Talk:Guitar bridge
From DDL Wiki
(→Client Comments on Report) |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis== | ==Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis== | ||
This is a well-performed and comprehensive mechanical analysis. The assumptions, component information and results are nicely presented. The analysis result indicates that G string has higher nonlinear behavior than others - very interesting. | This is a well-performed and comprehensive mechanical analysis. The assumptions, component information and results are nicely presented. The analysis result indicates that G string has higher nonlinear behavior than others - very interesting. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Why does presence of variety in the market have you believe that "any major changes or improvements could be adopted competitively"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | With a market as broad as the music industry, there is a lower level of the entrenched product loyalty that in seen in other markets, such as Mac vs PC in computers. The division still exists, but customers will be more willing to experiment with an innovative design when they are used to a wide variety of options | ||
| + | |||
| + | Good observation that the springs are very difficult to remove or install - but doesn't this contradict your finding that the design is already optimized for DFMA? | ||
| + | The springs are the most difficult part in the guitar to install and remove, especially for the end user who will rarely need to deal with them. Like all tasks requiring manual dexterity, installing the springs is much easier for laborers who repeat the process hundreds of times a day. The only real way to make the installation of the springs easier would be to lower the tension, which would necessitate more springs in roughly the same amount of working space. The extra parts and more crowded assembly would be worse from a DFMA standpoint. | ||
| + | |||
| + | You suggest that professional users would all choose a Floyd Rose over a Fender. Does this imply that the only advantage to the Fender is cost? | ||
| + | The fender bridge is also easier to use on a maintenance level. It has a simpler design without the string clamps and other added functions. Installing and removing the tremolo bar in particular is easier on the fender bridge. All of these effects are secondary to the guitar’s primary function, which is to play music. The Floyd Rose is the more high-performance model, and most musicians are willing to put in a little more maintenance work to get that added quality | ||
| + | |||
| + | You didn't mention palm muting in your report, but this may be a potential issue with the Floyd Rose bridge, since forces from the wrist on the bridge may detune. Can you comment? | ||
| + | Mike to Jeremy: What’s palm muting? | ||
| + | |||
| + | You never explained why the floating bridge is better at keeping the guitar in tune. Is this only because the Floyd Rose has clamps at each end? Why can't clamps be added to the Fender design? | ||
| + | When the clamps are in place, the tuning knobs at the head of the guitar are no longer functional, and tuning is performed via the fine tuners on the bridge. So yes, the clamps are what keep the guitar in tune. But if you add both the clamps and the fine tuner to a fender bridge, you would just have a variation on the Floyd Rose with a lower degree of motion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In your "product function" section you explain use, rather than how the mechanism functions. However, we see that you explain the mechanism later in your mechanical analysis. | ||
| + | Do some cut and paste for this | ||
| + | |||
| + | Part G7 seems to be an assembly with its parts listed later - why is it also listed as a part? Part F9 appears to be an assembly of multiple components. Please comment. | ||
| + | Move G7, it’s the assembly. Part FR9 is an assembly, but we lacked the tools required to take it apart or put it back together. Aaron: Comment on this. Maybe move assemblies to their own area? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Good observation that the standardized fasteners simplify manufacturing and reduce costs. You also mention that the large number of fasteners increases assembly time. Are all of the fasteners in the design necessary? Could any of the functions be combined? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The number of fasteners has been reduced as low as it can be without impacting the function of the design. Where there is room for some improvement, at least to the end user, is to have all of the different fasteners use the same tool for installation, as opposed to the mixture of philips head and hex screws in the current designs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Are DFA guidelines followed with this design? Are all parts inserted from the same direction? Is there potential for ambiguous placement or part mix-up? etc | ||
| + | As stated above, the design is fairly optimized. There could be a bit more tool standardization, but there are some function tradeoffs there as well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What scale are you using for FMEA numbers? You seem to have chosen 1 for "poor detectability", although it seems that it should be 10 to be in line with the RPN concept. | ||
| + | A score of one is given for a known design flaw, where no detection is required because every guitar bridge has the problem. Whoever wrote up the FMEA double check this to be sure. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In your DFE, you suggest that very few guitars are scrapped, but in reality they all are eventually. Please comment. Your LCA analysis is quite good, and we understand that the CO_2 tax will not affect us significantly. | ||
| + | Guitars are more often left in a garage or basement than scrapped, but it does happen eventually. We feel that this is not a truly significant part of our analysis. (In part due to the fact that we are focusing on a subassembly and not the main product.) The main body is generally a low quality wood product and is biodegradable. The metallic parts will likewise eventually rust on steel bridged models. In any case, the highly composite material and relatively small amount of recyclable material combined with a very long product life make it impractical to design for end of life concerns | ||
| + | |||
| + | In your mechanical analysis, you examine a domain up to 12 degrees, where all strings are slack. Do guitarists use this range or any range beyond 6 degrees where some strings are already slack? | ||
| + | Guitar players – little help here? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Your force equations seem to list F_pivot twice - should this be separated into x and y components? | ||
| + | Jeremy – this one’s all for you | ||
| + | |||
| + | Do you have research that says performers would prefer the tremolo bar to change the frequency of all strings proportionally, or do they prefer to create dissonance? If some users would prefer chords to stay in tune, as you suggest, this could be a very interesting opportunity, indeed. | ||
| + | This isn’t something a lot of musicians think about – they tend to work with what they have. While this was not mentioned in our research, it can never hurt to put new options on the table for artists to play with. Musician’s comments? | ||
Revision as of 17:00, 14 October 2008
Client Comments on Report
We received your report. Your analysis and findings are impressive. Your summary suggests that your most important findings are that the design is already in good shape wrt manufacturing, assembly, and environmental impact, but that it has two important design flaws: (1) difficulty maintaining tune (in general, or during vibrato?) and (2) wear on the pivot points. These seem to be good areas for further study and improvement.
Detailed comments:
- Why does presence of variety in the market have you believe that "any major changes or improvements could be adopted competitively"?
- Good observation that the springs are very difficult to remove or install - but doesn't this contradict your finding that the design is already optimized for DFMA?
- You suggest that professional users would all choose a Floyd Rose over a Fender. Does this imply that the only advantage to the Fender is cost?
- You didn't mention palm muting in your report, but this may be a potential issue with the Floyd Rose bridge, since forces from the wrist on the bridge may detune. Can you comment?
- You never explained why the floating bridge is better at keeping the guitar in tune. Is this only because the Floyd Rose has clamps at each end? Why can't clamps be added to the Fender design?
- In your "product function" section you explain use, rather than how the mechanism functions. However, we see that you explain the mechanism later in your mechanical analysis.
- Part G7 seems to be an assembly with its parts listed later - why is it also listed as a part? Part F9 appears to be an assembly of multiple components. Please comment.
- Good observation that the standardized fasteners simplify manufacturing and reduce costs. You also mention that the large number of fasteners increases assembly time. Are all of the fasteners in the design necessary? Could any of the functions be combined?
- Are DFA guidelines followed with this design? Are all parts inserted from the same direction? Is there potential for ambiguous placement or part mix-up? etc
- What scale are you using for FMEA numbers? You seem to have chosen 1 for "poor detectability", although it seems that it should be 10 to be in line with the RPN concept.
- In your DFE, you suggest that very few guitars are scrapped, but in reality they all are eventually. Please comment. Your LCA analysis is quite good, and we understand that the CO_2 tax will not affect us significantly.
- In your mechanical analysis, you examine a domain up to 12 degrees, where all strings are slack. Do guitarists use this range or any range beyond 6 degrees where some strings are already slack?
- Your force equations seem to list F_pivot twice - should this be separated into x and y components?
- Do you have research that says performers would prefer the tremolo bar to change the frequency of all strings proportionally, or do they prefer to create dissonance? If some users would prefer chords to stay in tune, as you suggest, this could be a very interesting opportunity, indeed.
We are looking forward to seeing your market research and new ideas in the next report.
Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis
This is a well-performed and comprehensive mechanical analysis. The assumptions, component information and results are nicely presented. The analysis result indicates that G string has higher nonlinear behavior than others - very interesting.
Why does presence of variety in the market have you believe that "any major changes or improvements could be adopted competitively"? With a market as broad as the music industry, there is a lower level of the entrenched product loyalty that in seen in other markets, such as Mac vs PC in computers. The division still exists, but customers will be more willing to experiment with an innovative design when they are used to a wide variety of options Good observation that the springs are very difficult to remove or install - but doesn't this contradict your finding that the design is already optimized for DFMA?
The springs are the most difficult part in the guitar to install and remove, especially for the end user who will rarely need to deal with them. Like all tasks requiring manual dexterity, installing the springs is much easier for laborers who repeat the process hundreds of times a day. The only real way to make the installation of the springs easier would be to lower the tension, which would necessitate more springs in roughly the same amount of working space. The extra parts and more crowded assembly would be worse from a DFMA standpoint.
You suggest that professional users would all choose a Floyd Rose over a Fender. Does this imply that the only advantage to the Fender is cost?
The fender bridge is also easier to use on a maintenance level. It has a simpler design without the string clamps and other added functions. Installing and removing the tremolo bar in particular is easier on the fender bridge. All of these effects are secondary to the guitar’s primary function, which is to play music. The Floyd Rose is the more high-performance model, and most musicians are willing to put in a little more maintenance work to get that added quality
You didn't mention palm muting in your report, but this may be a potential issue with the Floyd Rose bridge, since forces from the wrist on the bridge may detune. Can you comment?
Mike to Jeremy: What’s palm muting?
You never explained why the floating bridge is better at keeping the guitar in tune. Is this only because the Floyd Rose has clamps at each end? Why can't clamps be added to the Fender design?
When the clamps are in place, the tuning knobs at the head of the guitar are no longer functional, and tuning is performed via the fine tuners on the bridge. So yes, the clamps are what keep the guitar in tune. But if you add both the clamps and the fine tuner to a fender bridge, you would just have a variation on the Floyd Rose with a lower degree of motion.
In your "product function" section you explain use, rather than how the mechanism functions. However, we see that you explain the mechanism later in your mechanical analysis.
Do some cut and paste for this
Part G7 seems to be an assembly with its parts listed later - why is it also listed as a part? Part F9 appears to be an assembly of multiple components. Please comment.
Move G7, it’s the assembly. Part FR9 is an assembly, but we lacked the tools required to take it apart or put it back together. Aaron: Comment on this. Maybe move assemblies to their own area?
Good observation that the standardized fasteners simplify manufacturing and reduce costs. You also mention that the large number of fasteners increases assembly time. Are all of the fasteners in the design necessary? Could any of the functions be combined? The number of fasteners has been reduced as low as it can be without impacting the function of the design. Where there is room for some improvement, at least to the end user, is to have all of the different fasteners use the same tool for installation, as opposed to the mixture of philips head and hex screws in the current designs. Are DFA guidelines followed with this design? Are all parts inserted from the same direction? Is there potential for ambiguous placement or part mix-up? etc
As stated above, the design is fairly optimized. There could be a bit more tool standardization, but there are some function tradeoffs there as well.
What scale are you using for FMEA numbers? You seem to have chosen 1 for "poor detectability", although it seems that it should be 10 to be in line with the RPN concept.
A score of one is given for a known design flaw, where no detection is required because every guitar bridge has the problem. Whoever wrote up the FMEA double check this to be sure.
In your DFE, you suggest that very few guitars are scrapped, but in reality they all are eventually. Please comment. Your LCA analysis is quite good, and we understand that the CO_2 tax will not affect us significantly.
Guitars are more often left in a garage or basement than scrapped, but it does happen eventually. We feel that this is not a truly significant part of our analysis. (In part due to the fact that we are focusing on a subassembly and not the main product.) The main body is generally a low quality wood product and is biodegradable. The metallic parts will likewise eventually rust on steel bridged models. In any case, the highly composite material and relatively small amount of recyclable material combined with a very long product life make it impractical to design for end of life concerns
In your mechanical analysis, you examine a domain up to 12 degrees, where all strings are slack. Do guitarists use this range or any range beyond 6 degrees where some strings are already slack?
Guitar players – little help here?
Your force equations seem to list F_pivot twice - should this be separated into x and y components?
Jeremy – this one’s all for you
Do you have research that says performers would prefer the tremolo bar to change the frequency of all strings proportionally, or do they prefer to create dissonance? If some users would prefer chords to stay in tune, as you suggest, this could be a very interesting opportunity, indeed.
This isn’t something a lot of musicians think about – they tend to work with what they have. While this was not mentioned in our research, it can never hurt to put new options on the table for artists to play with. Musician’s comments?
