The Steel Guitar Forum

I'm still new at the PSG (and love it), but I have an issue. I started off with a Fender 400, which was a great guitar. I bought a BMI S-10, 3x4 which was a step up in terms of professionalism.

However, I always liked the Fender more. I never quite got the feel for the BMI in the end and just sold it - it just didn't "feel" right for me, and I think there's something to be said for that.

It's certainly a quality guitar and will probably make the buyer very happy, but it always felt a little too stiff for me, like I was fighting with it as opposed to the Fender, which had a pedal action that really felt really organic, light, very comfortable.

What I'm wondering is two questions:

1) Did I just have a stiff BMI? It was nice, but a bit older - at least 10 years or so, probably more? Are BMIs notable for this? Or are Fenders just especially easy in this department (I've never played any pedal steel except for these two)?

2) Does anyone have a recommendation for a PSG that would be closer to the action on my Fender but with knee levers? Nothing crazy expensive, but something reasonable on the used market?

Thanks!

Doug-

What was the copedent (tuning and string-pulling setup) on the 400... same as the BMI?

The reason I ask is because often the 400 setups pull fewer strings per pedal than the standard E9, or are a more-slack tuning, say, D9.

They're both standard E9. But the Fender is only 8 strings, so set up without the bottom two strings.

There are two pulls for each pedal/lever on the Fender, though, and two each for the BMI, too. Maybe the changer on the Fender has less tension? Or maybe I just got used to the first PSG that I learned on...

The old Fender cable steels are known for having a "stiff but fast" action. The Fenders aren't easily changed, but most other brands have enough attachment points on the pullers and changer to customize the action to your liking. If your BMI felt "stiff", it more than likely was intentionally set up that way, or perhaps accidentally "altered" by a previous owner. Properly set up, they play as easy as just about any other steel.

On a BMI, the holes in the cranks, or "angle clips", are way ahead of the cross-shaft axle centerline. As a result, the theoretical fulcrum moves further away from the axle as the shaft rotates. So rather than increasing the leverage to the changer throughout the required travel, a BMI's is incrementally decreased. As string tension or balance spring tension increases, more leverage is required to complete the pull...at a time when the fulcrum should be shortening, it's actually lengthening. Is that all bad? No. This makes for "quicker" pulls, but when you require "quicker" pulls, you sacrifice in the required effort department. That's the way it is on all pedal steels. I have two BMI's and discovered this "ahead-of-center" phenomenon right from the get-go. So by re-selecting the stud holes in the pedals themselves, the hole or holes in the angle clips, and the holes in the changer, this was easily overcome. My D-11 plays like you're stepping on grapes!!! And it only has a 2-raise, 2-lower changer system. As suggested above, someone probably did some re-setting of the pulls to make them quicker, but then sacrificed in the stiffness department. That can all be reversed without a lot of hassles. It can't be done in 10 minutes, but the time invested will be well-spent. FWIW I always found the Fender 400's to be pretty stiff and very short in the travel area. So if you're BMI is stiffer than your 400, somebody was probably messing with it.
PRR

10-4 on that! My BMI S-12 has 8 floor pedals and three of 'em have three pulls on them and work very easily. Sometimes at home I play with just socks on and they're very easy to push. I had an old ShoBud S-12 before the BMI and it was harder pedal action on it as I like 'em short and quick plus the old 'bud only had two spots on the bell cranks for leverage while the BMI has 5 so it's easier to balance out the pulls........JH in Va.

PRR wrote

On a BMI, the holes in the cranks, or "angle clips", are way ahead of the cross-shaft axle centerline. As a result, the theoretical fulcrum moves further away from the axle as the shaft rotates. So rather than increasing the leverage to the changer throughout the required travel, a BMI's is incrementally decreased. As string tension or balance spring tension increases, more leverage is required to complete the pull...at a time when the fulcrum should be shortening, it's actually lengthening. Is that all bad? No. This makes for "quicker" pulls, but when you require "quicker" pulls, you sacrifice in the required effort department. That's the way it is on all pedal steels. I have two BMI's and discovered this "ahead-of-center" phenomenon right from the get-go. So by re-selecting the stud holes in the pedals themselves, the hole or holes in the angle clips, and the holes in the changer, this was easily overcome. My D-11 plays like you're stepping on grapes!!! And it only has a 2-raise, 2-lower changer system. As suggested above, someone probably did some re-setting of the pulls to make them quicker, but then sacrificed in the stiffness department. That can all be reversed without a lot of hassles. It can't be done in 10 minutes, but the time invested will be well-spent. FWIW I always found the Fender 400's to be pretty stiff and very short in the travel area. So if you're BMI is stiffer than your 400, somebody was probably messing with it.
PRR

Jerry Boyanton and I noticed this on his (now mine) 1981 D12 BMI. It has 8 pedals and 5 knees with double raise/double lower changers. We had a lengthy conversation with Zane about it in May or June of 1981. He referred to them as angle clips instead of bellcranks. According to Zane, this was incorporated into the design intentionally. Zane felt that most players liked short, quick throws, and only semi-light pedal feel. In other words, most players like the ability to rest their foot on the pedals without skewing the tuning, but still have a nice easy pedal feel. Properly setup and adjusted, a BMI player can rest his foot lightly on the pedals, and then easily depress them with hardly any effort. Even bare foooted!
As Paul indicates, practically any combination of throw/pedal feel can be achieved with this design.

Cheers!!
Benton

On a BMI the actual arc travel is set with a screw and nut on the rectangular cross-shaft on the RETURN of the stroke rather than at the end of it as on most guitars. The shaft stop pin stops inside an oversize hole, so they technically aren't adjustable conventionally at that point. Rarely is the entire arc-travel motion required on any but the longest pulls, so the angle clip/crank is already starting its journey to the over-center position. FWIW I like my pedals set fairly low, so I took the time to mill the 'wedge' shape partially away from the lower side of my pedals at their rearward ends. That allowed the pedals to sit lower in relation to their respective axles which in itself helps increase the leverage against the cross-shafts thus reducing effort slightly, or at least partially canceling the increase in effort required at the shafts. On the D-11, I have pretty short throws on most everything on the guitar. I, too, have some 3-string pulls, but you'd never know it by pedal feel. On the 7th standard pedal which is my 8th pedal, the pull is so easy that I have more than once considered adding a stiff spring to that shaft as it's hard to feel that pedal wearing shoes!!!
I believe my D-11 was made in 1978. It's the design with a 88-hole endplate and full-length neck rails. 2-up, 2-down changer and two of Zane's handmade, tapped pickups, white mica deck with tea-colored birdseye maple necks and front decorative insert. I bought it used in 1980 from Zane at Scotty's. This guitar will never be for sale in my lifetime.
PRR

Ulric - I don't have any good current pictures of it. I don't have a digital camera yet, so I'll have to take some with the trusty 35mm and convert to disc for the computer. As soon as I do, I'll send some your way via email.
PRR