Many years ago when I used to build a few steels I came up with the idea of using the old Sho-Bud rack and barrel system instead of cross shafts and bell cranks.
And I could use the normal nylon tuning nuts
Just to add I put a spot of super glue on the threads and tightened the nylon tuners up very tight had no problems what so ever with them coming lose.
What I did was I used a changer with 3 raise and 2 lower system and I added an extra rack to the existing system pull trains, giving an extra pull on the cross bars ,I still used the barrels, and it was the easiest steel and most reliable steel I have ever had and was an absolutely simple system to change copedents all you needed was one Allen wrench to do the job.
Spelling corrected.
Has anyone done this also?
Jimmy.
Last edited by Jimmy Gibson on 14 Jun 2013 2:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I love my rack and barrel Bud, but it does have a couple of inherent limitations (despite the "infinite" raise and lower capabilities):
1) there is much less capability for timing pulls. This matters more to some people than others, but it's limited on the rack and barrel
2) there is simply less room to add knee levers under there. No problem getting four or five in, but after that it's going to take a lot more woek than on a bell crank system.
Dan Beller-McKenna wrote:I love my rack and barrel Bud, but it does have a couple of inherent limitations (despite the "infinite" raise and lower capabilities):
1) there is much less capability for timing pulls. This matters more to some people than others, but it's limited on the rack and barrel
2) there is simply less room to add knee levers under there. No problem getting four or five in, but after that it's going to take a lot more woek than on a bell crank system.
Dan if you got a 3 raise changer and the extra rack on the pull train, it is very easy to balance the pulls..
I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how the three racks work with the three-raise changer. How many lowers on the changer? Wouldn't you need one rack per change (so, up to six racks for a 3+3 changer)? I must be missing something.
In any case, it seems to me there was, in fact, some maker that did something like this. Not one of the major brands, but a small production model.
The system is different from modern all pull systems in that for a given string, there is only one pull rod for a raise and one pull rod for a lower. Different pedals or KLs can grab these rods at the racks. Tuning is done by adjusting the length of the barrels. Simple and effective. But, this system needs a bit of slack (gap) at the barrel/contact point. So it can feel a bit sloppy compared to a modern guitar.
Dan Beller-McKenna wrote:Jimmy,
Hi Dan sorry if you are confused please read my first post the changer is a 3x2 the extra rack I put in between the other two so having a triple raise
changer and a three cages on the pedal pull it was as I said very easy to get a balance on all the pulls.
sowy about the sperring errar im a bit racky or is it wracky
.
I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how the three racks work with the three-raise changer. How many lowers on the changer? Wouldn't you need one rack per change (so, up to six racks for a 3+3 changer)? I must be missing something.
In any case, it seems to me there was, in fact, some maker that did something like this. Not one of the major brands, but a small production model.
I'm still not seeing it. On a rack and barrel, unlike a bellcrank with multiple holes, the pull rods need to stay perfectly parallel to the deck of the guitar for their entire length; otherwise they will bind (very badly) as they go through all the other racks. Thus, having more raises or lowers than there are racks is superfluous. Indeed, the entire economy of the R+B infinite raise is lost when the pulls get distributed among multiple levels of racks.
Maybe if you have a picture (or diagram) of one of the ones you built I would understand it better.
Hi Dan, it was many years ago I built the steel with this system, and as far as I know the last time I heard from the guy who had it, it is still being used.
As far as the pull rods on this system it did not make any difference if they were not in line with the racks because the racks always pivoted until it caught the barrel pin.
There was another way i did it was to use the pull pins that MSA used to lock the pull rods in the bell cranks they were just the right size to slide into the racks, I then tuned it the normal way using the nylon tuners.
Hope this explains it a bit better as far as pictures go I never ever took any of the steels I made because I only built them as projects but they all worked great.
Dan Beller-McKenna wrote:......In any case, it seems to me there was, in fact, some maker that did something like this. Not one of the major brands, but a small production model.
Dan, I seem to recall seeing a PSG at Opryland in the mid 70's that had a beautifully made rack and barrel undercarriage. It lacquered cabinet and sounded great.
The owner flipped it over for me and the racks looked like they were machined from aluminum rather than stamped. It was pristine underneath. I'm pretty sure it was a "Mullen" (a name which I wasn't familiar with at the time) but I'm not 100% sure. I had a 6139 at the time and remember thinking that this guitar looked what a Sho-Bud would be like if it were built by Mercedes. Maybe Del Mullen or Mike Mantey could shed some light on it.
Jimmy
I agree - having built a light weight S10 --- I used a Sho-Bud Pro-1 , single hole changer in an early 70’s pull /release Fender PSG -- by using idler’s for the double pull on the A & C pedal . I was able to build a 3 & 5 guitar that only weighed 33# Lbs in the case
Doesn't a Kline use rack and barrel? Another advantage is temperature stability as the changer stops are at the end plate much closer to the changers. Since an all pull has it's stops where the pedal rod terminates, the pull rods are quite lenghty and more sensitive to changing temperature. (growth = Coefficient of expansion x length)
I do admit the undercariage gets quite crowded though.
No. The Kline used a similar, more refined version of the ZB changer. Nothing even close to a rack and barrel system.
Also, I don't think the Rack & Barrel Bud's used the endplate as the pedal stop like Klne and ZB did. My rack & barrel Bud that I had used actual pedal stops in the undercarriage.
Carter D10 8p/8k, Dekley S10 3p/4k C6 setup,Regal RD40 Dobro, NV400, NV112 .Playing for 53 years and still counting.
Richard Sinkler wrote:
Also, I don't think the Rack & Barrel Bud's used the endplate as the pedal stop like Klne and ZB did. My rack & barrel Bud that I had used actual pedal stops in the undercarriage.
Richard Sinkler wrote:
Also, I don't think the Rack & Barrel Bud's used the endplate as the pedal stop like Klne and ZB did. My rack & barrel Bud that I had used actual pedal stops in the undercarriage.
Jim Pitman wrote:My mistake fellas. I had heard the Kline referred to as "rack and barrel like" and forgot about the word "like" on the end.
Whoever told you that evidently didn't know what he was talking about, because nothing on the Kline even vaguely resembled anything on a rack and barrel Bud (maybe strings - lol). Both were great systems. My 2 favorite one's.
Carter D10 8p/8k, Dekley S10 3p/4k C6 setup,Regal RD40 Dobro, NV400, NV112 .Playing for 53 years and still counting.
