<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> David Love wrote: We have indeed moved a bit back and forth, and round and round. Such is the nature of sharing opinions me thinks. Yet I thank you for it. All such exchange gives pause to reflect on ones own perceptions. <blockquote TYPE=CITE> The tonal improvement reaped from moving the SW zone beyond where it can be accommodated by an R of 5.75 - 5.85 without assist springs, overly high BW's or FW's does not produce enough (if any) tonal improvement to warrant such a change.  That is my opinion, of course.  Quality of tone is not yet quantifiable and so is always a matter of opinion, which I don't mind having.</blockquote> Well in this we can agree. I wholeheartedly respect ones right to opinion, especially rather informed ones such as your own. And in this matter my own opinion tend more towards yours then away to be sure. Tho I would certainly expand the useable ratio range a good deal.   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The bottom line in all this is that  those who are entertaining recent trends of very low action ratios to deal with what I consider a passing fancy of high strike weight zones would do well to consider whether the supposed benefits outweigh the costs.</blockquote> This phrasing I also find myself very much in agreement with. Thanks again for your interesting thoughts. RicB -- 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>   </body> </html>