<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mark,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>thanks for all your comments!  You have given me an education...  I'm thinking of looking into the Faulk carbon fiber lever.  I guess part of my reason is money and the other part is the more conventional look.  Thanks once again for your post.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Shawn Brock, RPT</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=mark.purney@mesapiano.com href="mailto:mark.purney@mesapiano.com">Mark Purney</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=pianotech@ptg.org href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech List</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 25, 2008 1:13 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Faulk titanium or carbon fiber?</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>Shawn,<BR><BR>First of all, I don't think you are restricted to just a ball end with the Fujan. Talk to Steve and see what your options are. The advantage of a ball end is the reduced stress on your hands and wrists, which translates into a lower possibility of discomfort and repetitive-use injuries. I preferred a ball end right from the start to a traditional handle, but you have to use what you're most comfortable with.<BR><BR>I own (and regularly use) both the Fujan and the Faulk carbon fiber tuning hammers, so maybe I can help give a fair answer to your question: The Fujan is more rigid than the Faulk, because of the larger diameter of the carbon fiber tube. This is not only theoretical, but both tuning hammers have been tested for their flex (deflection). The Fujan may be more rigid, but both carbon fiber tools are significantly more rigid than any tuning hammer with a steel or titanium shaft (this is proven, not my speculation).<BR><BR>So why do I use both, and which is better?  It really comes down to a matter of length, and that is the biggest functional difference between the two tools. I think for most uprights and for many grands, the longer Fujan is a better choice. For some grands, I prefer the way a shorter Faulk responds. The shorter tool also has a better balance when moving from pin to pin (both tools are almost identical in weight). I could probably achieve the same thing by having two Fujans of different length, or switching out different lengths of carbon tubes. But as much as I like the high-tech look of the Fujan, there is something very special about the tool Charles made, with a handle made from a piece of rare amboyna burl - I think it's a work of art.<BR><IMG alt=http://mesapiano.com/cf/cf.jpg src="cid:001d01c90884$a8298b50$fdc8a8c0@ownerf9ede2044"><BR><BR>The bottom line is that both tools are fantastic and you can't go wrong with either. The Fujan has a few technical advantages, such as more rigidity, interchangeable head angles and shaft lengths, but it's also a lot more expensive. The Faulk has a more traditional look that appeals more to some, is less expensive, and also has the ability to adapt to both Jahn and Watanabe tips.<BR><BR>A note on materials:<BR><BR>The reason titanium has been a popular choice for tuning hammers is because it's lighter than steel. What most people do not realize is that titanium has more flex than steel. That extra flex is great for golf clubs, but is a disadvantage for tuning hammers.<BR><BR>Carbon fiber is lighter than both steel and titanium, and considerably more rigid than either metal. This makes it a superior shaft material for tuning hammers:<BR>Less mass = less momentum = more control over the tuning pin<BR>Less mass = less strain on your body lifting it and moving it from pin to pin all day.<BR>Less flex = less "spring" energy absorbed into the shaft = more control over fine tuning pin motion<BR>Less flex = better tactile feedback of what is happening with the tuning pin and string<BR><BR>Some people prefer heavier, more flexible tuning hammers because that is what they are used to. There is nothing wrong with that, but I often hear people say that a heavier tool is better. There is no reality or physics supporting that claim, unless you're trying to manhandle the tuning pin or turn it back in after a splice or repair. I've also heard people insist that titanium is more rigid than steel or carbon fiber. That is simply false.<BR><BR>Hope that helps,<BR>Mark Purney, RPT<BR><BR><BR><BR>Shawn Brock wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:00a201c90660$5742c330$fdc8a8c0@ownerf9ede2044 type="cite"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would be interested in hearing what you folks who have tried and or owned both of these tuning hammers think of them.  I have thought of going the carbon fiber root, I don't think I will be buying the Fujan lever anytime soon.  At this time I'm using a Jahn and a  Watanabe both with 15 degree heads (love the 15).  Anyone prefer the titanium over the carbon fiber?  Was going from a  "conventional lever handle to the handle on the carbon fiber a big deal?  That's one other thing that makes me shy away from the Fujan, I could never get things to work with a ball end hammer!  Waiting to hear some comments from you guys!</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Shawn Brock, RPT </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>