Strike Weight

[David C. Stanwood]

>Curious to know why the term strikeweight was chosen for this.. but ok... in
>anycase it was this weight that would change depending on the angle of the
shank
>to the flange in that demonstration I was talking about. It doesnt change
a whole
>lot, but the scale showed a lighter weight reading the steeper the angle. The
>more the hammer was straight out from the flange, the heavier it got.

>Richard Brekne

Richard,

Strike Weight seemed the best name I could come up with.
The method you are describing is unclear.  The measurement 
taken with the shank off the rail.

Please refer to:
http://www.tiac.net/users/stanwood/swsetup.gif
Are you able to access this?

>From: "Paul S. Larudee" <larudee@pacbell.net>
>David C. Stanwood wrote:

>> In one instance I had a Grotrian Steinweg with bass hammers hung at
>> 125mm/4.9" in the bass and 130mm/5.1" in the treble.  The Strike Weight
>> Ratio varied from an average of 5.5 in the bass to 6.1 in the treble.
 
>I can see some of the advantages in terms of inertia and compensating
>for the gradations of hammer weights, but what does it do to key dip?

>Paul S. Larudee, RPT

Paul, this was a factory Grotrian Steinweg.  I think it was done
accidentally. 
The tails were 1.25"/32mm and in the bass they cut off the end of the
wippens to create clearance.

As to strike weight ratio vs. keydip  Rule-of-thumb-wise:

a 6.5 ratio will dip at 0.375"/9.5mm
a 5.5 ratio will dip at 0.390"/9.9mm

David C. Stanwood