[CAUT] downweight vs. balance weight/capstan move

[Bob Hull]

I hope everyone's summer is going well.

I'm trying to make improvements to a NY S&S D action 
before it will be time to start on all of the practice
rooms. If you have had some experience with the
Stanwood/pianotek SmartChart, I would entertain your
opinions on the following:

This  70's era D has a new action with NY S&S improved
parts, 17mm knuckle.  (The role of this piano is
definetly that of performance.)  The DW's range from
62 to 49. and several of the bass keys have 6 large
leads.  My goal is to make the action well balanced,
even, and a lighter touchweight without sacrificing
power.  I'd like for it not to feel like you're
playing a Ford F-350. 

In trying to improve some samples I have moved the
capstan 1/16" (1.58mm) forward toward bal.rail.
Lowered the SW on #2 and lowered the FrontW. On #16
the capstan was moved and the frontW brought down to
the maximum.   It helped the DW  some and I was able
to get a little better aftertouch with less keydip. 
(Before I had to barely exceed 13/32 (.406 or 10.3mm.)
I gather from reading David Stanwood's articles that
downweight and upweight are not to be the main
considerations.  

Here are my main questions:
I want to get all of the BW's down to 38 so, if I
lower the FrontW, then the DW will not improve (become
lower). So, do I just seek to get the SW to something
like a #9  or #10 curve and the FrontW to the maximum
(on the FrontW ceiling chart) and let the DW do
whatever it wants to do?  The avg. of these Strike
weight ratios is 5.56, therefore would a 5.6 be a good
target for all?


 Before and after numbers are given on note #2 and
note #16.  On #16 frontW is at the maximum and SW is
equal to the spec for a #10 curve but the touch is so
light with the DW being at 46.  Does this indicate
that the leverage is too strong/high? i.e capstan
shouldn't have been moved? 
* indicates new numbers after capstan move

N     SW    D    U    BW    FrontW     R     WBWAvg.
___________________________________________________
1    13.9  51   21   36      49       5.49    8.56
2    13.6  62   26   44      43.4     5.79    etc.
2*   13.1  55   25   40      40.3     5.47
9    13.2  52   24   38      45.7     5.7    
10   13.3  52   24   38      43.3     5.5  
16   12.4  54   22   38      44.6     5.9
16*  12.4  46   24   35 didn’t adjust 5.72
17   12.7  54   24   39.5    43.7     5.8
28   12.7  54   25   39.5    34.4     5.6
29   10.7  49   17   33      37.2     5.7
40   10.7  51   24   37.5    31.6     5.2
41   10.6  54   26   40      27.2     5.4
52    9.9  52   29   40.5    20.7     5.3
53    9.7  53   31   44      21.3     5.8
64   12.8  53   30   41.5    21.3     4.2
65    9.0  55   28   41.5    21.3     5.6
76    8.2  54   29   41.5    11.4     5.4
77    7.7  55   37   46       7.7     5.4
87    7.3  57   34   45.5     7.3     5.4
88    7.0  55   33   44       3.1     5.5


I have already worked on friction some and improved it
before these numbers were taken, but I think there is
still a good amount of variety in hammer flange
centers pinning tightness. But for instance on #2 and
#16 the pinning is not too tight.



Bob Hull








__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com