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

[Ron Nossaman]

Hi John,

>> * 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.

* And sometimes not? That doesn't sound much like an overwhelming
endorsement to me.



>>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.

* Is the standard Renner action, then, the baseline model for the flat rail
system? I have a M&H A in the shop right now. The measurement from flange
bottom to counter bore bottom is 6mm without the washer, and 7mm with.. The
S&S B I also have in the shop shows 7mm for the same measurement. It looks
to me as if the old M&H has less wood between the bottom of the screw head
and the top of the rail and should therefor, by the proposed criteria,
maintain tightness, spacing, and overall regulation better that the B's TAR
system. Yes, or sometimes?



>> * 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. 

* That's OK, I got it now. Yep, my B's brackets measure 8.5mm. I wouldn't
have known that on a bet, never measured them before. The M&H A's brackets
measure 8mm wide.  

This pretty well illustrates my point that you can't directly compare a
one-each example of TAR actions against the full spectrum of flat rail
action configurations without establishing some standards. My contention
was, and is, that a flat rail action can be built that eliminates all the
problems inherent in, and unique to, the TAR design, and give equal, or
superior, performance as a result. So why champion the TAR so many years
beyond the point when it was innovative, and better that everything else? I
still think it's a question of voodoo mystique over mechanical practicality. 

>
>John Hartman
>Beacon NY
>>From scratch soundboards and keyboards
>

 Ron