Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Reverse Belly Bridge
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=10291		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  crowduck [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Does anyone here build with a reverse belly bridge? If so, why? It looks like a good idea to me. I have one guitar, an Epi AJ18-VS that has a reverse belly, and it's one of my best sounding guitars, albeit relatively inexpensive. Whenever I look at that reverse bridge setup it just 'looks right' to my eye and mind. I've read that the 'normal bellied' bridge was implemented to provide extra glueing surface behind the saddle/pins and prevent lifting/separation at the rear seam. To me the reverse belly looks like it will do a better job of driving the top with a combination of mass and leverage in front of the saddle.


Thoughts and/or comments?

CrowDuck
Author:  JJ Donohue [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:17 am ]
Post subject: 
The next step would be no belly, i.e. pyramid bridge. From what I understand, the top gets driven better as more mass is removed from the bridge. I wonder if your front belly bridge was lighter than the other.

I'm not sure why the front belly would theoretically drive the top any better...after all, the string holes, saddle and wings are all in the same place as a back belly bridge. Perhaps the belly in the back somehow has a dampening effect by being over the bridge plate.

As far as the difference you noticed...I think it's almost impossible to compare 2 guitars since there are so many uncontrollable variables...at least for me.
Author:  tippie53 [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
   The reverse belly is a gibson design. Structurally they are better in teh saddle area but mass is mass. The Physics is still derived to the angle over the saddle. I prefer smaller bridges IE Pryamids in a 1 by 6 format. I doupt they are any better or worse the reverse bellies.
   
Author:  Tom Morici [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Chris
I agree with JJ's comments, well thought out and well said. One thing I would like to add is the weakness
at the bridge pin area. I have had to make a number
of those reverse belly bridges as replacements for
Gibsons. They will sometimes crack straight across
the bridge pin holes, very rare with the back belly design.

Tom
Author:  A Peebels [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 12:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
A reverse bridge is also weak in the saddle slot area. I'm repairing a '61 J-45 right now that has a crack from the saddle slot to the bottom of the bridge.

Al
Author:  crowduck [ Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Interesting stuff! JJ's comment about comparison got me thinking, and I think I'm going to do an experiment using one guitar, and several different bridges of different design. I think I can use the same pin holes in the top as registration, and make different style bridges that match those pin holes. I'll have to make the relationship to the saddle slot the same too. Then I can see if there's a difference.

John Gilbert did some interesting work with bridge design, and some of it can be seen on David Schramm's website.

CrowDuck
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/