Weird Frontweights

[Ron Nossaman]

>Yes.... well all this is fine and dandy Ron and Del.... but if that results in
>fluxuations in FWs of up too 15 or more grams in neighboring keys.... then
>something is wrong and right here in River city.

Why would it, and why do you think it has?


>That was the origional complaint with this thread.... whether or not pattern
>leading is too blame I dont know, but someone.... Ed Foote I think said
>something about pattern leading sometimes results in such variations.  I
have a
>hard time thinking that this is acceptable.

You have already said you couldn't discern any logical pattern to the key
leading in this action, so how can pattern leading be the villain here?
>From your description, it sounds for all the world to me like individually
leaded keys done in an action with wildly varying friction levels which,
when a little wear and tear works some of those extra tight flanges loose,
or the knuckles happen to pick up a little Teflon somewhere along the way,
the misplaced leading becomes apparent in wildly different weight
measurements. How could pattern leading produce this? You will likely get
small steps in front weight measurements at transitions between three, two,
one, and no leads, but nothing like 15 grams, and not fluctuating up and
down (significantly) as you progress up or down scale.


>One other thing.  Friction does  not present the same problem in a Stanwood
>setup action. Friction is a sort of left over, and as such a known quantity.
>You make the point of reasonable dependability below Ron... what could be more
>dependable then this then ?

I'm not arguing against or about David's system, nor do I intend to. As you
said, your original complaint was the wildly erratic front weighting of the
action. That's what I'm discussing.


>The only point left is cost effectiveness in a factory setting. Ok... its 
>really
>quick to stamp out a set of keys after a pattern. But wildly varying FW's is a
>big negative. And if one already "knows" ahead of time just how much the FW
>should be... as in to the tenth of a gram.... then it seems absurd to
allow for
>15 gram variances when this can be easily avoided.

Again, avoidance of this sort of thing, as well as production streamlining,
is what pattern leading is for. If your action is leaded to a pattern, you
ought to be able to see a pattern in the leading. If you can't, it probably
isn't, and that's your problem.


>btw... doesnt Stanwood has worked out a pattern system that fits with his
basic
>method also...?

Again, I'm not discussing Stanwood's system, I'm discussing key leads. As
we have to do with any kind of action setup method I know of, if the keys
aren't leaded the way you want, why don't you just move the leads to where
you want them and fix it to suit you?


Ron N