Steinway Old Action Picture [was Steinway action noise]

[Richard Brekne]

JD

I know the company line that Matthais post covers.  And experienced 
Steinway techs do not agree on this matter. Just like just about every 
other matter. Some like this way... and some like the other way.  Its a 
quick fix and not necessarily the best way of going about dealing with 
the parts change.

I say again... it is no trouble whatsoever to use the old flanges in 
this situation. Involves only changing a set of center pins...which 
often enough you can improve on the factory job anyways. That puts the 
hammer flange center where it was in the first place. Which leaves 
whippen travel where it was in the first place.  Which leaves jack 
travel for key travel where it was in the first place. 

The jack of course should be parallel to the core of the knuckle at a 
reasonable blow distance. For spec key dip if the key heights are 
correct the whippens center position should yield the whippen cushion / 
capstan on the magic line at half blow or at least reasonably close to 
it.. At full blow the jack shouldnt but clear the knuckle by more then a 
1 to 1.5 mm.  ALL these things and a good deal more are required for an 
optimal performing action. Setting the "spread" to spec and not worring 
about the rest seems wrong to me. 

By all means do it the way you are comfortable with... I'll do it the 
way they showed me at Hamburg... and the way I am comfortable with.

Cheers
RicB




    At 21:41 +0100 21/11/07, Richard Brekne wrote:

     >Like I said... if the new whippens end up being exactly the same
     >dimensions as the old ones and the reason for the spread problem is
     >the hammer shank and flanges... then I would make every attempt to
     >address them and leave the whippen alone.

    Frankly I am more interested in what experienced Steinway technicians
    do and have done since time immemorial and I refer you to the posting
    below from Francisco Motta which lends sanction, if any were needed,
    to common practice.

    Since you use your buzz-word "spread" and talk of the "spread
    problem", you will of course be able to give an explanation,
    supported by real numbers, of what problems you suppose will ensue
    from using this time-honoured procedure, and let me give you a start
    : your blessed "spread", by which I presume you mean the distance
    from hammer-centre to lever-centre, will be precisely what it was in
    the original.  There therefore IS no "spread problem".  For you now
    to give precise figures for the disastrous results that will ensue
    from packing the lever flange.  Until you are able to do that I see
    no point in reading your long effusions, which I rarely do anyway.
    Unless you can give figures, as I can, your opinions are just so much
    verbiage.

    JD



    At 15:05 -0200 17/11/07, Francisco Motta, afinador de pianos wrote:

     >Max Matthias in the "Steinway service Manual"
     >Replacing action parts on older grands:
     >Whenever new hammers along with shanks and butt flanges are fitted
     >on older grands the distance between the shank center and roller
     >will require checking. This determines the point of attachment of
     >the fly. Over the years, certain modifications have been made
     >resulting in older action parts becoming obsolete. These are no
     >longer stocked by us, neither are they manufactured by the Renner
     >Corporation.
     >Technicians should observe the rules applying to fly adjustments.
     >The rear edge of the fly should coincide with the rear edge of the
     >wood spring inside the roller. Owing to this not always being
     >possible on older grand actions using new hammer shanks, it will be
     >foound necessary to insert a 1 mm thick strip of veneer or cardboard
     >underneath the lever flanges (refer to sketch). This will compensate
     >the difference in clearance between the center and roller, whi1e
     >facilitating regulation to the repetition action (refer to Fig. 15).