<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>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>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: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:42 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Stiff WNG? (was Steinway top)<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>The current WN&G parts do not use felt bushings so there is slightly less compliance in the system. That is, the action saturation point is slightly lower and the action feels just a bit more “connected” (for lack of a better term). That is, the hammer’s motion is a little more directly connected to the key’s motion. Under most circumstances this would be considered a good thing. Especially if relatively light hammers are used. Other than that I can’t imagine a WN&G action feeing “stiff.” <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’m also curious; what is it that is going to be so difficult to service down the road? And what is it that is going to need all that servicing? Maybe I’m missing something but they seem like pretty rugged parts to me. Bruce Clark made up a two-note model action for my dual mono-chord a couple of years back and that poor thing has been through a piano action’s version of hell. It’s been moved, packed and shipped, banged on by any number of technicians and other interested parties and generally mistreated by everyone. Any ordinary action would have fallen apart by now but this thing still functions like it did the day it arrived all fresh and new. Near as I can tell these are very rugged actions. Were I putting actions in music school practice rooms this would be my choice simply from a reliability standpoint. (I’m curious—are there any CAUT’s out there with any experience with these actions in practice rooms?) I’ll concede there may be issues showing up over time that are not now evident but so far these action parts have stood up better than any conventional wood action with traditional felt bushings would have given similar use and abuse.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>ddf<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>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><o:p> </o:p>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ed Foote Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 6:42 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: [pianotech] Stiff WNG? (was Steinway top)<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>  Joe writes: <o:p></o:p><div>>>As for the WN&G action on a Steinway? Not in my world. But, there are those<o:p></o:p></div><div>that like stiff actions and impossible repair situations down the road. <o:p></o:p><div id="AOLMsgPart_0_35e759ca-6822-48c0-9451-3c28c9aee938"><pre style='margin-left:.5in;background:white'><tt> </tt><o:p></o:p></pre>    Ok,  this is the first I have heard of a WNG action being stiff.  I would like to hear comments on that from those that have used and/or played them.  And, what is impossible to repair? <o:p></o:p></div><div id="AOLMsgPart_0_35e759ca-6822-48c0-9451-3c28c9aee938">Regards, <o:p></o:p><div>Ed Foote RPT <a href="http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/index.html">http://www.piano-tuners.org/edfoote/index.html</a><o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div></div></div></div></body></html>