Schimmel Regulation Problem

[Scott Helms]

Hi everybody -

Tom, your thoughts are just what mine were - with a reputation like
Schimmel's, how could such a glaring action geometry problem have gotten
out of the factory?

When I first brought this problem to the list (about 2 months ago - I had
to take the action back to the church because they needed the piano!) I
asked if it would work to shim the letoff rail up off the action brackets
to give more clearance between the buttons and the jack toes, thus giving
me more "wiggle room" to adjust them. The letoff rail is attached directly
to the bottom of the hammer flange rail (in fact, I'm not convinced it's
not a one-piece rail serving both purposes), so the only other thing that
I can see that would be affected by shimming it up would be the height of
the hammer flanges. There is plenty of clearance between the hammer
flanges and the bottom of the pinblock, so I wouldn't create a problem
there by raising everything. It seems to me that if I don't go "hog wild"
and raise the thing a ridiculous amount, it should accomplish the goal
without any dire consequence to the action geometry. However, there was
much howling and gnashing of teeth on here when I suggested it, so I
backed off!

But all of this would mean that the action brackets were not the correct
height to begin with, and maybe I should wait to hear from Schimmel and
see if they propose sending replacement brackets.

My question for those who suggest that I check hammer bore vs. string
height is, what am I looking for? What is the ideal ratio, or am I not
understanding your suggestion? And if it's wrong, does that mean new
hammers with a corrected bore are in order?

Thanks for all the help!!   -Scott


-- 
Scott A. Helms, RPT
Helms Music Enterprises
(269) 381-4521
www.helmsmusic.net

tom driscoll said:
>
>   Subject: RE:Schimmel Regulation Problem
>
>
> Scott, Ric,
>
> I had the same problem with the same vintage Schimmel. Letoff buttons
> turned all the way up and still excessive lettoff.
> This was a regulation for performance with time contraint .
> I removed the lettoff rails from the action rail, brought them to the
> shop and removed (If I remember )around 1/8" from the top of these rails
> with a small thumb plane.
>
>   Yep... this is even faster as long as you can take off a consitant
> thickness and you still have enough wood for the letoff button screws to
> bit sufficiently into wood. Cant remember the exact configuration for
> Schimmels, but a Petrof I recently worked on might have experienced a
> problem with this solution. The letoff rail was screwed directly to the
> hammershank rail, and was not particularilly thick in itself.  Taking
> off say 3 mm would have required the letoff button screws to go that
> much into the hammer rail.  Maybe not a problem.. maybe the otherway
> around.
>
>   Make sure you have clearence if you do it this way. Good solution tho
> Tom. I'll keep this one in my book of tricks.
>
>   Cheers
>   RicB
>
>   Ric,
>       Yes this rail had enough material over the tops of the letoff button
> screws to trim. I scribed a pencil line along both sides of the
> rails and planed to the line.
>       I had at first thought of running them through the table saw, but a
> jig would have been necessary to hold the rail and I was rushed.
>     I'm still wondering about the cause of this condition.
>       I can understand the
>
>   unnamed dealer here in Massachusetts allowing a poorly regulated piano
> to get out of their door, since their idea of dealer prep is to polish
> the case before delivery and also had  serviced this piano for
>    several years without attempt to correct such an obvious condition
> (,i.e. letoff over 1/4") but its hard to imagine the manufacturer ,with
> such a great reputation, having let this piano through quality control.
>       Thoughts ?
>       Tom Driscoll RPT
>