>Curious to know why the term strikeweight was chosen for this.. but ok... in >anycase it was this weight that would change depending on the angle of the shank >to the flange in that demonstration I was talking about. It doesnt change a whole >lot, but the scale showed a lighter weight reading the steeper the angle. The >more the hammer was straight out from the flange, the heavier it got. >Richard Brekne Richard, Strike Weight seemed the best name I could come up with. The method you are describing is unclear. The measurement taken with the shank off the rail. Please refer to: http://www.tiac.net/users/stanwood/swsetup.gif Are you able to access this? >From: "Paul S. Larudee" <larudee@pacbell.net> >David C. Stanwood wrote: >> In one instance I had a Grotrian Steinweg with bass hammers hung at >> 125mm/4.9" in the bass and 130mm/5.1" in the treble. The Strike Weight >> Ratio varied from an average of 5.5 in the bass to 6.1 in the treble. >I can see some of the advantages in terms of inertia and compensating >for the gradations of hammer weights, but what does it do to key dip? >Paul S. Larudee, RPT Paul, this was a factory Grotrian Steinweg. I think it was done accidentally. The tails were 1.25"/32mm and in the bass they cut off the end of the wippens to create clearance. As to strike weight ratio vs. keydip Rule-of-thumb-wise: a 6.5 ratio will dip at 0.375"/9.5mm a 5.5 ratio will dip at 0.390"/9.9mm David C. Stanwood
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC