Stephen, Thanks for responding, but there is nothing resolved yet except that S&S is resolved to continue with the rail in question. Remarks interspersed: At 02:35 PM 9/10/98 -0400, you wrote: >List, > >I must admit that there are some challenging issues brought up in this >forum, but it is a good opportunity for us to step back and take a look at >something that is rarely questioned. So when this thread began, I started >asking around - I called the Concert department, spoke with engineering, >grilled manufacturing, and sought input from restoration. > >The engineering guys were not much help - they started talking about the >resonant properties of aluminum and the flexibility of an all wooden rail. > But, they were guessing. S&S hammer rail highly flexible (more so than laminated beach). So rail flexing is good then, right? >Manufacturing did clear up a couple of things - the rails have nothing to >do with tone and little to do with touch, aside from representing an >improvement over what was available prior to 1869. So why be stoic on 'old technology'. >It was when I got to Restoration and the technicians that I got some >valuable input. The technicians were in unanimous agreement that the >rosette shape made spacing more time consuming than the alternative, but >that nothing they had worked with held regulation better. Granted, this is >a biased opinion. Steinway is their livelihood and most of them, but not >all, have more experience with Steinways than anything else. I understand that they are all 'company men' and not allowed to deviate from company policy which is written in stone. I have no problems with other makes maintaining regulation as well as S&S. >Bill Youse, who runs our Restoration department and has worked most of the >operations in factory, really put things in perspective. Bill told me >stories about the trouble they go through on the bench to get the alignment >right, which sometimes entails using a rat-tail file on the flange to get >the hammers spaced. Bill also told me about drilling the dowels out of old >rails, so that they would not have to re-align a new rail. But then he >started to tell me what he liked about our actions: the stability of >regulation, the comparative ease of fixing a stripped screw-hole (as >opposed to aluminum actions), and the fact that the brass rails are more >resistant to climate changes than either aluminum or all wooden rails. Look at all the extra work you are putting these exceptional techs through just to maintain the proprietary importance of this rail. Sure, compare plugging a stripped screw hole in an aluminium rail the tubular. It is still not as easy as repairing a solid wooden rail. >Bill left me with a few comments about split rails. He said "90% of the >time they're split because some [less than brilliant technician] put >oversize screws in, instead of taking the time to fix it right." 100% of the split rails I see have original screws And just what _is_fixing it right? I've found that CA glue is the only thing that works with any expediency. >Finally, I took a look at C.F. Theodore Steinway's original patents for the >Grand and Upright Tubular Metallic Action Frame.(We actually do know what >he was talking about. In fact he was a very good writer and made his ideas >perfectly clear when he set them to paper, which he did prolifically.) The >upright patent actually has all the good stuff because it came before the >grand patent: > > "Be it known that I, Christian F. Theodore Steinway... have invented a new >and useful Improvement in Piano-Fortes..." > > - Pretty clear so far. Here's the meat: > > "In practice I use, by preference, tubular traverses [rails] filled with >wood... since metallic tubes, when filled with wood, obtain the required >stiffness, and, and the same time, common wood-screws can be used in >fastening the various parts of the action to the same. When solid metal >traverses are used the holes for receiving the screws have to be bored and >tapped, and the screws have to be manufactured expressly for this purpose. > The traverses are provided with flanges...which serve to retain the >various parts of the action... firmly in position, and prevent them from >getting displaced accidentally, and , at the same time, by the flanges the >stiffness and strength of the traverses are materially increased." > > - So we see Theodore's main reasons for the rosette and the tubular frame, >all in one paragraph. But keep in mind that the patent was actually for >any metallic frame: Granted, I will take his word at it; that a metal wrapped wooden rail is more rigid than a similar sized wooden rail. How about a larger wooden rail, even a laminated wooden rail. What was state of the art over 150 years ago does not hold true for today's technology. > "By the use of my metallic action-frame the chief causes of derangement >inherent to the action... as heretofore constructed, are successfully >removed." see last statement > - He then goes on to list most everything that was wrong with the other >actions being built at the time. > >The whole patent is about two pages long and the grand patent is another >two. He discusses changes being made for regulation purposes, talks about >a lot things that were never actually used in production, and documents the >construction of the frame itself (prior to this the action was not >independent of the piano, but different parts of the action frame were >securely fastened to the sides, keybed, or keyframe). > >So, there you have it - why we made them in the first place, and why we >like them today. You may have a different preference, and nothing is >without fault, but we honestly believe our system works as well as, if not >better than, anything else out there. > >Stephen Dove >Steinway & Sons >New York > > So, not to denigrate your information, I appreciate it; but knowing the corporate source, I give it the same credence of any smoke and mirrors presentation. You never mentioned that you experimented with other executions, so; I have to conclude at this point that it is tradition which keeps this thing alive. Other questions I have in regards to the production practices is: Is there any truth to the rumor of the dissension between the hammer production dept. and the voicing dept. wanting to use Abel hammers for their easier voicing? And the restoration dept. being restricted from employing modern techniques in certain areas to 'hold the line' on company policy's 'written in stone' methods? Inquiring minds want to know. This just brought up another question, why has the R&D not come up with something really creative or for that matter incorporated the Fandrich upright action design or upright tuning pin bushings or other innovations alone the lines which Del is doing. What else is new and improved besides better damper pedal leverage? And as far as a company believing that their product and methods are the 'best'; my friend who is a foreign car mechanic shanks his head at the stuff coming out of Mercedes. It's wide spread. Cordially, Jon Page Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. (jpage@capecod.net) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC