Otterhound: You appear to be confusing shear with torsion (twisting). Shear forces will remain the same as they are dependent on string tension, which does not change. Torsion is a function of leverage and can be loosely defined, in terms of the bridge, by the length of the base in relation to the height of the saddle off the top. I.e.: 1 3/8" x 1/2", which is typical in my work. Perhaps counter-intuitively, it doesn't make a lot of difference whether the bridge is pins or non-pins. The conventional bridge nearly everybody uses is rigid enough that it is best thought of as a solid unit including the saddle and the bridge pins AND the strings from the saddle to the ball end. By extension, the top and bridge plate directly under the footprint of the bridge are part of the mass equation, but perhaps less so of the torsional equation, and not at all of the shear equation.
The important point here is to think of the bridge (from the side) as a solid triangular geometric form with a specific variable footprint, depending on design.
The problem with lowering the height is that since the shear does not change, the footprint cannot be diminished, and the top structure must be able to hold the tension, while at the same time the torsion has been reduced below the level required to drive the top. The up shot is that the guitar may act overbuilt, sound thin, and lack volume. . . or so I'd expect.
I have written of this concept before and taken some criticism, but it is how I think of it and it has served me well.
Also, your suggested bridge plate is a bit thick IMO. I believe few go over .1", and I find .075" very adequate.
This thread has proven more interesting that I first expected.
|