Tuning pin size?

[Ron Nossaman]

> The intelligent consensus would be to use the smallest, workable, thingees 
>first because that will leave some room for error and I 'think' that is what 
>we all do...more or less. 

That sounds right.


>Of course there are many many more techs replacing 
>pinblocks now then in years past and that creates the expectation and 
>familiarity of 2/0 pins. Ergo 2/0 is becoming the "standard" size and 
>anything else is becoming somehow less, or at least non-standard. That does 
>not needfully relegate all other size pins to the 'less worthy column...does 
>it?

There are practical concerns. Hole sizing becomes more critical as the
amount of pin surface contacting the block increases. The smaller/shorter
pins are more tolerant in producing dependable and uniform torque, but are
more prone to flagpoling. That's the tradeoff.


>  Personal experience shows that there is no functional difference between 
>2/0 and 6/0 pins

Correct. Anything that holds string tension is functional.


>Is there a frictional 
>difference between a 2/0 X 2.5" pin and a 2/0 X 2 1/4 pin?.....How about 
>between a 2/0 X 2.5" pin and a 4/0 X2 1/4" pin?

Yes, but the differences are in feel to the tuner. 


>  Carrying on this line of reasoning...shouldn't a pin which requires less 
>movement of the pin be a 'better' pin because of less wear of the pinblock 
>through pin movement? 

First off, I never have subscribed to the idea that tuning wears out
pinblocks unless the tuner is Godzilla. Humidity swings and age destroy
blocks, by and large. How many tunings does it take to wear out a block...
thousands? How many tunings can we suppose the average block we replace
with a rebuild has been submitted to... under 100? Probably under 50.  


>If this thought is even close to being correct than 
>that would argue for a 'larger' rather than a 'smaller' pin...wouldn't it? 

I don't see why. Normally, the string is tangent to the pin, so the ratio
of linear string movement to pin rotation (surface distance, not angular)
is the same in any size pin as long as the threaded part is the same size
as where the coil is.  


>After all don't you have to turn a 'small' pin more to make the same pitch 
>adjustment as with a larger pin??

That's angular movement, the distance the pin threads travel in the block
is equivalent.


>  The difference between 2/0 and 4/0 is aprox. .009 and considering that this 
>thingee is going to be stuck in a piece of wood which has many variations of 
>frictional capability throughout the whole...does it really make a 
>difference??
> Is it possible that how 'our' favorite tuning hammer tip fits on any given 
>size pin makes more of a difference than does pin size itself??

Probably, since both address feel over function.



>Possibly the technical side had something to do with the original 
>sizing...but another possibility of the seemingly set "standard" is 
>'cost'...........for example Stenwin calls XYZ manufacturer and says they 
>want them to develop a pin to use for tuning pianos with the  following 
>characteristics.............wheupon XYZ says "Hey! we already make that pin 
>for Baldway and can let you have the same thing for X number of dollars per 
>hundred thousand." Stenwin says yep we can do that and the style/size of pin 
>you make for Baldway will be just fine.........ergo automatic "standard" pin 
>style/size?
>Just some thoughts.
>Jim Bryant (FL)

Quite plausible, but why was that "ideal" pin developed in the first place?
Someone somewhere made the initial determination, subjectively or
otherwise, that produced the pin size most pin turners liked best. I think
the pins grew in diameter to support the evolving higher scale tensions
until they got to the 1/0 - 2/0 range, where they both functionally held
the higher tensions, and were relatively easy to control. At least that's
how I would have done it if I were historical.


Ron N