<html><div>Ken,</div> <div>Did you find the increased dip to be a problem?</div> <br> <div>At 02:40 PM 3/21/99 -0500, you wrote:</div> <div>>        Reply to:   RE>advice on action parts</div> <br> <div>>However, this is less true for nine foot pianos with their longer keys because the longer key provides additional wood that introduces more inertia. This was proven rather dramatically to me with a "D" here at Oberlin that was built in 1987, had post 1984 shanks (17mm action center to knuckle distance), good upweight/downweight specs, and was always perceived as being heavy. At this moment, I can't find my notes on that piano that would tell me what the key ratio average was; but, suffice to say, that it was significantly below 2 to 1.</div> <div>></div> <div>>By moving the capstans to get a better key ratio -- you also have to move the wippen heel to match the new capstan position -- the piano suddenly felt light, so much so that I wished I had not moved the capstans so much. Nothing else was changed other than the capstan and wippen heel position (the latter gives the wippen more mechanical advantage also) and now people were saying the piano was a little on the light side.</div> <div>></div> <div>>Ken Sloane, Oberlin Conservatory</div> <div>></div> <br> <b>Vince<br> </b><i><<a href="mailto:vince@byu.edu" eudora="autourl">mailto:vince@byu.edu</a>><br> </i>Visit the web page for the Pacific Northwest Conference at: <br> <<a href="http://www.pnwpianoconf.com/" eudora="autourl">www.pnwpianoconf.com</a>> </html>