| Author |
Topic: Bridge design sanity check |
Mark Bracewell
From:
Willow Glen, California
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 12:02 pm |
|
In order to save a smidgen in machining costs, I've considered making some bridges that could be used for either a six or seven string, and either top loading or through the body. I suppose you could use it for a 13 string zither too  Spacing is 7/16", footprint is 3-5/8" x 2-1/4", height is .480
The question is, would you feel goofy (or superstitious) playing a guitar with extra, unused holes in it?
I made one drawing with holes for 6, 7 & 8 all in one part - that was too weird, so the 8's will just have 8 holes at 3/8"
 |
|
|
 |
Dennis Brooker
From:
Iowa, USA
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 12:21 pm
|
|
Mark - I'm just a newbie on this forum but, if you made one bridge with 8 and 7 holes could you not use just 6 of the 8 holes for a 6 stringer, 7 for a 7, and the full 8 for an 8 stringer? You would still have just two rows of holes, cover all three variations and avoid the number "13" - Just a thought based on the way my brain works  - Dennis Brooker |
|
|
|
Mark Bracewell
From:
Willow Glen, California
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 12:33 pm
|
|
Yep, you could, but the 8 spacing would be probably 3/8" - a mismatch for the wide spaced 6 string pickups I crave
Moveable holes - that would solve a lot. |
|
|
|
Dennis Brooker
From:
Iowa, USA
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 12:41 pm
|
|
Mark - Please understand I'm just playing the Devils advocate - Could you make the foot print slightly larger to accommodate the 8 & 7 spacing to meet your pickup requirements? Just tell me when to shut up  DB |
|
|
|
Mark Bracewell
From:
Willow Glen, California
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 12:57 pm
|
|
No worries Dennis, getting other viewpoints is why I posted in the first place
What I'm after is getting the most desirable configurations with the fewest number of different parts (which in itself might be a stupid idea, hence the sanity check).
I could rearrange the holes in this one to make a more pleasant pattern I guess, and get
6 at 3/8"
6 at 7/16
7 at 7/16
8 at 3/8
but it just looked odd, plus there is a sweet spot with regard to the angle of bend in the string that I am trying to stay close to.
 |
|
|
|
Dennis Brooker
From:
Iowa, USA
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 1:12 pm
|
|
| Mark - I think you're trying to solve a problem and that's a good thing and going public with it proves you are truly brave - Any chance you would consider making the bridge as one piece and then have different plates that would slide just underneath the bridge with the different hole spacings you want for the different number of strings and string spacings - That way you could maintain your string angle regardless - I realize you'd need to make the plates thicker than if they were part of a one piece bridge but that shouldn't be much of a problem and it would be less of an overall footprint than the bridge with multiple holes IMHO - Just another thought - DB |
|
|
|
Mark Bracewell
From:
Willow Glen, California
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 1:31 pm
|
|
| Yeah, that was my first plan, but means more parts, having to machine the bottom, more time in the machine. Great minds think alike Dennis |
|
|
|
Dennis Brooker
From:
Iowa, USA
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 1:42 pm
|
|
Mark - OK, I can agree, we both have great minds  - One more question which I'm sure you've already considered but I have to offer - I can't create 3D CNC files but I can create 2D - Have you considered making the bridge using a 2D design where it is folded which would mean less maching time? I have a guy about 20 miles away that has a 4' x 8' and a 5' x 9' plasma cutter and he doesn't mind doing small jobs for me once in a while - Not as clean as laser but still not a bad edge on stainless - You can always have them powder coated to make them look nice - Just one more thought - DB |
|
|
|
Mark Bracewell
From:
Willow Glen, California
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 1:59 pm
|
|
| LOL - your guy is 1200 miles from me |
|
|
|
Kekoa Blanchet
From:
Kaua'i
|
Posted 22 Jul 2009 5:33 pm
|
|
Mark, that's an attractive shape for the bridge. Far nicer than the aluminum angle stock that is our alternative, and the 4-screw mounting feature looks real secure. The one-size-fits-all approach is appealing, but the cheese-grater effect just doesn't work for me. Sorry. That's only one man's opinion, of course. Wouldn't be the first time I thought one way, and the rest of the world thought another.
I can see how the universal design helps hold down your inventory costs, but I would have guessed that those extra slotted holes would increase your machining costs.
If you did have a different version for 6, 7, and 8, then you could reduce the footprint a little, and also optimize the break angle for the strings. I'd even try to talk you into making a different version for top-load and thru-body strings, but I realize that adds even more to your inventory headaches.
Good luck with your project, whatever route you choose! We need more suppliers of good-looking components. |
|
|
|
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 23 Jul 2009 4:55 am
|
|
| Well, I immediately thought - why not an open slot through the body, and three different interchangeable plates in the back instead of 21 individual string ferrules? You have to change strings anyway.... to keep the strings from moving sideways from picking, you'd also need a top insert in the slot, but it could be wood, as it's not structural towards tone. I'm pretty sure you could argue that individual ferrules would transmit vibrations differently that a multi-holed plate, but I'm not sure it would be better.... The wood in a solidbody guitar is essentially there to selective mute and muffle highs anyway - we'd be all playing all-metal guitars if that was a real design improvement. |
|
|
|
Mark Bracewell
From:
Willow Glen, California
|
Posted 23 Jul 2009 12:09 pm
|
|
Thanks - Kekoa, that's what I needed to hear. I should be focused on making the best possible bridge for the guitar I have in mind. I know that, but sometimes I overthink things.
If I do this, I can put the break angle exactly where I want, reduce the overall size, and add top load holes as needed any time afterwards. I can spend the time saved on putting a nice radius where the string comes out of the hole to help avoid breakage. No cheese grater (but I have been calling it the soap dish bridge, to go with those soap bar pups).
Thanks again for the comments, I think I'm gonna run with it. |
|
|
|
Dennis Brown
From:
Gowen, Mi. USA
|
Posted 23 Jul 2009 4:12 pm Interesting!
|
|
Hello Mark, I'm working on a prototype, aluminum guitar. I would like to try one of your bridges. 6
string, 3/8" spacing. I've also done a little business with Dennis Brooker on his fret boards.
Are your bridges milled out underneath to recieve the string eye? This needs to be a surface mount without a string through the body application. I would like to be the first to purchase and the sooner the better, It just might be the critter I'm searching for. I really like the optional number of string set ups. Now if you could come up with a nut that had those options, I and others would be in our glory. ( like a four sided nut you could rotate to the number of strings desired) Thanks a bunch Mark, waiting for your reply, Dennis Brown |
|
|
|
Mark Bracewell
From:
Willow Glen, California
|
Posted 23 Jul 2009 9:43 pm Re: Interesting!
|
|
| Dennis Brown wrote: |
| Are your bridges milled out underneath to recieve the string eye? |
No, you'd need to make holes or a slot in the body.
No idea when I'll get any of these made up, but I do have some incentive - this new 7 string is just about ready and needs a bridge...
 |
|
|
|
