Shanks parallel to strings

[Phillip Ford]

>>  It's moving forward as well as up, as you say
>>(or in other words it's moving perpendicular to a line between the strike
>>point and the hammer flange center.
>
>Right, very good. Perpendicular to a line between strike point and hammer 
>flange center - universally, regardless of any other detail of action 
>setup. Most of the discussions about this sort of stuff are meaningless 
>because a lot of pertinent data is either assumed, or ignored. Is it the 
>direction of hammer travel that makes a difference in perceived power, or 
>the changes in rotational inertia, leverage, friction, flex, or 
>expectation that does it, if it is indeed done?

Good question (or series of questions).

>.........
>>But you
>>might be able to get pretty close.  And the closer you get the more square
>>the hammer tip is going to be traveling to the string at impact, which
>>would seem to be a good thing.
>
>Seems like it should be a good thing, but would need a thoroughly 
>re-designed action under it, in a most likely different piano design that 
>makes room for the action to go in the piano. The question then is, would 
>the presumed goodness be enough (or at all) better in any or all ways to 
>justify all the trouble?

Another $64 question.  It's hard to imagine that the answer is yes.



>>Also, a design of this sort would necessitate
>>a shank that is way below parallel at strike.  Would this be a bad 
>>thing?  I don't
>>see why it would need to be if the rest of the action were designed 
>>around it.
>
>I don't think of any reason it would. More concerns would become apparent, 
>I'm sure, as the action geometry was being worked out in detail.
>
>
>>I've seen some old european pianos in which
>>the keyframe and keybed are set up so that when you slide the action into
>>the action cavity the action is low enough to clear the pinblock but as you
>>push it back the action climbs up a ramp so that its final position is
>>higher.  I assumed it was one designer's take on this.
>
>Slick! I haven't seen that. Do you recall anything about the hammer to 
>shank angle on these?
>
>Ron N

I see that I expressed myself badly.  I should have said, I now assume it 
was one designer's take on this.  Long ago, when I was young and foolish 
(I've expressed myself badly again - when I was less old and less foolish), 
I didn't assume anything and wasn't curious enough to take pictures or make 
mental notes.  So, no, I don't recall.

Phil Ford