> Performance and support is what I care about most
> when I lay on the line $$$$$.
>
Agreed, and if I were doing it all again I would still go with Fujan over
the more recent options.
For one, no other lever ("knockoff" or otherwise) has the same collection of
features that I like most about my lever: Unadorned high quality CF finish
(with all due respect to Tom's no-doubt practical and durable rubberized
grip, I really love the look and feel of carbon weave), non-tapered tube, (I
can see why some would prefer tapered for visibility sake) rosewood handle,
large integrated head/socket, and customizable length.
Mayer Gluzman's comes the closest, but with a more traditional head.
However, even if he offered pretty much an identical copy of a Fujan for
$100 less, I would still go with Fujan. His attention to detail, knowledge,
service, and support of the tool is excellent... after all, he invented it.
Steve also let me try like 4 different length/head combinations, keep the
one I liked best, and return the rest. (I don't know if he still offers this
service, but it made a big difference to me)
Ron:
The moment of inertia (calculating stiffness for bending calculations) is
> higher for material volume used in tubing than for solid rod. So for a given
> quantity of material, tubing will be much stiffer than solid rod. Steve uses
> a really big tube, which makes a really stiff lever. So he gets a huge
> stiffness to weight ratio.
>
> I don't have an opinion on the head joint that you'd be interested in.
>
Yeah, as I recall the main reason he switched to CF was it could be smaller
diameter with same (or greater) stiffness or and same (or less) weight as
the aluminum... the oversized tube is the most important thing,
stiffness-wise.
To clarify, I didn't mean that I wasn't interested in hearing opinions
regarding the joint question (I am), only that the issue won't be truly
settled without side-by-side data.
The patent specifies aluminum tubing, and that's what the original release
> was made of. Carbon fiber came later. How many years of profit will it take
> in legal fees to test it?
>
Oh, agreed- I'm guessing it would not be worth it to sue. I just think it
might be... ethically relevant if some of the alternatives *are* in fact
clear patent infringement.
Here is a copy of the patent, if anyone is curious:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7638702.pdf
CF is not mentioned, and I suppose no other tuning hammer shares ALL of the
patented features at once, just some of them.
-kurt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110206/536b17a3/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC