Hornbeam

[Frank Weston]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
I'm coming in late on this discussion, so maybe someone has already =
provided this information which is taken from a Renner brochure included =
with my latest order of action parts:

BEGIN QUOTE
"Renner has found Hornbeam to have significant advantages because it is =
more dense in structure, and scores measurably higher in bending =
strength and hardness tests over Maple.  While we will manufacture to =
each customer's own specifications, we recommend Hornbeam, and Renner =
USA uses Hornbeam exclusively for the following reasons:

The enormous bending strength of Hornbeam -- about 32% higher than Maple =
 -- has a particular advantage for hammershanks.  There is less warping =
or back springing when the hammer attacks.  This means a better energy =
transmission of the hammerhead when attacking the string.  The greater =
bending strength of Hornbeam also reduces the sliding and rubbing =
movement of the hammerhead against the strings when the shank is under =
tremendous torque during the attack - the benefit of which is a =
decreased wear and tear of the hammerhead felt.  Another important =
benefit of the increased bending strength is less re-traveling of the =
hammers.

The use of Hornbeam, with our special bushing felt, are important =
factors in producing the superior bushing centers in Renner action =
parts.  The grain direction of the much denser Hornbeam is chosen is =
such a way that the flange bushing centers have an optimum position =
towards this direction.  this guarantees an enormous strength in the =
section of the two bearings within the flange, as the center will have a =
better fit when it is pressed directly into the wood in this direction =
(e. g. for whippens, underlevers, etc..).  Also, the pressure put on the =
center can be increased by 23% when using Hornbeam, instead of Maple =
before it will remove within the wooden part."
END OF QUOTE

Although a lot of the terminology is incorrect in the strictest sense, =
and the translation from German is confusing, a few points come through =
clearly:

1.  Renner claims to use Hornbeam because it is a structurally superior =
wood to Maple, according to them 33% greater tensile strength, 3.5% =
greater Brinell hardness, and 32% greater bending strength.

2.  Renner implies they will manufacture using what ever wood a customer =
requests.  They don't say how small an order they will take or how long =
the delay.

Frank Weston =20
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Delwin D Fandrich <pianobuilders@olynet.com>
    To: pianotech@ptg.org <pianotech@ptg.org>
    Date: Sunday, June 06, 1999 2:13 PM
    Subject: Re: Hornbeam
   =20
   =20
     =20
    dporritt wrote:=20

         Del Fandrich writes:And who -- besides Renner, that is -- =
really believes that hornbeam shanks are superior to even relatively =
decent maple shanks?=20
        Regards,=20

        DelI don't know as much as I'd like to about the relative =
strengths and weakness of Hornbeam and Maple.  However, I really like =
the Renner shanks, bushings, center pin accuracy, friction consistency, =
shank shape, treble tapering, phone curtesy, order turn-around time, =
pleasant dealings....... that I get from Renner.  I suppose they could =
make good Maple ones =
too.dave_______________________________________________

    Dave,=20

    Sorry.  I think you misunderstood.  I was referring only to the =
actual material used, i.e., hornbeam as opposed to maple.  As for the =
rest, I'll agree with everything you've said except perhaps for the =
friction consistency.=20

    And I do wish they made maple shanks.  Perhaps even offering us a =
choice between the two.=20

    Regards,=20

    Del=20


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/de/87/ff/5f/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--