On Sat, 31 Mar 2001, "David Love" <davidlovepianos@hotmail.com> wrote
>Without even looking at the belly rail felt I can tell that
>everything is to far in. The position of the hammer #88 is well
>over 5 1/8" and any attempt to reposition to action brackets and
>reset that capstan line would move the hammers way out on the shank
>in the upper end of the piano.
The factory strayed form their own procedures on this on. The reason
for sliding the top action in/out on top of the keyboard is to make a
standard 5-1/8" shank length work with whatever plate location the
belly room may have given the piano.
>Which is worse? And the key leverage is not great in the lower end
>of the piano either. The owners of the piano are not willing/able
>to go through a total redesign......
Wally Brooks had a wonderful phrase, "making the piano owner problem
our problem". Of course, helping us to think more creatively about
solving their problems by buying his action parts.
>Given the plate location, I'm not sure how I would go about solving
>the problem anyway. At least not without remaking the entire
>action, keys and all. The best solution short of that, to my
>thinking, is to go to a spring assisted whippen to at least allow me
>to remove as much lead as possible. I haven't yet tested that idea.
>Any comments?
These are two sure ways to lower FWs (read: remove leads). Actually,
if you know how to do it, bringing the capstan line back towards the
balance rail and (if necessary) relocating the the rep heels is less
expensive than a new set of turbo reps. Excepting that the latter
won't change the action leverage ratio allowing you to possibly skip
a re-regulation on a new ratio.
Why though, if you have a perfectly reasonable key ratio of 5.0
should you have to do any monkeying around there. Have you bought,
paid for and installed the shanks already. I think you have alot more
to gain by basing this action on 17mm shanks. What is this "best
combination of regulation/downweight" which hooked you up with 16.5mm
shanks? Or was it that 16.5 was what was in there and you're sticking
with it.
I'd also respectfully suggest that you do your thinking not in terms
of DW but Balance Weight. DW and UW both contain friction. If you
want to focus on a weight/leverage problem, insisting on measurements
which include friction only bends you away from the trail.
Weight/leverage do have a bearing on friction (was a pun ever
unintended?), but they are distinctly different forces, and are dealt
with separately.
So where are you in this job? Still in the proposal phase, halfway
through it, or a couple of yards from home plate with this leverage
problem between you and the final payment. Your options to a great
extent are a function of this.
Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.
"Filing the bridgepins sure puts a sparkle on the restringing, but is
best done before the plate is re-installed"
...........recent shop journal entry
+++++++++++++++++++++
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC