[CAUT] bechstein

[David Ilvedson]

Thanks Alan,

The friction problems are mainly in the shank flange and with new parts a lot of that will be taken care of...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044


----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Alan McCoy" <amccoy at mail.ewu.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Received: 8/7/2006 9:45:35 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein


>David,

>Be sure early on to take care of the obvious friction
>problems/inconsistencies that you have.

>Also note #40 presents some issues (a BW of 48!). I'd bet that the leading
>pattern changes on this note. Smoothing the FW will help out these
>inconsistencies.

>Alan


>-- Alan McCoy, RPT
>Eastern Washington University
>amccoy at mail.ewu.edu
>509-359-4627


>> From: David Ilvedson <ilvey at sbcglobal.net>
>> Reply-To: <ilvey at sbcglobal.net>, "College and University Technicians
>> <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
>> Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:28:10 -0700
>> To: <caut at ptg.org>
>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein
>> 
>> The action regulates well...I was wondering about the action spread...113 mm,
>> but that seems OK?   The slotted wippen rail has a washer impression quite a
>> bit closer towards the balance rail...
>> The capstans seem to be in line with the balance rail.   I will be installing
>> new shanks and flanges, probably Renner but I'm considering Abel, so the
>> knuckle alignment should be good...
>> I haven't looked closely at the magic line with a thread, but just eying it,
>> it seems OK...
>> I"m leaning towards the Abel Standard...the Abel Select really seemed to
>> heavy...stock sample #29 was 10.5 grams...no shank...1/2 high.   I wonder if
>> that 10.5 could be brought down 2 grams?   I'm thinking adding a pit of weight
>> to the Standards makes more sense than removing from Select.   Any comments 
>on
>> the difference between these hammers?   Both seem to be a beautiful consistent
>> hammer...
>> 
>> John Delacourts comments about Abel making Bechstein hammers makes me think
>> they might be a good match for this piano...I did try the a few in the piano
>> and like the sound...
>> 
>> David Ilvedson, RPT
>> Pacifica, CA  94044
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original message ----------------------------------------
>> From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>
>> To: "Pianotech List" <pianotech at ptg.org>, "College and University Technicians"
>> <caut at ptg.org>
>> Received: 8/6/2006 9:34:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: [CAUT] bechstein
>> 
>> 
>>> With the exception of note 16 (not sure what's going on there), I don't see
>>> any real problem here.  Even if you were you to reweigh down to 37 or 38
>>> grams, you are comfortably under FW maximums (as outlined by Stanwood
>>> charts).  You do have some room to add weight especially if you wanted to
>>> push up the balance weight a little.  An R of 5.6 or 5.7 is a reasonable
>>> target, in my view, for good regulation specs--check and see though.  If you
>>> smooth out the strike weights in the basic range that your hammers seem to
>>> be falling and set up the front weights accordingly aiming for a uniform
>>> balance weight, you should be fine.  I would double check the measurements
>>> on #16.  My guess is that there is some measurement error.  Trying to get
>>> perfectly uniform R numbers is generally not possible depending on things
>>> like uniform knuckle hanging, straight capstan line and capstan line
>>> parallel to the balance rail line (which it appears you may not have), not
>>> to mention elimination of measurement error (always a factor).
>> 
>>> If the current hammers produce a tone that you like with the current weight,
>>> why would you change hammers?  If you want to experiment with weight, you
>>> can always use the binder clip method--removeable too!
>> 
>>> David Love
>>> davidlovepianos at comcast.net
>>> www.davidlovepianos.com
>> 
>> 
>>