<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   "David C. Stanwood" wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Dear Richard, If for no other reason, using a spring that works 12 grams or so means the absence of two large key leads in the middle of the key.  When combined with a proper match of hammer weight and ratio this means that only a small amount of key lead is needed... I like that...</blockquote> Yes.... grin.. I know you like that. I just dont see the absence of lead as any kind of a universal determinant factor in this connection. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The absence of lead that comes with using wippen support springs has consistently shown to improve repetition by lowering key mass.</blockquote> Lots of things can improve repetition past the point where pianists have a use for it. I dont see that it has been shown that lead levels that even slightly exceed your own maximums impede repetition enough to in itself justify the above argumenation. First of all, there is no qualified quantity that even comes close to what amount of repetition a pianist is capable of utilizing. Second, there is no formal study done with that or any other objective set of criteria, nor mathmatical models available to show what levels of leading under what conditions would exceed those limits. What we have is a lot of folks with opinions about the subject, loosely thrown and lumped together with their experiences with instruments, without the benifit of a perspective precise enough in scope and objective enough in format to even come close to firmly concluding much of anything beyond knowing that too much lead (whatever that may be) is a bad thing.... as much as too little lead (whatever that might be) is as well. What we as individuals LIKE and dont like on the other hand is subject matter that should be played with in an entirely different arena then that of declaring what is true and what is not. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The adjustability feature is not used that often but when it is it's very easy with the adjustable spring and if the need arises one doesn't shy away from the task.  Without the screw adjustable feature one will find excuses to put off the task of fine tuning the touchweight.</blockquote> We can find all kinds of nitpicking arguments pro and con on this on all day long :) But again... I just dont see that the net gain is enough to bother with, especially when put up against the potential for abuse and the extra cost. No.. I like very very much indeed the entire concept of using the Balance Equation, or any other such equation based approach to provide even Strike weights, and Front Weights that corrospond to putting the action in a state of static equilibrium for a given BW specification. I like even more the prospect of being able to design some degree of intertial behaviour into the system as well.  And I THINK ... :) that this all can be done well within the needs, hopes, dreams, and desires of practically any pianist on the world without even getting close to having to get into the use of assist springs.   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>David Stanwood PS - Strike Weight Ratio is SWR for short...   <a href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives"></a> </blockquote> Grin... BILL !! DAVID LOVE !!!  are you paying attention here ??? From the man himself !!.. SWR ... not SBR. Thank you muchly :)   -- 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> <A HREF="http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html">http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html</A>  </html>