<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Calin, Ron, Dale.....<br> <br> Overs Pianos wrote:<br> <blockquote cite="mida06110405bd31ca4661d1@%5B192.168.1.100%5D" type="cite"> <style type="text/css"></style> <title>Re: Hamamatsu Museum of Instruments</title> <div>.........<br> </div> <div>An interesting point about bridge dog-legs. During our many discussions while Ron Nossaman was visiting last week, this topic came up. I have always believed that allowing the dog-leg to extend down to the bridge footprint is undesirable. Ron N has done some testing with a laser which, to him, indicates that allowing the dog-leg to extend right to the panel is unimportant. I have done no testing, having relied only on my own thinking about the dynamic situation of the moving/flexing bridge. So on this matter at present we disagree in theory. I don't have answers on this one since a hunch is not knowledge, so I now have another question which I need to clarify to my satisfaction if possible.<br> </div> </blockquote> <blockquote cite="mida06110405bd31ca4661d1@%5B192.168.1.100%5D" type="cite"> <div><font color="#cc0000"> ---Certainly, manufacturers do move the bridge pin groups to the bridge edges as the scale layout approaches struts to minimise the dog-leg severity.----</font></div> </blockquote> Ah.. this was the answer  I was looking for to my origional query. On re-reading Dales and Calins posts I see this is what they were getting at as well. (<font color="#33cc00">sorry Calin.. sometimes easy for me to misread the written word</font>)<br> <br> So... this is all about avoiding a dogleg in the bridge then, and that is primarilly an economic (ease of manufacturing) concern.... at least according to some. You evidently have some other concerns about dog-legs tho if I read you right above.<br> <br> <br> <blockquote cite="mida06110405bd31ca4661d1@%5B192.168.1.100%5D" type="cite"> <div> But some manufacturers<font color="#0000ff"> (who should know better)</font> care little if the speaking length is allowed to vary wildly as the bridge passes under the strut. Sure it allows the maker to use a straight bridge without a dog-leg, but it allows for all sorts of tuning stability problems to creep into the picture. We design our bridges with the bridge pin field using to width of the bridge cap to advantage<font color="#0000ff"> (to minimise the dog-leg)</font>, while setting the contact of the bridge to panel using a spring lathe when rebuilding to achieve a smooth contact line between the bridge and panel. We do not compromise the speaking lengths of notes adjacent to plate struts, in an attempt to make bridges easier to manufacture. To me, there's not much to be gained by arriving at a suitable string scale for a design, then allowing the scale integrity to go-with-the-dogs in the name of expediency.</div> <div><br> </div> </blockquote> This I am a bit unclear on tho... you seem to be saying that the right side (of the strut) note does indeed have a longer speaking length then the left side note. Why would they do that when it appears they had pushed the bridge pin group back as far as possible to begin with ?  <br> <blockquote cite="mida06110405bd31ca4661d1@%5B192.168.1.100%5D" type="cite"> <div>Ron O.<br> </div> </blockquote> Cheers<br> RicB<br> </body> </html>