<HTML>In a message dated 7/12/2002 4:20:20 PM Pacific = Daylight Time, Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:Re: Lighter or Heavier = ? Date:7/12/2002 4:20:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:<A HREF="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no">Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib= .no</A> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> Sent from the Internet         Hey Ric</BLOCKQUOTE>    &nbs= p;   I followed this only briefly. Bussssy week. Oh my goodness! A= ny way There is an experience I've had a few times with some actions where t= he key ratios and action ratios were really good. Without getting into many = measurements just let me say that the effect was that even though static dow= n weights approached 60 down on my Symphony Stwy D (1940) and the upweights = were a nice snappy 28-30. No one has ever complained about the touch as bein= g heavy.    John O' Connor played it a time or two as well as others. and n= ever a complaint about the touch being heavy.  Seems to handle rapid pa= ssage work effortlessly. It has some lead closer to the balance rail as it's= a accelerated action.           I've also learned  from installing new key set= s with corrected key ratios that less lead is used and similar results are a= ttained. I believe  some lead is required  to give the piansit som= e semblance of  a "the normal feel" related to inertia and that some in= ertia IMO is desirable in a piano action. Physics says were going to have so= me like it or not but is better managed with efficient leverages.  When= some of these systems are right it's like a supercharged V-8.   My point is that the down weight upweight discussion takes on an enti= rely different parameters when things are set up right as opposed to the fun= ky key and action geometry we deal with day in and out. Bottom line is that = some action.key systems static weights may seem high ( 60 over 30 ) but the = dynamic effect when the keys are in motion tells an entirely different and p= leasant story.   Does that make sense to any one but me?      >>>>Dale Erwin>>>>>>&= gt; <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT= : 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> Thanks again Ed and Dave... and Stéphane for your interest Seems like we have two ideas about how inertia levels affect the touch of the piano. On the one hand we've said several times the the higher the inertia the slower the action repetition... and this has been equated loosely with terms like sluggishness and then from this perspective, heaviness. Then on the other hand a bit more lead is said to perhaps lead to a lighter "feel" due to the help inertia lends ones the key is in motion. Interesting and to some degree conflicting lines of thinking. All and all it leads one to think that Stanwood ideas are fine.... a great refinement in relation to simple DW/UW measurements.. but perhaps should be refined further to somehow put a number on inertia .... inertia zones perhaps. I agree tho in the answers you two kindly voluntered that DW/UW has a direct relationship to "touch" or "feel", yet that these are also affected by other relationships. Thanks again... would have liked to heard from others... but. :) Cheers RicB </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>