Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Two piece bridge design
http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=29072		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Philip Perdue [ Tue Sep 14, 2010 1:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Two piece bridge design
I was sitting here thinking about a future ukulele build and had a thought. A critical design element on ukuleles is the desired tuning. Normally, the design would be standard tuning GCEA or the same tuning using a low G string. The decision results in either a straight saddle for standard or a slanted saddle for the Low G. John Mayes once built a uke that had a split saddle. It allowed a small piece of the saddle to be moved between two slots (one in front of the other).

Would it be practical to build a 2 piece bridge that would allow 2 different saddle orientations? The bottom half of the bridge could be pretty thin with just a small ledge cut to match the top portion of the bridge. The bottom of the top portion could be cut to have corresponding edge that lock over the bottom. Like a flat rectangular mortis and tendon. As long as you had enough wood to support the saddle it shouldn’t be a problem. If the surfaces mated well the strings would hold it all together. Maybe putting a little angle on the two pieces would help them seat more solid.

Just wanted to see what the more experienced members thought.

Regards,

Philip
Author:  John Mayes [ Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Two piece bridge design
would it work? Probably. Why though? Why not keep it simple.

I made at least 2 dozen with my split saddle design. People loved it. If I were to do another today instead of a smaller saddle piece that moves back and forth between two slots I would make the G section of the saddle wider (like 3/16ths or something) and just carve the break to one side. Then all you have to do is reverse the saddle piece in it's own slot rather than having two slots really close to each other.

Sometimes we (myself included) make things vastly more complicated than they need to be just to make them fancy, intricate, impressive looking, or complicated for the sake of being complicated. Simplicity is beautiful sometimes.

here is one of the first ones I ever did back in 2003.

Image
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/