<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Makes sense.  But don’t most of these issues of “give” pale in comparison to the flexibility of either the key or the hammer shank?  In this case it seems what’s at issue is how the flexibility of the cf hammer shank compares with wooden shanks of various dimensions.  I would guess there must be some data on that compiled by WNG.  Are you aware of how they compare on that level?  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>David Love<o:p></o:p>www.davidlovepianos.com<o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Delwin D Fandrich Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:59 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Stiff WNG? (was Steinway top)<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Plastic bushings are less compliant than felt bushings. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>All parts of the piano action have some “give” to them. The most obvious being the flex of the key. The second being the flex of the hammershank. Following these it becomes more difficult to measure just how much the “give,” or flex, of each component is contributing to the overall saturation of the action. The capstan felt has some give to it. The wippen body has some amount of flex. The action rails have give to them—Steinway rails tend to rotate—etc. Felt action centers are also in there. Felt bushings have some amount of compliance. Primarily the jack center and the hammershank center. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’m not sure I worded my point in the best way. All piano actions exhibit the phenomena of action saturation. At issue is the point, in terms of hammer velocity vs. key velocity, that you reach that point. And what the hammer velocity will be at that point. In some actions—an action with a lot of flex and compliance in it—action saturation occurs relatively early, others—actions with stiff keys, hard felts and leathers, etc.—it comes on some later; with at harder, faster keystroke. Up to a point you’d like to transmit as much energy through the key as fast as possible and accelerate the hammer as much as possible. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’ve not tried setting up my equipment to actually measure the difference in compliance between the traditional wood/felt action components and the new WN&G components—I’m not sure I even still have everything. But my sense is that energy transfer from the capstan to the hammershank is more efficient and more immediate. At least that is how it feels to me. This means, in theory at least, that energy put into the key is more efficiently transferred through the system and the actual point of action saturation will come with a somewhat harder, faster keystrike. The pianist seems to have just a bit more “control” over the relationship between the key end and the hammer motion. One pianist—and this on a piano with a low-tension scale and relatively light hammers—described it as being more “intimate.” <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>As to whether this reduction in compliance is a good thing or not depends, I suppose, on your perspective.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>Delwin D Fandrich<o:p></o:p>Piano Design & Fabrication<o:p></o:p>6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA<o:p></o:p>Phone  360.515.0119 — Cell  360.388.6525<o:p></o:p><a href="mailto:del@fandrichpiano.com">del@fandrichpiano.com </a>— <a href="mailto:ddfandrich@gmail.com">ddfandrich@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 7:33 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Stiff WNG? (was Steinway top)<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Why would a non felt bushing lower the action saturation point and why is a lower action saturation point more desirable?  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I thought action saturation had to do with the relative flexibility of the levers (shank or key) that can result in an inability to accelerate the hammer beyond a certain point due to excessive flexing.  So unless I’m thinking of this backwards I thought a lower action saturation point was a potential problem as characterized by accelerated actions without the shoe where the key lacks adequate stiffness.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Re Joe’s point, how do the carbon fiber shanks compare in terms of flexibility to, say, a traditional Steinway 3/16” shank?  With light hammers some people do complain about the Renner hex shanks because of excessive stiffness and therefore a lack of feel.  The action saturation point, as I view it, would be lower with the 3/16” shanks (when compared to the 7/16” hex shanks) because they are more flexible but one might have greater feel of the hammer especially if the hammers were very light in weight.  <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div>David Love<o:p></o:p><a href="http://www.davidlovepianos.com">www.davidlovepianos.com</a><o:p></o:p></div><o:p> </o:p></div></body></html>