I figure that the thing that limits how thin you can get away with making a top is the long-grain stiffness. It's bridge torque that eventually pulls the top up, and it's hard to know how much cross grain stiffness contributes to keeping the bridge down. At any rate, wood 'cold creeps', so it seems to me that over the long term distortion of the wood across the grain will mean that the cross grain stiffness makes less of a contribution. Whehter or not this is true, it's a conservative approach, in that if you thickness every top as if it had no cross grain stiffness for structural purposes, you will probably make some tops thicker than they need to be, which might cost some volume, but you will also have fewer failures.
If you buy that line of logic, then the thing to do would be to use some sort of deflection test to find the lengthwise stiffness of the top. Compare it with a top that you know worked, and you'll have an idea of how thin you can go. Remember that the stiffness of a plate goes as the cube of the thickness: twice as thick is eight times as stiff. If a new sample of wood has a Young's modulus that is twice as high as something that already worked, making the new piece about 25% thinner will yeild the same stiffness.
|