up in it when you go to hit the 9th pedal. He builds some amazing detail into his guitars.
Last edited by Paddy Long on 29 Apr 2008 1:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 29 Apr 2008 7:13 am
|
|
I think with respect to my '97 that the mix of old and new bell cranks is more likely the true problem.
I can see from the above pix that a Zum totally outfitted with the new smaller bell cranks allows decent access to the cotter (hair) pins.
There's just not sufficient room for pin removal/installation on my guitar where the majority of the other bellcranks are the larger comb-type ones. |
|
|
|
chris ivey
From:
california (deceased)
|
Posted 29 Apr 2008 12:19 pm
|
|
luckily, i've never had a problem with my 82 zum as far as bellcranks...the only time i've had to bend the double combs back together is if i've done something carelessly and no problems with other rods going through.
my main fear is when the pedal rod attachments to the pedals finally break, i know bruce isn't cutting them anymore...will i have to replace the pedals with newer ones?
really can't complain after 26 years of joy!
oh yeah...paid $2400 for mine new with zum pedal and case..ha ha! (d10 9+
that's weird...i don't do smileys 9+8 |
|
|
|
steve takacs
From:
beijing, china via pittsburgh (deceased)
|
Posted 9 May 2008 6:55 pm parts for early zum available?
|
|
| Tony menitons that the olders Zumsteel parts are not available, but does anyone know if Bruce does sell the rods, pedals,and bellcranks for the earlier models, such as a 1981 Zum? If you do have an older model, can the newer parts be used? Thanks, steve t |
|
|
|
Jerry Overstreet
From:
Louisville Ky
|
Posted 10 May 2008 6:15 am
|
|
Tony, I can certaintly see your point on mixing the 2 designs.
I found this earlier Zum thread which has a closer shot of the bellcranks in the lower photo. The new ones are open at the end, but the slot looks like it might be too small to just slip the rod out the other end of the crank without removing the clip? I was wondering if the clip was just to keep the rod from pulling out sideways kinda serving the same function as the roll pins on the old rods. What has your experience been?
One nice feature of the newer design is that it will allow you better access to the screw so that you can just loosen and move them around as you make changes without having to remove them from the crossrod.
Still, I guess owners of older guitars have no other choice if you need parts. Not a big deal for me, but I see your reasoning.
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=1151364&sid=4113c3a63a79c93d72bf13a2efe26d60 |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 10 May 2008 7:11 am
|
|
| Jerry Overstreet wrote: |
Tony, I can certaintly see your point on mixing the 2 designs.......
........ I was wondering if the clip was just to keep the rod from pulling out sideways kinda serving the same function as the roll pins on the old rods. What has your experience been?............One nice feature of the newer design is that it will allow you better access to the screw so that you can just loosen and move them around as you make changes without having to remove them from the crossrod. |
You're right. My biggest problem is the "mixing of the two designs".
CON: The old fingers are bigger and impede access to the cotter pins on the newer ones + I'm not a cotter pin fan overall.
PRO: The vertical access of the new bell cranks make them much easier to move along the cross shafts.
BOTTOM-LINE: If money was no object, I'd consider rebuilding the underside with all new pull-rods and bellcranks, but it would cost around $500. Seeing as my Zum plays and sounds great, I'll stay with my "hybrid" ' ' bell crank system. |
|
|
|
KENNY KRUPNICK
From:
Columbus, Ohio
|
Posted 10 May 2008 8:35 am
|
|
| Bruce has a great design! I just got a pull kit from him,and the new designed bell crank is better than the "cotter pin" deal. The pull rod won't backlash out of the bellcrank. The pin holds it in and will keep it from coming out sideways. |
|
|
|
Jerry Overstreet
From:
Louisville Ky
|
Posted 10 May 2008 10:16 am
|
|
So....am I correct in assuming that the left end of the crank toward the keyhead side is smaller than the changer end and you can't just loosen up the tuning nut and push the rod out the back to reposition the rod to another hole?
Also, is there a bushing or is that just a washer I see on the front side of the crank where the rod goes in?
Over time, several builders have updated some features on their products for one reason or another. Good thing is you can install these new parts on the older Zum and add new or different changes along the way. And yes, all of the ones I have ever played or heard play great and sound fabulous. |
|
|
|
Tony Glassman
From:
The Great Northwest
|
Posted 10 May 2008 10:49 am
|
|
| Jerry Overstreet wrote: |
So....am I correct in assuming that the left end of the crank toward the keyhead side is smaller than the changer end and you can't just loosen up the tuning nut and push the rod out the back to reposition the rod to another hole?
Also, is there a bushing or is that just a washer I see on the front side of the crank where the rod goes in?
Over time, several builders have updated some features on their products for one reason or another. Good thing is you can install these new parts on the older Zum and add new or different changes along the way. And yes, all of the ones I have ever played or heard play great and sound fabulous. |
1] You are correct, the key head portion of the slot/hole is smaller and will not allow one to slip the pullrod forward.
2] To change you have to remove the pin, slide out the angled pullrod, reposition it to another slot and then re-pin it.
3] it's a washer, not a bushing |
|
|
|
Jerry Overstreet
From:
Louisville Ky
|
Posted 10 May 2008 3:08 pm
|
|
Thanks Tony, that's what I thought. Appears like this feature of the newer part could eliminate the use of those set collars behind the bellcrank that keep the rods from backing out when the lever is relaxed?
On a negative note, the later design would prevent one from just pulling forward on the rod and repostioning it to another location for timing or leverage issues via the older system.
The original style parts are very lightweight as well....that's gotta be a plus |
|
|
|
