<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">  <title>Cross papering</title> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> With Steinway’s “rosette” design in the flange and matching shape of the flange rail, there’s a limit to how far you can turn the flange to align the hammer to the strings.  If they need to go further than you can turn the flange you can put a paper in the back-left and right-front corners to force the flange farther left or it will go right with papers in the right-back and left-front corners.  It’s kind of an awkward way to overcome the “advantage” of the Steinway-shaped flanges.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> dp<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> David M. Porritt<o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:dporritt@smu.edu">dporritt@smu.edu</a><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Pollard Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:22 AM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: [CAUT] Cross papering<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hello David, Could you explain "cross papering" of flanges? Thanks, Geoff Pollard Sydney Conservatorium of Music -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org on behalf of Porritt, David Sent: Wed 1/3/2007 7:19 AM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Parts Alan: I'm pretty much a Renner guy.  What part of "design" are you referring to?  If you mean the non-flat rail it's not my favorite part of S&S.  If the world were a perfect place I'm sure that design would hold the parts securely. Since we have to radically change the design by using traveling paper, and/or cross paper flanges to get the hammer aimed in the right direction the design becomes an impediment rather than a help. dp David M. Porritt dporritt@smu.edu -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [<a href="mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org">mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org</a>] On Behalf Of Alan McCoy Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:26 PM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> <caut@ptg.org> Subject: [CAUT] Parts Hi Folks and Happy New Year to all, When you buy your next action parts - shanks, flanges, backchecks and wippens - which manufacturer are you going to choose? And why? Abel? Tokiwa? Renner? Steinway? I am currently working on a S&S M replacing S&F only and using Abel parts. Not finished with the job yet, but so far I like the parts. Pinning consistent at around 3g. Shank radius weight mostly at 5g, with a dozen at 4g and another dozen at 6g. Knuckle line is good. (Though I had to do a lot of flange papering to compensate for the S&S rail design. I can't see much advantage to this design. What am I missing?) Thanks for your thoughts and experience. Alan -- Alan McCoy, RPT Eastern <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Washington</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> amccoy@mail.ewu.edu 509-359-4627 <o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>