pinz

[Roger Jolly]

>
>I've noticed that too, and it could very well be. I've wondered more than
>once where the trade off is between PSI decrease of pin/wood contact area
>and loss of integrity of the bridge cap from the bigger hole. I'm beginning
>to suspect that the PSI loading is the more critical. Also, why brass. The
>larger diameter is likely as not to be for increased stiffness of the
>softer material, rather than preservation of the bridge cap. I'd guess
>that's most likely to have been an unplanned side benefit, but it may have
>been intentional too. So why brass? inherent lubricity? 
>
>Ron N

Hi Ron,
           The lubricity quality is questionable, since Steel pins are
supposed to be phoshor bronze coated, with a lower mu factor, but who knows
what the coating is these days?
This is one case that is not a cheaper mfg method, so I would guess that
there's a valid design reason.
Larger contact area, more efficient tonal transmission?????????  Maybe?????
Certainly bridge longevity would be an important design consideration.
Pressed insertion of the pins vs hap hazard wacking will have an effect on
the way the drill hole may be stressed, hence future cracks????????
Is it process driven?
Roger

Roger Jolly
Saskatoon, Canada.
306-665-0213
Fax 652-0505