#1
Can I replace a floyd rose with a vintage style trem? I was thinking of buying a Charvel San Dimas. I love everything about the guitar (especially the neck) except the fact that it comes with a Floyd rose. I dont use the floyd rose much and dont want the hassles of it like when changing strings, tunings etc. If yes, which brand trem will fit?

This is the guitar i wanna buy, just in another colour.
#2
That guitar is made specifically for metal. Hence, why it has a floyd rose.
If you want one like it with a vintage trem, look up 80's Charvels on Ebay, lots of them are like that with a vintage trem, and also have Japanese quality.
Cusp of Magic
#3
Chaos-Serenade. The guitar isn't made for metal...it's just a superstrat. Guitars catered specifically to metal artists are a lot more obvious than that charvel!

Anyway, there's no real direct replacement "Vintage" style trem that would fit into a floyd rose route, it'd be a massive job.
You are best to find a used Charvel that would fit that style (unless there's a newer model which has that setup)
#4
So you love everything about it except the trem? Have you considered a strat and then switching pickups? Same body, pretty similar neck, same parent company. Failing that some of the American ones in the music zoo have vintage terms. Jacksons are similar and often come with a tuneomatic, or for the price some luthier might cut a deal with you.
#5
And isn't a superstrat crafted specifically for more range, including metal?
Look at it.
It's got a floyd rose, a single volume control, 22 frets, and double humbuckers.
It's more of a hair metal style 80's guitar, just because it's not drown in abalone binding, gothy inlays and a quilted blood red top with EMGs, doesn't mean it's not a metal guitar, you're thinking of more modern metal, which in my opinion is something I don't like.
Cusp of Magic
#6
Floyds have wider posts than any traditional tremolo, you woul dhave to fill the holes and drill new ones.

Floyds aren't much work, and the Charvels don't have floating ones either so changing strings and tuning is quite easy.
I play Lacrosse, you should too
Quote by reeses
heed this man's suggestion, for he is wise.

Aww shucks...

Quote by Tom 1.0
Oh and wait for the Schecter fan boys, if you listen real hard you can already hear them coming.
#7
Quote by Chaos-Serenade
And isn't a superstrat crafted specifically for more range, including metal?
Look at it.
It's got a floyd rose, a single volume control, 22 frets, and double humbuckers.
It's more of a hair metal style 80's guitar, just because it's not drown in abalone binding, gothy inlays and a quilted blood red top with EMGs, doesn't mean it's not a metal guitar, you're thinking of more modern metal, which in my opinion is something I don't like.


I'd say superstrats were designed for the market of hard rock, "classic" rock and stuff like that. It just so happens that they're also used comfortably in metal, which is why companies which make them have taken them into a "darker" direction.
#8
please don't ruin that beautiful guitar.
Quote by kangaxxter
The only real answer to the SG vs Les Paul debate is to get a Flying V and laugh at all the suckers who don't have one.


Quote by Blompcube

if you embrace inaccurate intonation it can be quite arousing.


I <3 TWEED
#9
if i get a Tremol-no and keep it in the hard-tail mode, will it be a lot easier to change strings?
Guitars
Fender American Standard Strat 2008
Burny late 1980's Super Grade RLG-70 Les Paul
Sterling by Musicman JP50
Fender Classic Series 60's tele
Yamaha FS720S
Amp
Roland Microcube
Fender Blues Junior III Humholdt
#10
Quote by holycow
if i get a Tremol-no and keep it in the hard-tail mode, will it be a lot easier to change strings?


as mentioned already, if its not floating, then changing strings will be easy anyways. its already sitting flush against the body, so taking a string off wont set it back any further, unless you change to lighter gauges, then it might SLIGHTLY sit further up, and will take a little adjustment
#11
it looks to me like the floyd rose is set really high as in not routed specially. if thats the case then the original bridge should just bolt on. i've seen it done that way before
#12
do you have the original bridge, if so take off the floyd rose and unscrew the bridge posts and see if the original bridge will fit on with solid wood under the screw holes.
and go to the download link in my sig it will give you the exact position the bridge needs to be by telling you the saddle to nut length. if you download it, please rate it. make sure you get that right or it wont tune.

it should be easy enough , if you find it doesnt fit, routing the wood back a bit is surprisingly easy as i found out when i did pretty much the opposite of what your doing.
#13
^Umm, I'm pretty sure the floyd is the original bridge...
and basically this:
Quote by xadioriderx
as mentioned already, if its not floating, then changing strings will be easy anyways. its already sitting flush against the body, so taking a string off wont set it back any further, unless you change to lighter gauges, then it might SLIGHTLY sit further up, and will take a little adjustment
RIP Gooze

cats
#14
That guitar doesn't look to be recessed for the floyd, so you could probably tighten the springs in the back to have it sit against the problem. Once you've done that, the differences between that and an original trem would be minimal.