Pinning on new flanges

[Jenneetah]

At 7:17 AM -0500 8/24/04, Keith McGavern wrote:
>There is no one way to do it. There is such a thing as too loose, 
>and there is such a thing as too tight. What happens in between will 
>always be a judgement call.

And hopefully that judgement benefits from experience, good or bad.

>Each piano dictates what it needs to optimize its abilities. and it 
>takes a person who is capable of recognizing and accomplishing such 
>a thing when needed.

You may be glossing over two different approaches to flange pinning 
in a way which overlooks the serious major issue between them. That 
is the business of whether the shank center friction should be 
constant from #1 to 88, or whether it should taper to match the 
tapering hammer weights. On this go-around on the subject, this 
fork-in-the-road issue didn't come up, although both sides chimed in.

I'm with Ric: the shank center friction should taper from #1 to #88, 
and it's the number of observed swings which should remain constant. 
The only thing which attracts me about constant flange pinning is the 
fact that it's easier to do: each pin friction is the same, and you 
don't have to waste time verifying that each one takes its proper and 
unique place on a tapering slope.

At 9:25 AM +0100 8/24/04, Richard Brekne wrote:
>I dont find any real change in tightness in flanges due to climatic 
>change, but I do find change in friction levels on some pianos. That 
>might seem a strange comment, but if you think about it... friction 
>is easily caused by matters not related to tightness perse.

Ric (the Cheshire cat), I can think of two things. 1.) the Mystery 
Sauce which some manufacturers treat their action centers with, and 
2.) friction as a function of force applied. What did you have in 
mind?