What was the radius of the old knuckle (distance from the center pin) as compared to the new replacement. If the replacement shank has a knuckle closer to the fulcrum, that will produce an increase in BW. The newer hammers are more than likely a lot heavier than the originals. Tapering the sides will remove more weight than tail arcing and cove reduction. If the knuckle radius is at 17mm now, that may be a good place to start and you can look for weight reduction and friction easing to lower BW. Regard, Jon Page At 11:50 AM 01/29/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Dear List, > >I am rebuilding a 5'6", 1907 Chickering. So far I have re-bushed the >keys, replaced the hammers with new shanks and knuckles and replaced all >the keybed felt. I have played on it for a year and am fairly happy >with the results except that the touch is a bit heavy. The balance >weight averages about 50gm across the keyboard. I plan to cut a little >more weight off of the hammer tails, but there is not much more to be >gained their. Hence, it looks like a reweighting of the keys is in >order. Presently, there are keyweights in the front of the keys on keys >1-50, and behind the pivot from 50-88. My question is this -- If I am >going to add front weight to the entire keyboard, what should I do up in >the treble? Should I remove the old keyweights behind the pivot first? >If I don't do this, it seems that the inertial weight will climb in the >treble since there will be weights on both the front and back. Any >suggestions on removing keyweights and plugging or not plugging the >holes? > >Thanks, > >Gary Rondeau >Eugene, OR >grondeau@efn.org Jon Page, piano technician Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. mailto:jonpage@mediaone.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC