In defense of TAR (Was S&S retrofit rails ?)

[John Hartman]

Ron Nossaman wrote:


> >screw to pass through less wood. The thickness of the Renner Steinway
> >hammer flange is less than 6mm. The same measurement on an average flat
> >rail flange is 8mm. The Steinway design reduces the stresses on the
> >flange due to wood movement.
> 
> * Excellent point. No one has brought this up yet, but, again, does this
> actually translate to better regulation stability than a more standard
> modern system? 

Some times.

>I haven't found that to be the case. BTW, the average flat
> rail hammer flange is often counter bored to recess the screw head. The
> Steinway flange isn't, so the net gain in clearance above the rail surface
> is nothing.

The standard Renner flanges I have are 8.7mm high with no recess. The
M&H Renners are 7.5mm.to the recess.

> 
> >There are other factors as well such as
> >allowing for a lower string height and less room needed at the breaks
> >for the rail to fit. Ever notice how hard it is to access the front
> >screws on smaller M&Hs and how much the keys have to be altered to
> >accommodate the flanges.
> 
> * I trust you are talking about the vertical dimension of the wippen and
> flange rails here rather than that 2mm less flange height. Yes, a shorter
> stack is possible with this system, at the expense of rigidity. I don't see
> what you mean about the rest of this. Please explain.


I an sorry I was unclear. What I meant was that the action brackets are
narrow and can easily fit between the keys. Soldering the brackets to
the rails allows the use of thin brackets. Steinway brackets are 8.25mm.
The M&H In the shop is about 11mm at the lower mounting screws. 



John Hartman
Beacon NY
>From scratch soundboards and keyboards