Hornbeam

[Frank Weston]

Although this discussion is in the same category as a discussion of how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin, I feel compelled to contribute.

Del wrote:

>As close as they could be, yes.  The hex shank is not inherently stiffer
than a
>round shank of the same relative diameter.  The best shape for
hammershanks, of
>course, is rectangular.

This statement assumes that we know the optimum stiffness for all
hammershanks and for each specific hammershank.  Is stiffer always better or
is there an optimum match between stiffness, hammer weight, action geometry,
humidity and phase of the moon?  Where does impedance play in the equation?
If lighter and stiffer is always better (as I assumed when I was a younger
man), then the optimum shape for a hammershank would be an I-beam.


>I don't know.  I just don't like being told something is better for me when
the
>actual reason(s) are something altogether different.  In this case the
primary
>reasons for using hornbeam (beech) instead of hard maple are cost and
>machinability.  These are not bad reasons.  I'd just like the manufacturers
to
>be upfront about them.

Renner have made some pretty good arguments as to why they use Hornbeam, and
they do seem to say they will make parts of maple should a customer request.
The cost of materials in the manufacture of action parts is a pretty small
part of the equation, and machinability is a good argument since it results
in better parts.  Further if maple were actually demonstrably superior, one
would think that one or some of the quality piano manufacturers who use
Renner parts would request maple, if for no other reason than advertising.

Frank Weston