software

The biggest difference between my strat and my other guitars, ibanez, carvin etc is the vibration of the neck. I found some interesting info on warmoth.com: -gt;
so fender's necks with a stripe on the back have a single rod in the neck. it explains the looser feel and bell like tone. and then there's the modern double rods that's super strong like then one in my RG. It feels much stiffer when I hold the neck in my hand.
my question is what other brands use fender type truss rods? what about carvin, gibson, jackson?
The jackson RR3 I tried last week felt right between my strat and my RG. it's firm and warm at the same time, what kind do they use?

Gibson use a single rod; most quality makers would as it is far more effficient.

Rickenbacker truss rods are a flattened mild steel wire about 3/16quot; in diameter; they are folded and one end is threaded, the other is bevelled. A 1/4quot; pressure block and nut contrives to apply tension on one side and compression to the other. The system is ridiculously inefficient and it's a miracle that it works, even if not very well.

A lot of Korean and Japanese manufacturers use U-beam truss rods. These have a square channel of aluminium alloy which is compressed by an internal steel rod. The assembly bends because it's stiffer on the closed side of the channel than the open side. The eastern manufacturers like things like this because they can buy them in as a 'drop-in' unit and the skill required for installation is less. They are not very efficient however and add little to the resonant characeristics of the neck.

The Carvin's and American Jackson's I have seen use Gibson style truss rods. Koren and Japanese Jackson's i'm not sure about. PRS use their own design of two way truss rod. Fender US Standards use a two way quot;Biflexquot; truss rod which uses the walnut plug in the headstock to deliver negative compression to the neck. It's a stupid design. If you need a two way truss rod then there is something wrong with your wood.

Hope that's informative

IIRC Jackson started using double expanding rods first in teh imports and then starting in the 90s with the USA models as well, modern USA and Japanese Jacksons should therefore all have DE-rods. Including your RR3.

JS and Performers seem to have either /or, with no apparent correlation to vintage or plant (Jap / India for JS, Jap / Korea (long closed) for Performers)Originally Posted by octavedoctor....If you need a two way truss rod then there is something wrong with your wood...

I agree, but only in that exact wording.

Modern quot;warmoth stylequot; double expanding rods do offer a differerent, quot;firmerquot; tone and by design just add a little extra quot;safetyquot; into the neck, stability wise.... which considering some modern designs (wizard Necks) and things like the increased demand for 7 strings (WITH said wizard necks, lol) that´s not necessarily bad.... a stiffer neck is never a bad thing IMO


Originally Posted by ZerberusModern quot;warmoth stylequot; double expanding rods do offer a differerent, quot;firmerquot; tone and by design just add a little extra quot;safetyquot; into the neck, stability wise.... which considering some modern designs (wizard Necks) and things like the increased demand for 7 strings (WITH said wizard necks, lol) that´s not necessarily bad.... a stiffer neck is never a bad thing IMO

I'm not familiar with the Warmoth design; does this work in a similar way to the PRS design?

Is the PRS truss rod a Warmoth design maybe? I'd always believed it was their own design...


Originally Posted by octavedoctorI'm not familiar with the Warmoth design; does this work in a similar way to the PRS design?

Is the PRS truss rod a Warmoth design maybe? I'd always believed it was their own design...

Actually the classic Double expanding rod is a Wayne Charvel /Lynn Ellsworth invention if I´m not totally off... Grover just decided to try it on the Imports first

there´s a semi-decent pic on this page.... from : localhost/essentially a similar principle to the Jap quot;U-beamquot; system (which many VIntage Martins also used, btw, but non-adjustable),but just a shorter rod on top fixed to threads on a longer one ... when you loosen, the longer rod bends the shorter one upward into relief, and vice-versa when tightened

While the original reason was almost surely easo of installation /mass production, they´ve proven themselves a worthy alternative IMO ... just like the strat

This seems like an opportune moment to ask if anyone knows who invented the adjustable truss rod?

I've been writing an article for the Sound Control house magazine about the development of the truss rod, attempting to tie it's invention to the development of the North American railroad network but it's in limbo at the moment as i am unable to establish whether a patent exists in anyone's name.

I understand that there is a patent on the truss rod dated 1926 in the name of a Gibson employee, Tim Smith, I believe but i've been unable to establish whether this refers to the adjustable truss rod or the earlier, simpler, reinforcing rod.

The whole issue has been complicated by the fact that my e-mail buddy Bob who is the great grandson of Anastasios Stathopoulo, the founder of the Epiphone company (the company was named after his son Epi) swears that his grandfather Epi invented the Adjustable Truss Rod. Unfortunately i haven't been able to verify this.

Any of the Americans on the forum got any ideas?


Originally Posted by ZerberusActually the classic Double expanding rod is a Wayne Charvel /Lynn Ellsworth invention if I´m not totally off... Grover just decided to try it on the Imports first

there´s a semi-decent pic on this page.... from : localhost/essentially a similar principle to the Jap quot;U-beamquot; system (which many VIntage Martins also used, btw, but non-adjustable),but just a shorter rod on top fixed to threads on a longer one ... when you loosen, the longer rod bends the shorter one upward into relief, and vice-versa when tightened

While the original reason was almost surely easo of installation /mass production, they´ve proven themselves a worthy alternative IMO ... just like the strat

Ah, i see now. i am familiar with this design. It's actually an elaboration of the Rickenbacker idea, but far more precisely engineered. Because it uses opposed threads, it is much more efficient, however it doesn't really involve true negative compression, a la Fender biflex; the wood of the neck is essentially a shroud which moves in response to the changes induced in the truss rod by the opposed tensile/compressive action.

Clever.

I'm not sure that the complete absence of end to end compression is such a good idea as this forms part of the dynamic response of the neck in conjunction with the string tension but i can see how it would be far more stable and less sensitive to temperature changes as the truss rod expansion in heat would be self cancelling and the changes in the state of the neck due to fluctuations in ambient humidity would not be transferred to the truss rod as compression changes.


Originally Posted by octavedoctorAh, i see now. i am familiar with this design. It's actually an elaboration of the Rickenbacker idea, but far more precisely engineered. Because it uses opposed threads, it is much more efficient, however it doesn't really involve true negative compression, a la Fender biflex; the wood of the neck is essentially a shroud which moves in response to the changes induced in the truss rod by the opposed tensile/compressive action.

You´re quick, obviously not nearly as drunk as I am, let´s change that

AS far as the patent goes, I would assume it´s for adjustable rods, as they were starting to become common around that period... maybe the US Patent Office can help... from : localhost/patents.uspto.gov/

first of all, thanks zerb and octave!
this is very interesting. (and a little confusing for a newbie)
let me see if I get it right;
the wizard on my RG and the RR3 probably both have double expanding rods. the pressure comes from bending one piece of metal against another, it could be two rods or one rod one U-beam.
and gibson's is similar to fender's.( that explain why gibson necks are much stiffer than fender's because the wood is thicker with a silimar rod)
btw, I'm here in steel city USA and I don't know crap about truss rod, let alone who invented it :LOL:


Originally Posted by octavedoctorI'm not sure that the complete absence of end to end compression is such a good idea as this forms part of the dynamic response of the neck in conjunction with the string tension but i can see how it would be far more stable and less sensitive to temperature changes as the truss rod expansion in heat would be self cancelling and the changes in the state of the neck due to fluctuations in ambient humidity would not be transferred to the truss rod as compression changes.

I agree. this is actually where my question came from originally.
when you use two pieces of steel to balance the tension from the strings then it doesn't really matter what the neck is made of: maple, mahogany, whatever,
the length and weight and joint are more important than material, imho.
one more point,
high end PRS necks are completely made of rosewood. very expansive. that makes me think they are using the fenderish rod because why would they invest so much into a feature that doesn't matter very much?:

and carvin neck is probably fender type two with two graphite beams to add strength.


Originally Posted by rguser....
and carvin neck is probably fender type two with two graphite beams to add strength.

Carvin also uses double rods, they even state so themselves on their website... the graphite rods add extra stiffness.

thanks! that's easier to compare carvins to other brands.
Still wonder why the RR3 felt so different from my RG. both bolt-on with floyd. one alder body(RR) and one mahogany body(RG). the RR felt much more organic, less stiff.

different piece of wood, different body style, different hands in the making of it...lots of factors, even the way different pickups quot;feelquot; can affect our impression of an instrument