<!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 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>    Well, when you think = about it, the force from the key goes through the elbow at a ninety degree angle, = and ALL of the force goes through the elbow. So, as I see it, that part gets = more of the stress than any action part in the piano, with the exception of the = hammer, but then, why don't we see more hammer flanges break? Could be that they = have a greater sectional density than that thin and long elbow. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">I guess the elbows get more of an "impact" on them than the = flanges.<BR><BR>At 04:20 PM 10/23/02 -0400, you wrote:<BR>>That all makes perfectly = good sense.  However, many of the ones I have run<BR>across (should = have run over?) have never had a damp chaser installed.<BR>>Perhaps they = would have fallen apart sooner if they had.  Still the<BR>flanges, etc. = lasted far better than the elbows. Maybe just wear & tear<BR>from the movement?<BR>>Fran Helms<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>