Mullen Bent Cross Rods

Don Drummer · Post by **Don Drummer** » 28 Aug 2010 6:19 pm

I've had Emmons pp and LeGrande III. Great guitars. The Mullen G2 however imparts the most sensation to me when operating the machine. That's right I said it. It sounds great and it feels soooo cool to play! Sometimes I just sit and stare at it and bless the day I got one. P.S. For me the C6 tone and mechanic have put me over into another realm of playing

Thank You Mullen Guitar Co. Don D

Jimmy Lewis · Post by **Jimmy Lewis** » 28 Aug 2010 6:19 pm

for you people who think you know so much about physics why don't you just start a company build your own steels and call them PC steels for phisycally correct.

Tony Glassman · Post by **Tony Glassman** » 28 Aug 2010 6:47 pm

Chris Lang wrote: BWAHAHAHA!

admin · Post by **b0b** » 28 Aug 2010 7:23 pm

I don't understand how a steel guitar can "violate the basic rules of physics" or be "not physically correct". It seems to me that it either pulls the string reliably or it does not. Either way, there is no real "violation". And if it works well, it is by definition "physically correct".

I've heard that some people have to have the walls of their house lined up with the points of a compass. Otherwise, they get disoriented. Is that what has happened here? Is the arc of an ellipse just too strange a concept, like a house that's 38 degrees off compass?

The laws of physics do not require square corners and perfect circles. In fact, they define how a system will react to all sorts of angles and curves. The guitar's design would only be "incorrect" if it didn't pull strings smoothly and reliably. It may offend your sense of symmetry, but that alone doesn't make it a bad mechanical design.

Frankly, I think Mullen should patent the idea.

Storm Rosson · Post by **Storm Rosson** » 28 Aug 2010 8:14 pm

Big DITTO on that B0b ,as I said earlier and after having examed a newer G2 at a buddies in Ruidoso last winter, who by the way specifically pointed out the "weird" cross shaft design. With him playing and me on my back on the floor scrutinizing the part(s) in action, I quickly came to a conclusion...BRILLIANT...freakin spot on. And as usual adhere's to the timeless old addage....."keep it simple stupid".....Stormy

Bill Dobkins · Post by **Bill Dobkins** » 28 Aug 2010 8:47 pm

It's not like these rods turn a whole rotation. At most an 8th of an inch. I don't see where it is losing any strength in the application it is used.
If it were standing upright with weight on top maybe the phyics you are speaking off would come into play.
IMHO
BD

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 28 Aug 2010 9:53 pm

b0b wrote:I don't understand how a steel guitar can "violate the basic rules of physics" or be "not physically correct".

I don't think they meant to say that the steel guitar violates the laws of physics. (Is mass/energy not conserved? Are Maxwell's equations contravened? Has it futzed with lepton number? Can we safely ignore exotic relativistic and quantum considerations? Does the entropy of the system decrease? This would be big news if true.) But I'll be darned if I know what they meant to say.
And what does "not physically correct" mean? Can that same cross shaft be correct in some non-physical sense?

Danny Bates · Post by **Danny Bates** » 29 Aug 2010 4:48 am

There's a difference between theory and reality.

Example: In the old days I had a driveshaft that was out of alignment in my 1963 Ford van.

Theory: A lot of mechanics told me I wouldn't last 100 miles.

Reality: I put about 50,000 miles on it before I lost a U-Jointbracket.. Which BTW was welded using a coat hanger.

Theory: They said I better replace that too. (I was poor)

Reality: It ran for at least another 20,000 miles. That's when I sold the van.

Now why would so many pro players play Mullen G2's if they could possibly break down in the middle of a gig or concert?

http://www.manwillneverfly.com/

Chris Lang · Post by **Chris Lang** » 29 Aug 2010 5:21 am

b0b believes:

Frankly, I think Mullen should patent the idea.

Huh??

LMAO, I would bet they have tried. That would be like trying to get a patent for egg shaped tires!

Bottom line:
I'm not saying the G2 does not work per se, I'm saying that in my opinion, it cannot work(pull) as effeciently as a guitar with physically correct, straight crossrods! Simple as that.......

I was under the impression that Mullen guitars were all about precision and effeciency in their guitars..........

General Motors could build a nice, new Escalade with all the bells and whistles, yet put a small, inline 4 cylinder engine in it.

Would it work? Well, yes........

Is it ideal? Of course not!

No, IMHO, the bent crossrods ARE a design flaw, and I am not afraid to express my opinion about it. The folks at Mullen seem like really nice people, however, I thoroughly disagree with the use of those hideous, bent crossrods.

The changer is great, however, the crossrods are not correct, and I expected more out of the design of the G2.

Bill Lowe · Post by **Bill Lowe** » 29 Aug 2010 5:50 am

Chris, I look at the word flaw and think there should be some type of problem connected to it. as you state with GM there would clearly be a power issue connected to the 4 cyl. Can you let me know what the problem is with the G2? (other than your thoughts onn a design flaw)I don't know of any.If the pedals and knee levers work with acuracy each time they are activated, I'm not sure how straight shafts would make a difference. I am buying an SD10 G2 (as soon s Mike Mantey calls me) and would like to have all the info that I can get. I have no problems with my D10.

Thnks Bill

Chris Lang · Post by **Chris Lang** » 29 Aug 2010 6:06 am

Bill says:

I'm not sure how straight shafts would make a difference. I am buying an SD10 G2 (as soon s Mike Mantey calls me) and would like to have all the info that I can get. I have no problems with my D10.

I'm not sure how straight shafts would make a difference.

Straight cross shafts, by the very design, will pull the rods much truer than the "bent" cross shafts.

By design the "bent" rods will have a "rise" and "fall", even if it is slight, it is still occurring!

For example:
If I were building a guitar and proclaimed it to be the very best, I would not cut ANY corners at all. If I had designed an inline pulling changer, I would make every effort to ensure that the crossrods and bellcranks pull precisely, otherwise I would be defeating the work that I put into the changer. You cannot expect bent crossrods to pull precisly.

*keyword here is Precise*.

This is my scenario, and not necessarily the opinion of Mullen guitar.

George McLellan · Post by **George McLellan** » 29 Aug 2010 6:39 am

I was at a jam yesterday and one of the players had a Mullen. I wouldn't care if it had U shaped cross rods if I could get the tone out of my steel that he did - and I like mine just fine.

BTW we played each others guitars too.

Geo

Mike Mantey · Post by **Mike Mantey** » 29 Aug 2010 6:40 am

All I can say is lets all get bent, and have a G2. This is not a physics project. It is a machine for the player and the crowd to enjoy. Physics or not, I gave that stuff up in school. This is about building a guitar. That is what we did and look forward to you all getting bent.
Join us in St. Louis and see for yourself. With Del's 40 years of building guitars, not physics projects, he has accomplished a lot and we are not near done yet, We are proud to be who we are, what we are, and gracious for the many years of support. So just jump on board, or I guess get bent.

Jim Palenscar · Post by **Jim Palenscar** » 29 Aug 2010 6:47 am

Actually, all of the modern pedal steels with a bellcrank have a rise and fall throughout the travel as the bellcrank rotates on the axis of the cross shaft. Guitars like the cable-pull Fenders did not.

Bill Lowe · Post by **Bill Lowe** » 29 Aug 2010 6:52 am

Jim, I am surprised that nobody brought that up before. I wonder how these guitars work at all....... they are all flawed. Maybe the bent cross shafts counteract that action

Ken Pippus · Post by **Ken Pippus** » 29 Aug 2010 7:10 am

That's it, the experiment's over, everybody back on their Fenders.

KP

Chris Lang · Post by **Chris Lang** » 29 Aug 2010 7:24 am

Mike tells:

Physics or not, I gave that stuff up in school.

YIKES!
I would not have revealed that information. Some things are better left unsaid!

Jim says:

Actually, all of the modern pedal steels with a bellcrank have a rise and fall throughout the travel as the bellcrank rotates on the axis of the cross shaft. Guitars like the cable-pull Fenders did not.

True Jim, so true.

NOW, add that "rise" and "fall" to the bent crossrod design and you have even more "rise" and "fall"

Not good...........................

Roger Crawford · Post by **Roger Crawford** » 29 Aug 2010 7:52 am

When scientists come across something that seems to violate a law of physics, they tend to either scrap the old law or come up with a new one that incorporates or explains the anomalous occurrence. Quantum theory was the response to the failure of classical mechanics to explain interactions at the subatomic level. The “laws of physics” are constantly changing, but if something is generally recognized as a law, that usually means it has never, to our knowledge been broken.

However, I can think of once instance in which the apparently still-standing Law of Conservation of Energy appeared to have been broken, and that is in the case of matter-antimatter collisions. When an electron and a positron collide, the resulting energy comes out in a kind of 2 + 2 = 5 situation, that is, there is extra energy that basically suddenly “appears,” and physicists remain unclear as to where this energy comes from.

Mike Mantey · Post by **Mike Mantey** » 29 Aug 2010 7:59 am

Yeah I stand by my statement. I stopped studying physics in school. Now I build guitars, and talk about just that on this Steel Guitar Forum.

Bent Romnes · Post by **Bent Romnes** » 29 Aug 2010 8:06 am

Mike Mantey wrote:All I can say is lets all get bent, and have a G2. So just jump on board, or I guess get bent.

I'll second that, Mike!

Chuck Thompson · Post by **Chuck Thompson** » 29 Aug 2010 8:29 am

I have a G2 and LOVE IT! Mike has a great idea for new Mullen T-shirts too. "Get Bent or Get Bent"

Chris Lang · Post by **Chris Lang** » 29 Aug 2010 8:43 am

Mike says:

Yeah I stand by my statement. I stopped studying physics in school. Now I build guitars, and talk about just that on this Steel Guitar Forum.

That's all well and fine, but the laws of physics are still around, being applied today! (except in the case of the mysterious bent rods)

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 29 Aug 2010 8:47 am

Ever noticed how you can set up a steel with no binding between the rods and cranks and then while pressing a pedal or knee lever it starts rubbing somewhere? The up and down movement of the bell crank position where the rods attaches happens on any guitar. Actuating a pedal will cause the rod to change postion relative to all the other pull rods and cranks and this can cause binding on any guitar. You have to set up the guitar and slowly work through any of these binding issues as you actuate each pedal.

With the Mullen design you can see where the bell crank will move a bit more out of position or off axis as you get away from the fixed end position at the side of the guitar. This is not inherently a problem but you might have to correct for it to reduce binding between pull rods and cranks, Same as on any other gutiar. It's just a part of the guitar setup. BTW this movement could also help you by increasing the clearance between adjacent pull rods and cranks as they are actuated.

If the guitar plays fine, then none of this stuff actually matters. I see no harm in discussing it or expressing one's opinions though without everyone being so defensive!

Greg

admin · Post by **b0b** » 29 Aug 2010 8:49 am

Jim Palenscar wrote:Actually, all of the modern pedal steels with a bellcrank have a rise and fall throughout the travel as the bellcrank rotates on the axis of the cross shaft.

Chris Lang wrote:True Jim, so true.

NOW, add that "rise" and "fall" to the bent crossbar design and you have even more "rise" and "fall"

Not true. The elliptical path created by the bent crossbar creates less rise and fall of the pull rod at the point where it attaches to the rod puller (bellcrank).

Frankly, Chris, I just think that you don't like the way bent crossbars look. Either that or you're just stirring up shit for the fun of it.

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 29 Aug 2010 8:59 am

wheeee... i can't believe you all have let chris lang sucker you all into this and allowing yourselves to get upset, fun as it may be for him.
in that respect, good work chris, for achieving your intentions.

as i said on the other thread, steels used to be made with the tolerance of a hacksaw and file and they still made pretty music.