Tremolo Springs - straight or angled?

jaymenon

I have 10-46s on my Strat.

Wudtone Holy Grail tremolo - which I really really like - the design really makes sense.

And currently 3 springs with the outer two angled / middle one straight.

I have however. read that the tension on the outer angled springs is higher than that on the middle straight spring. And that this can cause tuning instability. Some people therefore recommend that all three springs are best set parallel.

Expert opinions most appreciated...

Jay

richardhomer

Straight. No reason whatsoever to angle them, except they’re easier to hook on if they’re not right at the edge of the cavity.

tone1

I love mine angled.... I know straight is better for Technical reasons but mine looks cool...

https://i.imgur.com/QerRE1q.jpg

Jack_

richardhomer said:

Straight. No reason whatsoever to angle them, except they’re easier to hook on if they’re not right at the edge of the cavity.

I always figured it gives a tiny bit more tension too. But I'd imagine straight is better practice.

ICBM

Straight.

The cause of the tuning instability when angled is probably the outer springs having to rotate very slightly on the hooks, rather than the different tensions - which are simply summed anyway since both the claw and the bock are rigid.

For the same reason there is no advantage to angling the claw to put different tensions on one side or the other.

thermionic

Hooke’s Law says that it will take the same force to extend the springs by the same amount, however they’re angled.

Dan Erlewine says in one of his books the angled myth may have arose from the simple fact that it’s less fiddly to hook them on in the outer holes than the holes that allow them to be parallel.

Jack_

thermionic said:

Hooke’s Law says that it will take the same force to extend the springs by the same amount, however they’re angled.

I meant like extra tension without having to adjust the claw, although why you wouldn't just adjust the claw I don't know...

thegummy

thermionic said:

Hooke’s Law says that it will take the same force to extend the springs by the same amount, however they’re angled.

Dan Erlewine says in one of his books the angled myth may have arose from the simple fact that it’s less fiddly to hook them on in the outer holes than the holes that allow them to be parallel.

So if they're angled it's not the same distance so takes a different force?

I think this is one of the many things in guitars that scientifically has a right answer but makes absolutely no difference to anyone in the real world.

thermionic

No, it says that the force to extend a spring a certain amount will be the same if the  spring is slightly extended (centre) or more extended (angled). The (wrong) argument for angling them is that the angled springs take less force to extend them because they’re already extended more than a straight one.

Even if this was true, the differences would be so slight only Eric Johnson would claim to be able to tell.

Clarky

I used to have them all 'crows foot' in all of my guitars cos it was all the rage in the 90's..
I switched them back to being parallel and noticed absolutely no difference

thegummy

thermionic said:

No, it says that the force to extend a spring a certain amount will be the same if the  spring is slightly extended (centre) or more extended (angled). The (wrong) argument for angling them is that the angled springs take less force to extend them because they’re already extended more than a straight one.

Even if this was true, the differences would be so slight only Eric Johnson would claim to be able to tell.

I was just replying saying I don't understand but I think it's hit me - it's talking about the force when actually using the whammy?

If that's right then I think I understand!

Handsome_Chris

@FelineGuitars , isn't this part of the same conversation we had while waiting for Skid Row?

My take away from the convo  was that for 9-42s and below, two springs may be best, anything thicker use 3. Placing the outer two at an angle gives the strings a bit more stretch to counter.  This is all to do with tuning stability: the springs have to have the strings making them work a bit, not letting them rest .

Lebarque

Raw vintage springs. All five in straight.

Nomad

For a given distance between the trem block and the claw, and assuming they're parallel, an angled spring will have more tension because it's spanning over a slightly bigger distance - it's the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle rather than the adjacent or opposite. However, the increase in length for the particular triangle is about 1% (about 70mm straight, 10mm wide = hypotenuse of 70.71mm).

If the guitar was initially set up with the springs straight, and then some were angled, the tension applied by the springs slightly increases and the strings go slightly sharp. To compensate, either the claw is adjusted again (outwards), or the angle of the bridge at rest slightly changes (lowers) when the strings are retuned (dropped slightly in pitch).

In the end, what you have is a bunch of springs that apply the same tension whether they are straight or angled, due to implementing one or other (or a bit of both) of the two geometric changes described above. They must do because the strings when tuned to pitch apply a fixed tension which the springs have to counteract at equilibrium.

Note this...

thermionic said:

Hooke’s Law says that it will take the same force to extend the springs by the same amount, however they’re angled.

It's not to do with whether a spring is angled, as such, but that increase in spring tension is proportional to increase in length. In other words, a conventional expansion spring, which is what we have in a trem system, has a linear increase in tension - a spring that increases by, say, 10g of tension (or about 0.1N of tensile force) per 1mm of stretch, will increase by that amount whether its starting point is stretched a little or a lot - ie, whether it's straight or angled. What this means is that, on a guitar that's tuned to pitch, the force applied by the player to the trem arm that causes the strings to change pitch by a given amount stays the same whether the springs are angled or straight.

thermionic

Finally, somebody understands!

Clarky

Nomad said:

For a given distance between the trem block and the claw, and assuming they're parallel, an angled spring will have more tension because it's spanning over a slightly bigger distance - it's the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle rather than the adjacent or opposite. However, the increase in length for the particular triangle is about 1% (about 70mm straight, 10mm wide = hypotenuse of 70.71mm).

If the guitar was initially set up with the springs straight, and then some were angled, the tension applied by the springs slightly increases and the strings go slightly sharp. To compensate, either the claw is adjusted again (outwards), or the angle of the bridge at rest slightly changes (lowers) when the strings are retuned (dropped slightly in pitch).

In the end, what you have is a bunch of springs that apply the same tension whether they are straight or angled, due to implementing one or other (or a bit of both) of the two geometric changes described above. They must do because the strings when tuned to pitch apply a fixed tension which the springs have to counteract at equilibrium.

Note this...

thermionic said:

Hooke’s Law says that it will take the same force to extend the springs by the same amount, however they’re angled.

It's not to do with whether a spring is angled, as such, but that increase in spring tension is proportional to increase in length. In other words, a conventional expansion spring, which is what we have in a trem system, has a linear increase in tension - a spring that increases by, say, 10g of tension (or about 0.1N of tensile force) per 1mm of stretch, will increase by that amount whether it's starting point is stretched a little or a lot - ie, whether it's straight or angled. What this means is that, on a guitar that's tuned to pitch, the force applied by the player to the trem arm that causes the strings to change pitch by a given amount stays the same whether the springs are angled or straight.

I was going to post my thoughts on the subject of the combined tension of the strings and springs being equal so that the the bridge's zero floating point is achieved etc etc...
but your post said what I was going to say anyhow but a bit more sciencey

noisepolluter

I just found it easier to get the tension and ‘float’ where I wanted it when the springs were angled. I have no doubt I could get the same result with the springs straight with time, effort and a better knowledge of setups. 

Jack_

I think what we can ascertain from all of this is fixed trems are best.

richardhomer

noisepolluter said:

I just found it easier to get the tension and ‘float’ where I wanted it when the springs were angled. I have no doubt I could get the same result with the springs straight with time, effort and a better knowledge of setups. 

The point at which the bridge ‘floats’ is determined solely by the balance between string and spring tension - which is adjusted by either tightening or slackening the spring claw screws. 

Clarky

I'll make a crude guess here...
I'm wondering if the whole point of the crows foot spring config is where someone found that with the string gauge and tuning combination they were using, 3 springs in parallel were too few to achieve zero float and 4 or 5 springs in parallel were too many because the claw screws can only provide a limited amount of adjustment..
the crows foot config could have solved the prob and from there the idea just caught on...

just theory.. maybe total shite that I just made up in an attempt to understand how is config could have came about...

ICBM

The reason it came about is because it’s difficult to hook the springs onto the outer claw positions with your fingers, since they get trapped against the wall of the cavity.