<HTML>In a message dated 3/13/02 10:05:42 AM Central Standard Time, fssturm@unm.edu writes: Fred I did the calculations last fall, and came up with a number almost exactly as my situation; 1.1 techs for the number and condition of pianos at UA Therefore, I thought the formula was right on the money. However, I don't know if there is a need to alter the formula in regard to the upright/grand situation. I even want to go as far as stating that perhaps there should not be any difference at all between the two. If done right, an upright can take as much time to tune, vocie, repair, and regulate as a grand. I think the difference is going to be reflected in the use of the upright. For the most part, you're not going to have an upright in a concert type setting, much less a teaching studio where the pianos needs constant attention. Most of the upright pianos are going to be in practice rooms, or teaching studios where they get minimum use. A few uprights are going to be in classrooms, where they might need once a month maintenance, but then that will be reflected in the usage category. That's my opinion, but then I've only been at this for 6 months. I'll be interested to know what some other's opinion on this are? Wim <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The foregoing is what I posted last October. One additional change I'd like to suggest at this time, with respect to the "Grand/Upright" category. I think those numbers should be altered a bit. Currently it's 1.2 upright/0.8 grand, with the idea a grand takes maybe 1.5 times the work of an upright. I'm thinking, to reflect some of the feedback I've received for the formula as a whole, that this should be changed to either 1.1 upright/0.7 grand, or possibly 1.2 upright/0.6 grand. Amazingly enough, such seemingly tiny changes can alter the final results by a considerable amount.    What do you think? Comments/suggestions?       </HTML>