In defense of TAR (Was S&S retrofit rails ?)

[Ron Nossaman]

Jim,



>
>In a message dated 9/11/98 9:05:48 AM, nossaman@SOUTHWIND.NET wrote:
>
><<"You shouldn't have to drill out flanges, compromise the string
>line between bridge and tuning pin, miss travel shanks, buy another tool
>that is only used on this particular action type (and modify it so it will
>work), and accept the premise that you are going to have to set up to
>replace these rails on a regular basis">>
>
>Ron;
>  Obviously I am doing something wrong as these items are Greek to me. 

* That wasn't my list of gripes. That was a more or less point for point
rundown of the suggestions John Hartman made as an aid to working with these
rails. You'll have to take up the language lessons with him. 


> If the
>TAR doesn't work for you, then change every one you come across, I'm sure the
>client won't mind footing the bill.  

* I didn't say TARs didn't work. I said they were springy and unnecessarily
difficult to work with to apparent benefit over a conventional rail, or
something to that effect. 



>Also I don't see the relevance of having
>to modify an already marginal tool to work on what is a system not conducive
>to the use of this marginal tool to begin with.

* Me either, I was, again, answering to an item on John Hartman's list. If I
had left it out, someone would surly have called me on it and wanted an
explanation.


>  R&D is important to us, and the industry, and most of us recognize that
>fact.
>I must say that changing one supposedly unacceptable system to another
>unacceptable system, which in and of itself has failings/faults/ shortcomings,
>doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  I have reset too many of the 'superior
>design' action rails to buy into their unqualified 'improvement' over the TAR.

* A poor implementation of *anything* is going to be less than it could be.
I haven't said anywhere, nor am I stupid enough to do so now, that
everything ever made with flat wood action rails is inherently superior to
the TAR. There have been a lot of different manufacturers of flat rail
actions to date. Each designer will have had his own ideas, and each
manufacturer may, or may not adhere to the spirit of the designer's intent
through production. Of all the different styles of flat rail actions that
are out there right now, which specific model are you singling out as being
the representative candidate for the 'other unacceptable system'? There is
only one source for the TAR, so we know whom to question about that. How
about the other side? BTW, one of the positive things about the flat rail
system is that you *can* reset rails if you need to without building jigs
and melting solder.  




> While it is possible that the options discussed by you, Del and others may be
>viable, and I have no reason to doubt they are, I have not seen the objective
>results as yet.  So until such time as I have seen, and heard, this evidence
>I'll just reweld capos, relocate agraffes,  move bridges, install valve
>springs, and soak all actions in WD40 :-)
>Jim Bryant (FL)
>

Like I said, if you can narrow the choices down to one high quality flat
rail action to compare with the current state of the art TAR action, you
should be able to put a meaningful list of pros and cons of each type
together and judge for yourself. Then you can relocate that WD-40.

Incidentally, thanks to John Hartman for supplying the TAR designation for
the discussion. It's a lot easier to type.

 Ron