[CAUT] stack fit to keyframe

[Bob Hohf]

I can't answer that, Ric.  We're talking theory here, which is always hard
to pin down to reality.  Personally, I haven't spent much time working with
the knuckle line.  This reminds me of a slogan printed on a Bowler's Crying
Towel that was awarded to me when I was the worst (bar none!) bowler in my
8th grade class:  "Get the spares and the strikes will take care of
themselves."  Our problem, or perhaps it's what keeps us interested, is that
telling the strikes from the spares is part of the challenge.

Bob Hohf

> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org]On Behalf Of Ric
> Brekne
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:24 AM
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Subject: [CAUT] stack fit to keyframe
>
>
> Bob... perhaps I am just off on a bunny trail here... but do I
> understand correctly that if the string height is optimal for the given
> action... then both lines of centers are part of the result of the best
> possible configuration for that action ?
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
> Fred makes an important point that, friction increase or not, there may be
> some other bad effect to deviating from the line.  However, what we're
> talking about is what to do if the existing string height doesn't allow
> optimum configuration of the action parts.  The most common scenerio I've
> seen is string height too high.
>
> If you maintain the optimum line in this case several things may result:
>
> 1.  Hammershank swings above parallel to keybed
> 2.  Hammer overcenters at strike
> 3. Hammershank so high above (nonadjustable) rest felt that the
> action locks
> up on certain blows
> 4. Jack may jam into felt at the back of the rep window
> 5. Loss of mechanical efficiency
>
> Or you can raise the stack, sacrificing the line and:
>
> 1. The wippen cushion wears out faster.
>
> This is the sort of real life choice that we have to make all the time in
> action work.  What would you do?
>
> Bob Hohf
>