popsicle stick engineering

[David Love]

I am.  I've always considered the Steinway guidelines more of a testimonial
to their random outcomes than targets.  Recently, for example, I inquired
about the standard for flange pinning and was told that the acceptable
"range" was .01 - 4 grams (that's on any given flange).  I know that if I
posted that myself no flamesuit would protect me.  The older Steinway pianos
had a much higher action ratio target with an accompanying lightweight
hammer.  Many would argue that the slightly shallower dip has its advantages
in terms or rapid passagework.  While I would not personally choose a 6.5
ratio as a target I would have to agree with Ric that an action that
regulates at 10 mm dip and 45 or 46 mm blow is not likely to calculate out
that far or anywhere close.  Nor would it likely need anything exceptional
in terms of a light hammer.  This is keeping in mind that distance versus
weight numbers to calculate SWR produce different results.  

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of RicB
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:24 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: popsicle stick engineering

Hi David.

And just for the record David Love... (are you listening ?)  grin... I 
TOLD you David Stanwood and I disagree on some things.  Make no mistake 
about it tho... I know Davids work and methods and he has all my 
respect.  That said... I stand on my point here.

David S....  You can not possibly mean to say that you take issue with 
the claim I make below.  It is a matter of the simplest course that an 
action that regulates to a 10 mm dip, 46 mm blow, 1-2 mm let-off and 
good aftertouch can recieve an appropriate set of hammers for whatever 
existing strike weight ratio there is there.  Such an action is per 
definition in the middle field to begin with.  

As far as Kent moving the capstan alone to get a 5.6 ratio...  Again... 
if the capstan placement yields anything close to the above specs... 
then ok... but if those specs already exist for his 6.5 ratio (which 
seems unlikely I'll admit but just so) then the roughly 6-8 mm of move 
that will be needed will force a regulation that will require either a 
significantly shorter blow, deeper key dip, or more let-of distance to 
keep the same aftertouch.  No way around it....  lowering the ratio will 
move the action in that direction.  If you at least double check your 
capstan placement with the standard ratio as a guide to see in each 
case... what harm in that ?

I know about Steinways relatively wide window of action regulation 
parameters.  For my part.  10.5 mm and 44.5 blow is the extreme end of 
low ratios.  I dont shoot for outpoints myself.  Nor do I see it is 
necessary in like 95% of the cases I run into. 

Cheers
RicB


     >Ric B writes: <snip>
     >if you can get a 10 mm dip, 46 mm blow, 1-2 mm let-off and good
    aftertouch
     >then an
     >appropriate set of hammers for the existing leverage should work at
     >least fairly well. <snip>
    Ric,

    I disagree with you.  In my opinion Kent is on the right track
    moving the
    capstan line to get the ratio down to 5.6.  So long as he can
    regulate the
    action there is every reason to take this course (reducing the ratio
    to 5.6
    level) in combination with a normal weight hammer (TopMedium).  The
    regulation will need a shorter blow and deeper dip.  One can
    regulate dip
    as deep as 10.5mm dip and blow as short as 44.5mm blow and have a
    perfectly
    great feeling low ratio action...

    Don't take my word for it...  Steinway specifications according to the
    Steinway Technical Guide 1992 Page 38 states  "it should be noted
    that the
    key dip can vary within the suggested range of .390 inches and .420
    inches
    for any Steinway piano" (9.9mm-10.7mm).  Page 23 of the guide gives
    a  blow
    of 1 3/4"/44.5mm for models S-B.

    David Stanwood