Jeff Tanner wrote: > > >I dont see reducing action friction to near zero levels as a positive at > >all. > > > >RicB > > My impression is that they have changed a lot of action function - > including geometry - to accommodate the heavier hammers, and the lowest > friction levels possible is likely necessary with the heavier hammers. Cant see why. Not unless they are going to get into Mammoth hammers... like off the Stanwood charts. You can easily enough get a set of hammers starting out at 13 grams SW,, roughly 11.5 grams dead weight, to function in an action without assist springs. You need a low ratio and a a bit of lead to do it.. but its plenty workable. Dropping friction to lower DW is rather an illusion me thinks... inertia levels are basically unchanged, and thats the brother part of what feels heavy under play. > Why, after decades of building their reputation with the lighter hammers > they are now changing, who knows? > > But it seems that they are trading a friction controlled action for a > weight controlled one. Hmm interesting thought.... dont see how it could be comfortable without 10 or so grams of friction in the action... but it might be fun to see what can be done. I guess I'll have to dink around some more with my favourite junker :) Cheers RicB > Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC