<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:50 PM, Jeff Tanner wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; ">It wasn't teflon bushings that created Steinway's reputation for clicky actions during those years. It was technicians in the field who didn't know how to work with them.</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Hi Jeff,</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>Actually, in this case it was the first iteration of teflon that was to blame, the narrow ones without the ridges. Clicks developed between them and the wood. Also, at a different point in the humidity cycle, excess friction appeared, because the wood could and did squeeze the teflon in against the pin. You are right that techs didn't have a clue what to do, and screwed things up worse, but the original design was flawed. Other things could be and have been said about communication and whatnot, and perhaps if they had started out with Teflon II (the fatter ones with the ridges), we'd still be happily (or unhappily) reaming them, but that's water under the bridge.<BR><DIV><DIV>Regards,</DIV><DIV>Fred Sturm</DIV><DIV>University of New Mexico</DIV><DIV><A href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</A></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>