<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   David Love wrote:  The discussion, as I recall, had to do with how much one was willing to compromise regulation.  I am not willing to compromise regulation very much.  But I don't see the need to either.  Pushing up strike weights to very high levels simply forces you to use an assist spring in order to keep regulation specs where they, in my opinion, should be.  As it happens, I don't prefer assist springs or very high strike weights, so it's not an issue.  If, in order to use high strike weights without assist springs, you end up with 1/2" key dip, I'd have a problem. Well, not to put too much a point on it, I dont like to <<compromise>> the action either. And while I most certainly define that to include a wider degree of acceptable parameters then perhaps you do,  I have a hard time imagining the configuration you give here. Quite an example.... high strike weights causing a 12.7 mm key dip..... I wont even bother thinking what kind of SW-ratio we were imagining here :) But back to reality, I am not quite sure what your distinction is between the concepts og "right and wrong", and "compomise" in this particular regard. Maybe you wouldnt mind clarifying that for me ?  As has been mentioned on several occasions, Stanwood metrology is not synonymous with Stanwood design.  I use Stanwood metrology on a regular basis to assess and execute the actions that I do and recommend others use it too.  Specific designs are another matter.  We all have our preferences. Well, we certainly agree 100 % in this much. David Love<a href="mailto:davidlovepianos@earthlink.net">davidlovepianos@earthlink.net</a> -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A>  </html>