floyd rose question

[zeegler]

Model, people like you should not be allowed on the internet. You come in here, answering people's questions incorrectly, and then begin to argue with the ten people who answer correctly. You question our knowledge of guitars and tech matters. Are you that pompous, and self absorbed that you honestly think you are right, and we are all wrong? Of course you are. I'm not saying that anyone who has a different opinion is wrong, but you continue to argue your ridiculous point, when it is quite clear to anyone with a brain bigger than that of a gnat, that you are mistaken. Accept it, and move on. You won't last long around here, that's quite obvious.

[Model1VH2]

Model, people like you should not be allowed on the internet. You come in here, answering people's questions incorrectly, and then begin to argue with the ten people who answer correctly.

1) You don't know that I answered anyone's question "incorrectly" because no pics have been posted and the original poster never followed up this thread with an update.
2) I provided a link to the Floyd Rose website for your convenience. You have yet to show me where Floyd Rose states that his bridge is strictly a "floating bridge" or even that it was designed strictly for that application. Did you think I wouldn't call you out on that statement simply because you have over 7,400 posts? lol
3) Get over it.

You question our knowledge of guitars and tech matters. Are you that pompous, and self absorbed that you honestly think you are right, and we are all wrong? Of course you are.

My debate with you was based on your statement "a Floyd Rose is a floating bridge". I say it's simply a bridge that can be used in both "floating" and "non-floating" applications depending on the installation and/or the guitar.
I'm not sure why you don't recognize that, but it's honestly not worth debating with you. You are the one with 7,400 posts, so you win.

I'm not saying that anyone who has a different opinion is wrong,

That's exactly what you're saying.

but you continue to argue your ridiculous point, when it is quite clear to anyone with a brain bigger than that of a gnat, that you are mistaken.

If I am mistaken, I will be the first to admit it.
I've even offered links to assist you, but so far, all you've offered is insults and name-calling.

Accept it, and move on. You won't last long around here, that's quite obvious.

If you mean I'll never live long enough to reach 7,000 posts, you're probably right. lol

[DrDoug]

While I find the nuance here to be interesting, and I am no Floyd expert (by far), I find numerous references to the 'Floyd Rose Double-Locking Floating Bridge' on the web. In the tuning instructions at the Floyd Rose site, they have this blurb:

Tuning your Floyd Rose bridge is certainly a tricky business when the bridge is floating. This is because the total tension of the strings must balance the total tension of the tremolo springs with the base plate of the bridge parallel to the face of the guitar and with the strings tuned to the desired pitch. So, follow these steps and and it will start to make sense.

So Floyd Rose does refer to the bridge as a floating one. Is it strictly floating? No, but anyone who says that it is just another tremolo design is parsing their words to stand by some point that is not worth standing by.

There is also this at Wikipedia regarding Floyd Rose bridges:

Floyd Rose holds a number of patents on floating bridge design:

* US4,171,661 (PDF version) (1979-10-23) Floyd D. Rose Guitar tremolo method and apparatus — bridge mechanism patent;
* US4,497,236 (PDF version) (1985-02-05) Floyd D. Rose Apparatus for restraining and fine tuning the strings of a musical instrument, particularly guitars — first fine tuners and saddle patent;
* US4,549,461 (PDF version) (1985-10-29) Floyd D. Rose Apparatus for restraining and fine tuning the strings of a musical instrument, particularly guitars — second fine tuners and saddle patent;
* US4,555,970 (PDF version) (1985-12-03) Floyd D. Rose Tremolo apparatus capable of increasing tension on the strings of a musical instrument — spring and claw mechanism;
* US4,882,967 (PDF version) (1989-11-28) Floyd D. Rose Tremolo apparatus having broken string compensation feature — early patent for a tremstopper device;
* US4,967,631 (PDF version) (1990-11-06) Floyd D. Rose Tremolo and tuning apparatus — patent for Floyd Rose Pro, low-profile version;

In reading numerous other web sites, there is repeated reference to 'converting the Floyd to a non-floating design'. It may just be me, but a non-floating Floyd is far more the exception than the rule. The point of the Floyd is to increase the versatility and range (pitch up & down) of the tremolo, and to stabilize the tuning.

I am not jumping any further in to this tempest in a teapot, but I do believe that the major aspect of the Floyd design is its floating design. Can they be installed or modified otherwise? Yes, but that is beside the point.

If I talk Floyd with anyone, they automatically assume floating unless otherwise specified. As do I.

Just a comment from the peanut gallery...

[VitaminG]

While I find the nuance here to be interesting, and I am no Floyd expert (by far), I find numerous references to the 'Floyd Rose Double-Locking Floating Bridge' on the web. In the tuning instructions at the Floyd Rose site, they have this blurb:

So Floyd Rose does refer to the bridge as a floating one. Is it strictly floating? No, but anyone who says that it is just another tremolo design is parsing their words to stand by some point that is not worth standing by.

There is also this at Wikipedia regarding Floyd Rose bridges:

In reading numerous other web sites, there is repeated reference to 'converting the Floyd to a non-floating design'. It may just be me, but a non-floating Floyd is far more the exception than the rule. The point of the Floyd is to increase the versatility and range (pitch up & down) of the tremolo, and to stabilize the tuning.

I am not jumping any further in to this tempest in a teapot, but I do believe that the major aspect of the Floyd design is its floating design. Can they be installed or modified otherwise? Yes, but that is beside the point.

If I talk Floyd with anyone, they automatically assume floating unless otherwise specified. As do I.

Just a comment from the peanut gallery...

nice one, DrDoug.

Of course, by Model1VH2's reasoning, you don't have enough posts here to win this argument.

[hippietim]

A Floyd Rose bridge is not strictly a floating bridge. It is just a bridge. There is nothing fundamental about it that requires it to float. Tons of folks don't have floating Floyd bridges because they prefer the tuning stability for double stop bends and broken strings. Either they block them or let them sit against the body.

To assert that a Floyd Rose is absolutely a floating bridge is pretty funny considering the guy that first put it on the map uses it flush against the body.

I think their is some very fine splitting of the hairs going on here.

[Model1VH2]

nice one, DrDoug.

Of course, by Model1VH2's reasoning, you don't have enough posts here to win this argument.

This coming from a member with over 8,000 posts.
Geeze guys ... get outside once in awhile, will ya? lol

DrDoug,
I can respect your opinion, but lets take a closer look at what you quoted from the Floyd Rose website ... "Tuning your Floyd Rose bridge is certainly a tricky business when the bridge is floating."

"When" being the key word here.
That, in no way, indicates that the Floyd Rose tremolo is a "floating trem", in fact, the word "when" shows that it can be applied to both "floating" and "non-floating" applications. So you see, the quote you provided proves my point. Thank you.

I also believe there are several reasons you see more conversions/instructions for "floating' to "non-floating" than visa-versa.
For one, player preference - Most players find there are more advantages to having a "non-floating" Floyd as opposed to a "floating" Floyd (tuning stability, tone, etc..). You may also want to consider the popularity of the D-Tuna (which cannot be used on Floyd Rose set as "floating" tremolo) as a contribution as well .

[Model1VH2]

A Floyd Rose bridge is not strictly a floating bridge. It is just a bridge. There is nothing fundamental about it that requires it to float. Tons of folks don't have floating Floyd bridges because they prefer the tuning stability for double stop bends and broken strings. Either they block them or let them sit against the body.

To assert that a Floyd Rose is absolutely a floating bridge is pretty funny considering the guy that first put it on the map uses it flush against the body.

I think their is some very fine splitting of the hairs going on here.

+1
Thank you.

[VitaminG]

This coming from a member with over 8,000 posts.
Geeze guys ... get outside once in awhile, will ya? lol

by my reckoning, my 8800-odd posts over the 5 years that this incarnation of the JCF has been in existence works out to just under 5 per day. Doesn't seem too excessive to me

I also believe there are several reasons you see more conversions/instructions for "floating' to "non-floating" than visa-versa.

I believe the main reason would be because most manufacturers setup their Floyded guitars to float. To convert from "non-floating" to "floating" would suggest that the guitar was initially setup as non-floating. Most aren't.

And if the guitar was built to sit the non-recessed trem flat on the face of the guitar, as you espouse, converting it to floating would require that the neck be shimmed. Or you could buy one of the 99% of Floyded guitars that have a floating setup

[Model1VH2]

by my reckoning, my 8800-odd posts over the 5 years that this incarnation of the JCF has been in existence works out to just under 5 per day. Doesn't seem too excessive to me

Lighten up bro .. I was just having fun with it.
I apologize if you took it personally.

I believe the main reason would be because most manufacturers setup their Floyded guitars to float. To convert from "non-floating" to "floating" would suggest that the guitar was initially setup as non-floating. Most aren't.

Good point.

And if the guitar was built to sit the non-recessed trem flat on the face of the guitar, as you espouse, converting it to floating would require that the neck be shimmed. Or you could buy one of the 99% of Floyded guitars that have a floating setup

I think maybe 99% is a high number, but point well made.

[Spivonious]

[VitaminG]

Lighten up bro .. I was just having fun with it.
I apologize if you took it personally.

no offense taken, man. I'd never actually done the math before. It interested me to see how few per day it actually worked out to be!

[scotty]

Not to beat a dead horse but I ran across this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremolo_arm

[DrDoug]

Hold it! The horse moved again, I saw it!

nice one, DrDoug.

Of course, by Model1VH2's reasoning, you don't have enough posts here to win this argument.

Thanks d00d... I am not trying to win anything though, and a post count is just a number. It ain't how big it is that counts, it is what you do with it...lol

One final note on the Floyd is from Vintage Kramer, where they have the Floyd story posted there. The second paragraph is the money shot:

Although tougher to solve, the hitch was the same-how to reduce the friction caused by metal-to-metal contact? Suspending the bridge in midair was impossible, so Floyd tried drilling two inverted cones into the underside of the bridge block and balancing it on two sharpened pivot points. This was an improvement but adjusting the height of the strings now became too dificult. The third and most workable choice was to use a fulcrum system, where the whole bridge assembly balanced on a single knife-edge and rocked back and forth with an action similar to a Jazzmaster's "floating" bridge.

http://www.vintagekramer.com/parts6.htm

From its inception, the Floyd was designed as a full floating tremolo. While it can be blocked to function like a conventional trem, he specifically designed it to float.

Some manufacturers installed it as a non-float type, but they were in the minority. I know that EVH blocked his, and the D-tuna requires this modification, but the first model the EVH had was a full float.

To float or not, that is the question. I say, whatever floats yer boat...

[j2379]

we are also talking now about guitars designed with V-trems that now use floyds, shit wasnt that why the floyd was designed, to replace vtrem that just didnt stay in tune. there's little or NO neck angle with Vtrems, so the floyd now sits FLUSH on the body, but some people need to raise pitch so the recessed route or neck shims were needed. Then someone decided to make neck pockets with angles so you could pull back. & bingo the full floater was born, not by design of floyd but someone thinking ive had enough shimming necks, let me cut 2degrees of angle into this neck pocket. obviously neck thru's made with neck angle. Personally that how i like em. i dont need to be able to pull up, I just need to have the strings that high off the body, that why i hate hardtails. im so used to TOM's & NON recessed FULL floating OFR's hardtails & V-trems, & even some Kahlers are just uncomfortable I feel like im picking at the face of the guitar NOT strings.

NOW CONTINUE ARGUEING.....i find it very amusing