Steinway Touchweight Problem

[Brian Trout]

Hi Stan,

You bring up some interesting questions.

Since this is a teflon S&S, I'm wondering if the Protek will be of much
value, on the centers that is.(?)  I've not tried it, so I can't say with
personal experience.  But from what others have told me, it may not be as
effective as it is with a regular cloth bushings.  But there are a number of
other places to look for friction too.

The hammers may be too heavy.  It seems that they have gotten bigger and
bigger as the years went by.  Ed McMorrow has some interesting things to say
in "The Educated Piano" regarding sizing down those monsters.  It's a good
read, if you can get your hands on it.  (A different perspective).

As for the backchecks, I wouldn't worry about their being a bit larger
(heavier).  One thing about Steinway backchecks, (some of 'em anyway), is
that they are longer, and make it easier to get the hammers to check closer
to the strings.  Also, the weight of the backchecks won't have as great an
impact on touchweight as will hammer weight. (Not much leverage to speak of.
More of a balance situation with the front of the key, as opposed to a 5:1
or so relationship with the hammer and the front of the key...)

I think I'd hold off on cutting down the size of the tails too, at least to
see if it checks where you want it to.  If the checking is where you want
it, and you cut the tails way down, it could end up being a headache.
(It'll be a lot easier taking some off, than wishing you could put some back
on.)

There are a number of people who could probably get into more specifics...
Jon Page comes to mind.  But I had to chime in.

Good luck.  May all your customers be happy ones.  :-)

Brian Trout
Quarryville, Pa.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Kroeker <stan@pianoexperts.mb.ca>
To: pianotech@ptg.org <pianotech@ptg.org>
Date: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 10:33 PM
Subject: Steinway Touchweight Problem


>Hi, all!
>
>Problem:  Early 60's vintage Steinway 'L', with original teflon wippens and
>recently replaced (by someone else) shanks and flanges.  Parts are from
>Steinway and are 15 mm knuckle execution.  Downweight now in the high 60's,
>upweight in the high 20's, action weight in mid 40's and friction in high
>teens.  Action spread ranges from 113 to 114 mm.
>
>I have no way of knowing what size the original hammers were but tried a
>sample from a recent rebuild.  This admittedly well-worn Steinway hammer
>and shank was placed in its original location (A49) on my client's action
>and the touchweight came back to a more acceptable 52 (D) and 25 (U).
>
>The new hammers are noticeably larger than the old 'stand-in' and the tails
>are 3/16" longer (at drop position the bottom of the tails are about 3/16"
>below the tops of the backchecks).
>
>Am I correct in assuming I have excessive weight on the hammers?  Any
>wisdom in shortening the tails to correct the relationship of tail to
>backcheck?  The backchecks themselves appear to be new but it is difficult
>to know for sure.  They are considerably larger than the backcheck Renner
>includes in its sample parts kit.  Would an excessively large backcheck
>contribute appreciably to high action weight?
>
>Lots of questions here but the correct answers win a happy customer!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Stan Kroeker
>Registered Piano Technician
>
>www.pianoexperts.mb.ca
>
>
>