More Knock Off Strat Woes: UPDATED with sample

I'm with you on the trems. I've got a few kicking around here myself. I do enjoy the Bigsby on my Gretsch. It does a fairly decent job getting back as long as I don't nail it hard.

He's having a wild swing at me.

It doesn't change my opinion - both soft rubber and silicone are used to dampen vibrations.

Furthermore, if you follow the instructions, to the letter, you are barely going to have room to put a grommet between plate and body. In order to function properly, the plate needs to pivot freely on the screws. Surely, putting grommets in there is going to add a lot of friction between plate and body. The chances of the plate returning to its original position (and, therefore, tune) must be reduced immensely?

I have admitted that I've never tried it (which is more honest than claiming someone wrote something that they didn't). Surely, if it was such a fantastic mod, every after-market supplier would be selling kits?

I wasn't trying to change your opinion I was stating your opinion was wrong and it still is. Not only that, your understanding of how the trem works is incorrect. In the resting position the bevel under the plate creates a void, the tubing would sit in that void between the plate and the body. Albeit with some compression. The plate does not pivot on the screws, the plate pivots on the axis created by the terminous of the bevel, the screws keep the plate from lifting and shifting and anchor against the energy of the springs. The only action the tubing would perform is dampening the action of the plate rotating forward on its axis. By friction I have to assume you me resistance, so yes, possibly gasket would be a better term than grommet and it is meant to add some dampening resistance to the action, that's kind of the point. But I assure you, very little if any string vibration is making its way into those crews. As for returning to it original position and therefore tune I haven't done the math but I am assuming with some confidence that six tiny rubber doughnuts are going to have little counter effect to 3 to 5 relatively enormous springs countering 200 lbs of (estimated) force from the anchored strings. However this wouldn't be a concern as the plate would return to its original state of rest with the gasket already installed. Remember your physics, equal and opposite. Thank you kindly for phrasing your incredulity in the form of a question, much appreciated. But, I didn't say you were dishonest. I said your post was disrespectful and politely implied that you may not have any idea what you are talking about. I also didn't say it was a fantastic mod, I offered it as a suggestion among several other suggestions and anyone could see that it's $1 worth of tubing cut into 6 pieces so even if it was a fantastic mod you could see how it wouldn't be much of a product.

I wasn't trying to change your opinion I was stating your opinion was wrong and it still is.
You are entitled to yours, just as I am entitled to mine.
Not only that, your understanding of how the trem works is incorrect.
Not according to the patent application.
In the resting position the bevel under the plate creates a void,
...Which permits the plate to be moved closer to the body without the front underside digging into the wood
The plate does not pivot on the screws
Sorry, but that contradicts the patent. In the patent, the fulcrum is clearly shown to be the screws.
I haven't done the math but I am assuming with some confidence that six tiny rubber doughnuts are going to have little counter effect to 3 to 5 relatively enormous springs countering 200 lbs of (estimated) force from the anchored strings.
By the laws of physics, as the action of the springs counteracts the pull of the strings, the force evens itslf out (Newton's Law). Therefore, 6 little doughnuts will have an increasingly large effect, the closer the plate comes to equilibrium.
Remember your physics, equal and opposite.Exactly.
I said your post was disrespectful and politely implied that you may not have any idea what you are talking about.
I don't see how having a different opinion can be seen as disrespectful. Your attempt at putting words into my mouth was, however, anything but polite and definitely disrespectful.

PS If you wish to continue banging your head against a brick wall, please do so via PM

"Apes don't read Nietzsche."
"Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it."

You are correct, pat. 2,741,146 shows the screw as being the fulcrum. This is an illustration of coarse, an artists rendering, and the practical application of the device does not use the screws as the fulcrum. Yes, you have correctly disseminated how the patent drawing artist may have interpreted the sum of the parts to function, but you still don't understand how it actually works.

Yes, the bevel permits the plate to move closer to the body and prevent it from digging into the wood, a function allowed by the very presence of the bevel. Otherwise, you would have a steel sheet setting flush against a block of wood and very little see-saw effect.

A Patent is a form of intellectual property, it's not a plan or schematic. It is only meant to exclude others from using an invention without permission. The patent shows a detailed rendering of the parts used in this invention but you couldn't patent the function. The patent was for the components of the system. Obviously, there were many tremolo designs in the 50's. To see how the actual plan was practiced, look at an actual synchronized tremolo.

"By the laws of physics, as the action of the springs counteracts the pull of the strings, the force evens itslf out (Newton's Law). Therefore, 6 little doughnuts will have an increasingly large effect, the closer the plate comes to equilibrium."
Sure, the first part is correct. But being that the little doughnuts would have been accounted for in the original equilibrium of the system at rest, when the system returned to its resting state the same equilibrium would happen. Though, the little doughnuts would not have an increasingly large effect as the system returned to equilibrium as they too would be returning to their un-sprung state. The force is onto the rubber doughnuts from the plate when they are compressed, not the other way around. Equal and opposite, the force released by the doughnuts will not be more than exerted upon them when un-sprung.

You are confusing information with knowledge.
We didn't have a difference of opinion, I didn't give an opinion. I gave several suggestions based on things I have learned and experienced. You felt the need to dispute one thing I mentioned while admitting to not having any experience with the subject and latter illustrating a basic lack of understanding of the entire system. That cheesed me off. I enjoy sharing my experience on this forum and I obviously don't mind having my credibility challenged, but I do mind blind conjecture and misinformation when it's aimed at me. I have and will gladly redact what I claim when proven otherwise and always try to investigate and remediate any mistake I might make, I think it is important to do so in respect to this community. I also feel that disputing any claims made by contributors should stand to a more rigorous scrutiny of facts and to just do so admittedly on a hunch is disrespectful to the entire community and bad form. I do apologize for mis-paraphrasing your comment I did so to illustrate my frustration. I promise, any further malignment with you will be greeted as pointedly as possible.

Here is some further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrato_systems_for_guitar

The basis of the synchronized tremolo is a rigid assembly that incorporates both the bridge and tailpiece, which pivots on the guitar belly. In the original design, this was based on the principle of the "knife edge" balance. A bevel on the front underside of a steel top plate formed a wide, sharp edge that rested on the top of the guitar body. A small imbalance in tension between the pull of the strings and the counterbalancing pull of the springs held the pivot edge firmly in place against the body.

Six hardened steel wood screws passing through slightly oversize holes just in front of the pivot point stopped the bridge from being pulled towards the neck end of the guitar. The upper portion of the screws is smooth, not threaded. These six screws are often mistakenly assumed to be the pivot point rather than the hidden knife edge. This design works, in spite of the friction caused by the edges of the six holes sliding up and down the screw shafts when vibrato is applied.

I'm glad to help.

I should mention that I think the use of rubber gaskets around the anchor screws is probably not a significant improvement on any function with the exception of adding resistance to the action of the tremolo. I wouldn't bother with it.

Excellent thread..!!!

What a blast from the past thread. I read this a couple days ago when satya31 replied to it and I was sent an email notification. Good times.

A follow up over my coffee this morning. Looking back and vaguely remembering anything about this scenario, I recalled two important issues. First, the neck had a nice twist in it. As anyone knows, string vibration get get quite funky even with a couple strings set up in a manner that does not match something as simple as the radius. Factors such as these can be quick to point out other weaknesses in a guitar's less than perfect state.

Second factor was some very poor consumer electronics, noisy home electricity and an awfully poor set up "studio". Add a few bad gain-staging decisions and a noisy mess appears even on semi-clean tones. any imperfection can result in noises that seemingly sit on top of comb filtering effects I was getting at the time.

I've since replaced that MIM with a PRS SE Paul Allender model with the strat style trem system. Works wonderfully. I was Missing single coil glassy, chimy and clean tones, so I bought a USA build Strat the next year. You guessed it. No spring rattle.