<!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. I really dont see there is any physical impediment to making the surface area of the bridge wider so that a longer segment of the string comes in contact with the bridge anywhere along its length. Unless you are saying that the speaking length of the string required the front notch to be where it is, and the lack of  a dogleg then forces a shorter contact segment ?  That would make sense I suppose... so then, you are saying they did this to avoid using a dogleg in the bridge itself ?... Ok.. :) whats the benifit of avoiding the dogleg then ? Cheers RicB Calin Tantareanu wrote: <blockquote cite="mid000b01c476fd$297bd000$d50107c3@C" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I still think it's because of the bridge having no dogleg. There's simply no room for the larger contact area, so they made it smaller. Seems obvious to me. But if you can find another explanation, please tell us. </pre> </blockquote> <img src="cid:part1.08030602.04000604@grieg.uib.no" alt=""> <blockquote cite="mid000b01c476fd$297bd000$d50107c3@C" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hmm.. not sure we are on the same page here. I mean the width of the contact area of the bridge along the length of the stringss. There is a very marked gradual changing in this width, expecially noticeble in the </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> _______________________________________________ pianotech list info: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives">https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>