Fender Japan Tuning Machines very stiff

[MichiBass]

So I just bought a Fender Japan PB62 VSP, and the bass is just wonderful! But it seems that I have a problem with it's tuning machines, which are VERY stiff, and work very hard, all of them. I can barely tune the bass with my left hand in playing position. All my other tuning machines from other bass work way better.

1. What can I do in order to make them smooth?

2. Is it normal that the base of the tuning machines, on the back of the headstock, is slightly angled? See attached file.

 

[brendanbassix]

I have the exact opposite problem with mine(JB62US) stays in tune nicely, no rattles or anything but when the strings are off these tuners are really lose. Maybe this is a problem with Alot of them and somebody has over corrected it

...by the way your tuners are not meant to look like that it's bent

 

[quickfix]

Those tuning machines, including the one adjacent, don't fit that bass and are bent. The relief divots in the headstock for the works in the back of the tuning plate are either in the wrong place for those machines, not deep enough, or are nonexistent. As a result, the plates were bent as the attaching screws were tightened down.
My bet is that the worm gear is so tight in its slightly squashed and misshapen housing that you're feeling the resultant drag as "VERY stiff, and work very hard".

Others will be along shortly.

 

[96tbird]

I didn't know they did that in Japan!

Buy any pre CBS fender and the tuners are bent like that, my 1962 jazz is, so yes it is normal. Those Kluson type tuners have tangs on the back that are caused the worm hoops: that's how they are attached to the plate. It was the mid 60's before Fender began drilling relief dicots into the headstocks so the plates would be flat. I guess they decided MIJ's should be authentic to that weird detail.

Look at the gear. See the big Phillips head? Stick a driver there and turn clockwise to make the action stiffer. Turn lefty to make the gear action looser .

 

[quickfix]

Didn't know any manufacturer could be that inept...twice.

 

[96tbird]

Cutting labor costs just like Henry Ford.

 

[sissy kathy]

Cutting labor costs just like Henry Ford.

Henry Ford II maybe.

 

[Arizona Jones]

Try a touch of Vaseline, see if it helps.

I'm not familiar with the bass you're asking about and I can't see the whole tuner, but on many models, pre-CBS and pre-CBS reissues, that is the correct mounting style.

"Sting" bass owners, is this normal? | TalkBass.com

 

[sissy kathy]

I'd be ashamed to show someone that if I had mounted them. You can pull them and carve out the headstock to accommodate the clips on the back of the plates so they mount flush. If you can afford it, I recommend replacing them with the appropriate Schaller/Gotoh/Hipshot or similiar that don't have the clips to begin with.

 

[96tbird]

1962. Made in America!

 

[sissy kathy]

Just because Fender always did it that way doesn't make it right, just careless.

 

[96tbird]

Yeah, I had no idea until I bought one. I lmao'd at Leo. First name should have been Chintzy not Clarence.

 

[MichiBass]

Thank you for all the replies, I appreciate it a lot.

I have no problem with the bent plates, and I actually find it cool that the bass is THAT period accurate (actually it is not, because it is missing the back of the headstock strap button and the ashtrays, but I would have anyway removed them, so now I have no holes in the headstock and body = win!), I have just never seen that kind before.

Regarding the tuning machines, I will try to lubricate them, and also to loosen the big philips screw from the tuning peg. I will let you know if it helped. Tuning the bass is not really a problem (stays in tune great!), but restringing takes some effort. But as I play Elixirs, i restring the bass rarely.

But, if I were to replace them, which is the “perfect” exactly the same looking replacement? Can you give me a link?

Thanks,

Michi

 

[Willicious]

But, if I were to replace them, which is the “perfect” exactly the same looking replacement? Can you give me a link?

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Lighter weight, smoother operation, and they mount flat against the headstock.

 

[96tbird]

Direct replacement, same footprint no tangs, lie flat. HB3 > Store > Hipshot Products

 

[Turnaround]

Look at the gear. See the big Phillips head? Stick a driver there and turn clockwise to make the action stiffer. Turn lefty to make the gear action looser .

Actually, the gear is meant to be tightened fully to the post. Because of the way these things are fabricated, loosening that screw may make for a bit less friction, but it is a side effect and not by design. The downside is that a loosened screw will work its way looser over time from vibration.

In some of these tuners there is a spring piece between the gear and the mounting plate - a bit of bent spring metal. You can reduce the friction a little by straightening it a bit. But the real answer is to deal with the root cause of the problem, which most often is the bent mounting plate. The bending is caused by the protruding ends of the U part that holds the worm shaft in place. Around 1964 Fender corrected the problem by drilling relief holes in the headstock beneath the ends of the U mount so the mounting plate could be laid flat and avoid pinching the worm gear shaft.

If you insist on having a period-correct problematic tuner mount, leave it alone. If you want something that functions better, drill the relief holes and straighten the mounting plate. If it were an original 60's bass you might consider not making the alteration. As a re-issue, I would have no hesitation making the correction.

 

[Turnaround]

Further to the discussion about Fender's tuning machines...
I haven't found anything to corroborate what I am about to say, and perhaps someone else can pitch in with real facts.

I think that when Leo was setting up Fender for production he decided to source what parts he could rather then fabricate them. Where he could and where it made economical sense, he sourced the parts from existing manufacturers that could produce the parts at a price point in the quantities needed. Tuning machines were provided from outside sources until around 1966 when Fender decided to make their own.

In the earlier days Fender got their tuners from Kluson whom I'm sure based their design on tuning machines made for double basses. The typical DB has clover-leaf tuners with a large crown gear driving a large diameter post, with two machines mounted on a plate that is affixed to the side of the peghead. It would be a simple matter to change the design to provide individual mounting plates and redesigned posts to accommodate Fender's requirements, along with mounting ferrules that were not needed on the string bass. It's easy to see the similarities between DB tuning machines and those on early Fender basses. One of the things that seemed to have gone unchanged from one instrument to the other is the length of the worm gear shaft. On pre-'66 tuners the shafts are quite long causing the "ears" to be further from the headstock than on later instruments.

Before 1964 a common problem was that the way the shafts were fitted to the base plate, leaving a slight extension on the underside of the mounting plate where the U mounts were swaged to the plate. In '64 Fender dealt with the problem by drilling relief divots into the headstock to make room. But by the time they came to source their tuners from Schaller in Germany, the problem was solved by Schaller's design which provide a base plate that was bent into a U to hold the shaft. This was actually a cheaper way to make the tuner, and at the same time the shaft was shortened (probably also a cost-saving measure, if not an aesthetic one).

If anyone was anything that corroborates these speculations, I would certainly like to hear about it.

 

[96tbird]

I will argue this point with you.

LONG SHAFT TUNERS ARE MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING!

Also this: Kluson reverse tuners do not have said spring plate; the have a thin steel washer. The correct way to adjust drag is via the bolt. It is the only way. They are constant maintenance items as are all old style open gear tuners. Some folks can't deal with that fact.

 

[Willicious]

Turnaround, while I cannot add confirmation to your thoughts about how Leo came to specify Klusons for his first bass, I think your theory is right on the money.

To that end, below are a few images I've collected over the last year or so, which may help provide a little more clarity on the evolution of Klusons. Soon, I'll be creating a thread here on these tuners.

Leo's original mounting method — Klusons mounted directly, "bend plate" style against the headstock, with no clearance holes.

Note the end roundover on the outer end face of the tuning posts — a feature missing on today's Gotoh repro Klusons (with the exception of the reverse tuners used on Custom Shop 51-56 P Basses)

Late-'64 headstock, showing the large clearance holes for the pinch tabs — tuners would now lie flat against headstock

Close-up of those pesky pinch tabs — one of those weird details that makes a vintage bass "vintage"

For comparison, some pre-Fender Kluson applications in the double bass world:

1935 Epiphone King Bass

1941 Gibson B-135 "Maybelle" — with individually-mounted Klusons
Note how the baseplate on these tuners is a larger footprint than the Klusons which Leo spec'd for his first Precision Bass

 

[Turnaround]

Thanks for that - the Klusons on the '41 Gibson are the very thing I didn't have a photo of, and really are the missing link in the discussion. It's all there - the individual mounting plates with their distinctive shape, the rivets holding the ears in place, and the long tuner shaft which is needed for clearance on the DB, but totally unnecessary on the Fender. That long shaft became part of the look that vintage enthusiasts tend to love.