Talk:Floyd Rose

Archives

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Floyd Rose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invention claim by Eddie Van Halen

Edits to this article as well as Floyd D. Rose by a non-registered user (82.40.107.245) adds a section to the article about claims by Eddie Van Halen that he was the one who came up with the idea for the fine tuners on the bridge. Van Halen made these claims in a recent interview with Total Guitar (see page 8/12 for the specific claim). Until we have further sources for this claim, I see no reason to include it in the article, all we have is Van Halen's talking about how he was the one who invented it. There doesn't seem to be any sources indicating that there's for example patent litigation going on. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added it as a controversy because it is. Something doesn't have to be a lawsuit to be a controversy. For example it's disputed that Dave Mustaine wrote "Leper Messiah" on Master of Puppets, this has been mentioned on the album article despite Mustaine only claiming it and not taking legal action. My section wasn't stating it was truth it was stating that a notable individual and early user and endorser of the bridge has made such a claim. Again this isn't just a nobody making an outrageous claim, this is someone whose name actually means something in the guitar world. 82.40.107.245 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the counter-example from the Master of Puppets article, that's very useful! We could go with the approach there, and mention the claim by Van Halen in the history section, for example adding a sentence to the fifth paragraph. At the same time, I would've liked to have read the Guitar World article that is referred to in the MoP article, to learn more about what the band said about Mustaine's claims. Or in other words, I'd like to know if there's a response from Floyd Rose somewhere about this claim by Van Halen, meaning that both sides of the argument get to be heard. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

kahler

article states that there was a $100M suit against kahler but it's not mentioned over on the kahler trem page, where it says that kahler were one of the licensees of the FR design. this needs clarification on both pages.

the court finding:

JUDGMENT AND ORDER: by Judge Gary L. Taylor against defendant American Precision, defendant Gary Kahler . terminating case jointly & severally In the amount of $ 101,501,121.00 plus post-jgm int, Jgm on APM's counterclaim is ent in favor of counter-dfts Floyd D. Rose & Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Metnlik & agnst counter-clm American Precision Metal Works & all of APM's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, & 7th causes of actn are dism w/prej; dfts are permanently enjoined, Rose & LDLK&M are awarded costs. (ENT 11/9/94) MD JS 6 (cc: all counsel) (lisp) (Entered: 11/09/1994)

duncanrmi (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi duncanrmi, thanks for bringing that up! I am not familiar with searching for court findings, do you have a URL to the one you have here? That would allow me to add that as an additional source to the claim in the article, which would be a great complement to the one that's already there. When it comes to the Kahler article, you can of course edit that article an add the relevant information about the lawsuit and its finding, this is a wiki! :) Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the case page, on the previous entry to the one listing $100 million, (209), there is an entry which instead lists "$1,501,121.00" as the damages amount, which seems like a much more reasonable damage for this case. I would guess the $100 million figure is an error in transcription. Do you really think Kahler had $100 million in profits? It's doubtful. Even if there were 1 million of the Kahler fulcrum-style bridges, there's no way there was $100 profit on each one. The Apple vs. Samsung case in recent years only had damages of around $400 million or so. 2610:148:610:6801:F956:831A:57E6:7E3 (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as gary kahler notes on his company website, there was a period during the heyday of these trem devices where there were a great many patent disputes going back & forth, over things like the fine-tuners fitted to the locking tremolo tailpiece/bridge assemblies... here are a couple I looked at briefly- in this first, kahler & mccabe appear to be the plaintiffs, complaining that the earlier invention.. 'prior art'... of fine-tuners has been illegally patented & licensed by FR, at cost to kahler & others:

https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/9158262

but then there's this (scroll down to the entry for 11/8/1994 for the big number), which you may need to log-in or download to extract further detail from-

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/8--92-cv-00166/Floyd_D_Rose_v._American_Precision_et_al/

& gary himself (on the company website) says- "There are over 1,382,000 Kahler tremolos out there right now... That adds up to over $300,000,000 at retail value."

so I'm guessing that at the time of the $101M judgement against him, this pretty much cleaned him out.

I have only a passing interest in this, as the owner of several (bass) kahler devices, but I do have a sense of injustice where there's misattribution for the sake of profit, & the 'fine tuners' case seems to be such a case. I'll let you decide how this might fit into the article!

duncanrmi (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rockinger?

No mention of the Rockinger tru tune Tremolo? KhlavKhalash (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

Hello Wikipedians

Whilst I appreciate that somebody has made a diagram to help demonstrate the FR tremolo system, I have to say that this image is so abstracted that it is difficult to make sense of. I have played many guitars with these tremolo systems, and yet I find the diagram on this page hard to decipher. I can only imagine how confusing this diagram would be for somebody who has looked up this page because they are completely unfamiliar with the FR tremolo. A less abstracted diagram (or even a sequence of labelled photos) would be more helpful. 14.202.157.32 (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]