Howdy Sy, it's good to see you on board (line). I'm sure you will get various responses to this question, but here's both my understanding and theorizing. Providing all other conditions are equal, i.e., quality of parts, tooling, etc., then... . I have no feelings or emperical evidence to support "faster repetition", etc. (but read on...). . I feel that the butterfly spring is less expensive to build and assemble -- at the *parts* level. It could be argued whether any savings is offset in labor intensity (regulation). . It has been said that the regulation of the Scwander-type is easier and faster to perform, but that adjustment is required more *often* than with the butterfly style. I've not personally noticed this, but admit to not having paid much attention to it. _________ . I do not believe Kawai changed to copy anyone. If you recall, they also made major product and action parameter changes during this same period: action rails, action spread, hammers, keyframe, and so on, to coincide with different plates and scales of the [then] newer GS models. From that point, it probably became more feasible to incorporate these changes into the KG and other series. I believe the wippen/repetition spring system change was integral to this, as opposed to an isolated or arbitrary change. Although the action spread was increased by several millimeters, I cannot speak to the design or engineering concepts -- perhaps the wider the spread, the less efficient (or practical) the Schwander-type assembly becomes? . The factory workers *hated* the change, and the first few off-the-boat offerings following the change showed this contempt. The tension was either insufficient, or was too hot. Later they became more consistent. They'd been doing it one way since 1928. They, like us, are resistant to change. And they, like us, had to develop the proper service techniques. _________ As far as regulating the butterfly springs, we are not required to enjoy it. We simply must grin and bear it. I've tried all the methods and tools that have been presented to make the process more painless. I always return to the method taught me by LaRoy Edwards... Use a regular, straight, spring tool (the kind with a 'v' for the business end -- depending on which way you hold it). Supply houses carry these, or you can make one from a clothes hanger or other soft stock. The 'v' is used to snag and remove the wire from the lever slot. Then, the *coil* tension may be increased or decreased, using either the tool or by hand, depending on the amount of adjustment required, without contorting the curvature of the spring. Either way, you're always holding the tool until you're finished. Use the same tool for installation. Rest the curve (highest part) of the spring just under the lever "shelf". With the *side* of the tool, press against the *side* of the spring, causing it to snap (and automatically seat) into correct position. If you're interrupted with a phone call, leave the tool resting diagonally between the repetition lever and the wippen beam to mark your spot. After 10 minutes of practice, this method becomes so fast that it's no problem to retrieve the spring, make adjustments, and continue. With more practice, you develop a feel for how much adjustment is required. Thus fewer in/out/adjust cycles are required. The only time I have problems with this method is when I must undo the work of others -- including that from some factories! As long as the springs were in the ballpark initially, and providing I'm the first on the scene, all goes well. Regards, Jim Harvey RPT Greenwood, SC ________ Reply Separator ____________ Why are so many piano makers still using the butterfly type rep. lever spring? The other kind is sometimes called the Schwander type (Sch). It seems logical to me the Sch type would be superior to the Steinway type butterfly. Look in the piano supply catalogs to familiarize yourself.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC