Bridge design

[Farrell]

Del wrote:
> This theory also explains why
> so many builders were reluctant to put a dog-leg into the bridge at
> plate/scale breaks to maintain good scaling. They were not just being cheap
> or negligent.

Ahhhhhhhh. I have a 5' 10" 1900 Bechstein awaiting rebuilding and the long bridge has absolutely NO HINT of a dogleg at any of the breaks. The curve is perfectly consistent. I had noticed that a long time ago and felt surprised that a manufacturer like Bechstein would be so cheap as to not go the distance of putting on a proper dogleg. Now I know that being cheap is not likely the answer. Thanks.

Terry Farrell
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barbara J. Fandrich" <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: Bridge design


> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 4:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Bridge design
> 
> 
> > A few days ago I was looking at the bridge on a Baldwin M grand. It did
> exactly the same thing you are describing. If you notice (assuming I'm on
> the right track here) the undercut fades out and begins on the other side
> where there is a dogleg in the bridge. My guess at what they were trying to
> do was to keep the soundboard contact footprint one continuous curve, i.e. a
> "straight" curve (as opposed to a squiggle).
> --------------------
> 
> You are correct. At one time this was considered important by some builders.
> The idea was that the "sound waves" had to be able to travel longitudinally
> within the bridge from end-to-end unimpeded. This theory also explains why
> so many builders were reluctant to put a dog-leg into the bridge at
> plate/scale breaks to maintain good scaling. They were not just being cheap
> or negligent.
> 
> Del
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives