What do you guys think of this?
I wonder if this type of design would prevent the top caving in near the soundhole...
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Here’s a different bridge design http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=9418 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | JBreault [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What do you guys think of this?
I wonder if this type of design would prevent the top caving in near the soundhole... |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The shear forces on this bridge are contained in a very small foot print which means the loads are higher per sq inch. looks like a bridge falure waiting to happen to me. It also has more rotating load which adds to the shear at the back end |
|
| Author: | crazymanmichael [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
to my way of thinking the strings wrapping as they do would create torsional forces which could, in conjuction with the small bridge footprint, be likely to lift the bridge or pull it off, belly the top and cause soundhole cave in. |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looks to me like 180lb of torque trying to rotate it off the top. But then, as my wife will tell you, I'm usually wrong. Colin |
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Scary to be sure! |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
All the loads on this bridge are trying to rotate around this edge. to some degree all bridges do but the supporting foot print is so narrow that the loads carried per sq inch of the glue joint are huge in comparison to a conventional bridge. This design almost eliminated the downward force at the saddle That normally helps the reduce the rotating load. Man!!!  dont stand at the peghead  |
|
| Author: | John How [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sure looks cool though, huh? |
|
| Author: | A Peebels [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good looking bridge, but a little scary. A well designed bridgeplate under the top might help with the tortion. Al |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=A Peebels] Good looking bridge, but a little scary. A well designed bridgeplate under the top might help with the tortion. Al[/QUOTE] not unless it is bolted through to the plate because the first path of failure is the glue joint. Like I said the only way the bridge plate would help is if ti ties the birdge to the bridge plate. I suspect this may be the case would accound to the extra height. |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
looks to me like it has more grabbing force on the bridge to pull it up, i wouldn't do it that way unless it had proven it's effectiveness with the test of time. |
|
| Author: | JBreault [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, you think this would be a "accidentaly kill the pet" type of setup? |
|
| Author: | old man [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like the looks of it, but that sucker is gonna peel for sure, unless it's screwed on from underneath.
Ron |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A lot of thought went into a way to make a pin-less design different than other pin-less designs, but the thought did not include consideration for the dispersal of the shear loading. That is unless there is a pinning system between the bridge plate and the bridge. As others have said the mass is pretty high as well. |
|
| Author: | Philip Perdue [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Joe, Regardless of its problems, I really like the look of the bridge. Quite a few ukuleles have bridges without pins or ties. This photo is similar to what I use. In this case the nylon string is put though the hole and uses either a knot or bead to secure below the bridge plate. This makes for a nice clean look. 
Philip |
|
| Author: | burbank [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Can't really tell how wide (the dimension that runs parallel to the strings) it is by the photo, but I agree, it looks too narrow, with a long, skinny footprint and it appears quite high. However, I don't think the manner in which the strings are wrapped makes any difference. The loads at the footprint would be the same regardless. |
|
| Author: | SteveCourtright [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The string windings appear to be separating at the back of the bridge where the wound strings go through. I wonder if they might separate and unravel there. Could be a hard design on strings, too. |
|
| Author: | JBreault [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Apparently this is from a Boaz guitar. Here's a link to the full guitar: warning, sunburst on BRW |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
well I will politely disagree if you follow the force of the string there is greater rotating force ( moment of inertia) imparted on this bridge than even an ovation style pin-less 
A much grater proportion of the string loading is going into a rotational force on the front edge of the bridge. And all these forces are acting at a higher location on the bridge which multiplies their effect |
|
| Author: | burbank [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looks a lot wider in the other shots in the link that Joe just posted. Here's one. 
Looks OK to me now, as far as footprint size goes. Looks heavy. Has a sort of Van Linge/Hesh flavor to it, goes well with the classical/ss theme on the rest of the guitar. |
|
| Author: | peterm [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
To me looks like a lot of rotational force imparted upwards rather than a "pull" driving the plates. I am sorry to join the ranks that disagree with this design but it does look like recipe for disaster... |
|
| Author: | Alain Desforges [ Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If I had to design a way to try and peel a bridge off the guitar in the least amount of time, this, to me, would be the way to do it. I agree that this has to be secured to the bridge plate somehow. Maybe dowels at the corners? But then bridge removal would be a nightmare. I can see where this would be a dream to use and change strings quickly at a live gig though. It does have sort of a 'funky factor' charm to it... The idea does have merits, but I can't help but think that the design totally changes the way the strings pull on the bridge. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|