Peavey to Release Composite Acoustics at NAMM

[whamonkey]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

...yeah.

It's really all pretty funny, if you ask me.

I''m waiting for the graphic of the person with their fingers plugging their ears, walking around going "la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la".....

So if I like my guitar I'm oblivious to it's obvious flaws?

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by whamonkey

So if I like my guitar I'm oblivious to it's obvious flaws?

You might be, I honestly can't tell from here (about you and/or the guitar).



You can own what you perceive to be a flawless example of a Cargo (remember, *I'm* only discussing Cargos) and we can *both* be right.

However, disregarding the stated flaws that I (and others) have measured and presented is another matter altogether.

[OpenD]

Since I am all jolly and full of holiday spirit at the moment, I'll add something that occurred to me as this thread and the wine were mulling...

I do think that being able to adjust the neck angle on a guitar is a reasonable design goal, and I can see how some people would like that capability. But if so, ask for that rather than asking for a truss rod in the neck. That's not the primary reason truss rods are used in wooden neck guitars, and they simply won't work the same way on a carbon fiber neck. CF doesn't have the flexibility that is needed for a truss rod to work. It's too stiff.

There have been a number of patents on designs to do this, but they haven't been widely adopted for the obvious reasons... they add expense and complexity to the instrument, and most players just don't care that much.

[scooter74]

Originally Posted by OpenD

CF doesn't have the flexibility that is needed for a truss rod to work. It's too stiff.

There have been a number of patents on designs to do this, but they haven't been widely adopted for the obvious reasons... they add expense and complexity to the instrument, and most players just don't care that much.

Ok, now I am sure that you work for Peavey!

As you guys know Rainsong has a working truss rod system that works just fine. I was at LA Guitar Sales last month and watched Ted adjust a clinets truss rod on a dreadnought after installing heavier strings for him. Ted still has some left over CA's in stock so we got to talking about the truss rod controversy. Ted explained how CA's are built and once understood it's obvious CA can't have a truss rod. Seems CA guitars feature a one pice bowl back that includes the neck, so if you bend the neck the entire back will get torqued more than likely cracking the neck joint. On a Rainsong the neck is a separate piece so neck relief and even neck angle adjustments are no more difficult than on our wood guitars.

In my opinion Peavey should worry less about truss rods and start taking responsibility for all the CA's already out there. There are stories of bridges coming off, fretboards de laminating, and even some necks cracking.

[taylorphile]

Originally Posted by jalbert

I wonder if that statement was aimed at the Cargo specifically, or all of their guitars. I know my six year old Legacy has no problems with neck pitch or its saddle. (Of course, this guitar was from the first incarnation of the factory, before they reorganized and brought out the Cargo.)

I played one of those early ones too and almost bought it at the time.
There didn't seem to be any problems.

TK

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Since I am all jolly and full of holiday spirit at the moment, I'll add something that occurred to me as this thread and the wine were mulling...

I do think that being able to adjust the neck angle on a guitar is a reasonable design goal, and I can see how some people would like that capability. But if so, ask for that rather than asking for a truss rod in the neck. That's not the primary reason truss rods are used in wooden neck guitars, and they simply won't work the same way on a carbon fiber neck. CF doesn't have the flexibility that is needed for a truss rod to work. It's too stiff.

There have been a number of patents on designs to do this, but they haven't been widely adopted for the obvious reasons... they add expense and complexity to the instrument, and most players just don't care that much.

You may want to more fully review the facts.

1) Relief does change on the Cargo neck with heavier gauge strings. Based on measurable observation their necks do flex, despite your opinion. The only way to deal with this is to add a truss rod.

2) The neck/body "area" (it's not a joint) also flexes. If the initial angle can be made to be correct (which I assume it can), then this area needs to be reinforced to prevent the flexing. Through this thread we understand that Peavey might actually be addressing this issue. Good for them.

A neck-angle adjustment mechanism is somewhat extraneous to this discussion...although some of these mechanisms, when designed & installed properly on wood guitars have proved very functional. I'm not sure what the added cost is for a feature such as this (on a wood guitar), but I'm guessing in the $500-1000 range in a non-mass-production environment. To add something like this to a Cargo (for example) might mean a complete re-design for there to actually *be* some sort of neck-block/head-block on the guitar.

[Jeff M]

Originally Posted by wilstev

...

In my opinion Peavey should worry less about truss rods and start taking responsibility for all the CA's already out there. There are stories of bridges coming off, fretboards de laminating, and even some necks cracking.

I suspect that was not part of the business plan when Peavey bought CA.

[SMan]

If the company was purchased out of bankruptcy Peavy probably has no legal obligations to owners of CA guitars made by the "old" company. If they are keeping the CA name it could hurt them from a marketing standpoint. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[scooter74]

Larry, the biggest hurdle to making any changes to the Cargo is price. I paid less than 700 smackers for my Cargo RAW and I would not have payed a nickel more. I also never would have looked at one if my local CA dealer didn't take the time to explain to me why I "needed" one. Peavey is planning to sell CA's through Guitar Center which means selling them at MAP and relying on zit faced kids to explain to other zit faced kids why they should spend a grand and a half on a plastic Baby Taylor (yes, I actually heard a Sam Ash employee describe it as such) so don't expect any changes.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by wilstev

Larry, the biggest hurdle to making any changes to the Cargo is price. I paid less than 700 smackers for my Cargo RAW and I would not have payed a nickel more. I also never would have looked at one if my local CA dealer didn't take the time to explain to me why I "needed" one. Peavey is planning to sell CA's through Guitar Center which means selling them at MAP and relying on zit faced kids to explain to other zit faced kids why they should spend a grand and a half on a plastic Baby Taylor (yes, I actually heard a Sam Ash employee describe it as such) so don't expect any changes.

This is your opinion. I know of plenty of well-to-do folks that purchased Cargo guitars for both the novelty and the usefulness of a CF travel guitar. These folks don't fit your example at all, and they very well might be the majority of owners of Cargo guitars (or not). Since we don't have the demographics on the owners, we'll never know for sure.

It's been made clear that the Cargo was a "loss leader" for CA, and they weren't making any money on them...and perhaps losing money. I doubt that Peavey will accept this as a good and proper business model over time, even if the Cargo is somewhat of a "gateway" instrument to their more expensive instruments.

My opinion only.

I'll dip into a comment about non-Cargo CA guitars for a moment...their prices were substantially higher, were they not, then the Cargo?

Who was buying these guitars? These were the guitars that were profitable for CA, and certainly Peavey expects to turn a profit with their investment.

"Don't expect any changes"...?

Well, the basis of this thread (in part) is information that there are two things that Peavey has addressed with changes....and I do not doubt the information in this regard. You may wish to ignore this, but that's simply not my problem...

BTW, I'm not "expecting" any changes...I just know where people (myself included) have had problems with the Cargo, and I know what these problems are. Saying that the problems don't exist (as some folks have done) is an interesting position to take.

[laughingskunk]

When is a problem a problem? Is it only when the individual accepts it as one? Just a question because until recently I have not heard of many complaints of issues with Composite Acoustics including the Cargo. In fact most of what I read has been uniformly positive until recently. Now that is not to say that there havent been issues, heck I'm sure that since they were built by humans there must be some.
Maybe the issue is that some of us are less tuned into or focus on what the concern is so that it is not a problem or issue to us. I have owned two CA's a Bluegrass Performer( Which a member of this forum now has) and an OX which I currently own and have played countless others. I never noticed any concerns with any of them. By this I mean they were easy to play, had spot on intonation, and sounded durn good. Were they perfect, no. MY OX had some minor finish imperfections on the neck and back.
Another question for me is am I likely to buy another one. I personally would love to get a Cargo. I hope that the posts do continue about the Cargo's flaws. They are truly terrible instruments nobody should ever buy one! This of course will leave one available to me when the time comes.
As for the truss rod issue, I hope that they are installed on ones for people who want one- maybe give them an upcharge of say $500 and that some are made at lower prices for folks like me who dont want or need them. There problem solved. Now I can continue to be happy playing my OX which may be flawed or may not be based on your perception, and measurements. Just my two cents, Patrick

[mchalebk]

When the Cargo was first introduced, it was way underpriced and I'm sure they weren't making money on them. They raised the prices significantly and may have been making money on them depending on which finish you bought. The raw finish was notably cheaper than the RT which was notably cheaper than the high gloss. The OX in raw finish went for just under a grand, I believe, with electronics. The raw versions of the Legacy and GX (and maybe some others) were about $300 more than the OX.

I think I read somewhere that Peavey was planning on introducing the entire line with the high gloss and RT finishes. Maybe they can keep prices up by not offering the raw finish?

[Larry Pattis]

Quoting Rick Turner from an earlier CA thread:

Originally Posted by Rick Turner

I guess I'm the only one here with both guitar setup experience and a history in designing and manufacturing carbon fiber instrument parts...necks.

A) The complaint about low saddle height is legit. The neck angle is wrong, and kicked back a bit it would still allow the ultra low action that some like as well as offering the option of playing with higher action. This is like only allowing the driver's seat of a car to work for very short to medium short people...and not providing for anyone over 5'10". You can have it all with the right design.

B) Yes, the mold could be tweaked

OR

C) The neck could be pulled back, slightly warping the body when the top is put on. Slightly warping the body is how Spanish guitar makers tweak the neck angle when building in the traditional style...they do it when gluing on the back rather than the top, but the net effect is the same. The CA's have a glued-on top; this trick would work just fine.

D) The need for a truss rod has nothing to do with neck strength or stiffness and everything to do with adjusting neck relief to each player's taste. Once again, I'll make the automobile analogy. Would you buy a car with a non-adjustable driver's seat?

E) Hartley will bring a very disciplined workforce, and efficient factory, and deep pockets to this project. He cannot do much, though, about the raw materials costs which are quite high. He's also in the business to make money and he won't sell guitars as a loss leader to get market share. He'd probably also like to have the technology to make carbon fiber necks for his electrics. Good move on his part. He's also been an incredibly staunch supporter of independent music stores and backs his dealers like nobody in the biz.

[SteveB]

"This is like only allowing the driver's seat of a car to work for very short to medium short people...and not providing for anyone over 5'10". "

So that's why I have no problem with my Cargo.... I'm only 5'7"

[Jaygits]

I do believe we are sawing sawdust here, but it is fun to read and separate the wheat from the chaff.

Since I've read all the CA threads, and even participated in some, I can see an example here of how someone makes a statement that is pure conjecture and that statement is later presented as fact. I can say unequivocally the following is an example of the former, not the latter.

Peavey is planning to sell CA's through Guitar Center

Cheers,

Jay