Quote:
You've entirely missed my point. So it goes. |
Quote:
They need not necessarily throw away the molds to make the changes you suggest. A GOOD prototype machinist can modify molds to achieve the desired results. Elias Eleftheriades is one such machinist in the San Francisco Bay Area that did exactly for several years that I worked with him. |
Quote:
Just have to change the neck mold to include a truss rod channel, a one time change I suspect, and lay the rod in. Perhaps, what with Peavy taking over the operation, now would be the easiest time to make a few changes to the design? |
Quote:
George! I was just about to email you, since we haven't heard much from you of late. Hope the ol' noggin is healed, and that you're having a nice summer! Hey, let's have J.R. get a hold of this guy, and introduce him to Hartley! |
Quote:
I'm sure you're aware that carbon fiber differs from wood, but you may not be aware about how it differs tonally. The designers take pains to damp the vibrations. That was CA's claim to fame -- they managed to get a "woody" sound out of carbon fiber by a combination of materials, bracing, and geometry. You seem to want to change the geometry because somebody thinks it's the Right Thing to do for wooden guitars. What makes you certain it's the Right Thing to do for carbon fiber guitars from CA? |
Quote:
Believe whatever you like. Hope Peavy is successful with their new acquisition. The world can never have too many good guitars. |
Quote:
I'm always looking for good guitars. Perhaps I'll find a good super-short-scale carbon-fiber Peavey down the road... |
Quote:
I imagine they could make slight changes to the neck angle in the clone molds without any great expense if they wanted to. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's such a little thing (and not expensive despite a previous poster's concern), but it'll make a HUGE difference. For those who really believe it doesn't need one .... just don't turn it! Bong. |
Quote:
Perhaps they'll be able to harvest carbon from buckyballs found in outer-space: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...ef=online-news Maybe this will keep the cost down, and they'll be able to afford a design that includes a proper neck-angle and adjustable truss rods.... P.S. The geniuses at CA were unable to keep their business afloat. Plenty of discussion here (and elsewhere) on that, but no facts. Apparently not *all* was perfect with their products and/or their company. Remember, they went belly-up. |
Quote:
Judging by Peavey existing products, there is a good possibility that Peavey will actually produce cheaper but lower quality carbon fiber guitars. I don't know how they will cut corners, perhaps in materials, or finishes, or maybe outsource to China. They will very likely target the lower-end segment of the CF market. This may not necessarily hurt Rainsong / Emerald, because Peavey may actually enlarge the CF market by reaching the lower-end market segment. If this is the case, then Rainsong / Emerald will become the Martin / Taylor of the CF world, while Peavey-CA will become... well... the Peavey of the CF world... or if they can sell plenty of CF guitars, the Yamaha of the CF world. |
One of the things you have to remember is the guitars carbon.
I forget what the word is that describes the behavour of the fibers in carbon fiber, I think it's isotropic. Basically once the fibers have been impregnated with eopxy or what ever they use, the fibers will always want to return to their original position or alignment. This is why carbon is so popular for top of the line bicycles, tennis rackets, paddles etc. when the fiber bends it has this natural need to return to the original fiber alignment, so the fibers create or absorbs energy based on the application. With a monocoque design like the Cargo, it would be difficult to stop the fibers trying to return to their original position after trying to adjust a neck. Based the Cargos current design a truss rod would probably result in cracks or damage around the rod. The guitar and neck would have to be separate units. For myself I took a little off of the saddle and put medium strings on the guitar, nice action , no buzz and an instrument I don't have to worry about. There's no doubt in my mind a cargo with a truss rod would require twice the tooling, molds for neck and body, some kind of attachment which would not be as strong as the one piece design. More labour, two layups, more assembly time ( labour ) all of a sudden my reasonably priced camp fire , trash it, beat of the crowds guitar is going to cost 2 grand. For my wood instruments I want the full ability to change the setup and fine tune the instrument. For my Cargo, the less things I have to worry about, the less things can move, the less care I have to give the instrument, the better. |
Quote:
Truss Rod: No truss rod (doesn't need it, the neck is too stiff for it to work) But I am proud to be a member of a forum that can get so excited by something as mundane as a truss-rod. :) |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum