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--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC