Big hammers

[Richard Brekne]

Hi Barbara

Barbara Richmond wrote:

> Currently, on note 1 the Down weight was 64 and Up weight, 33.  Using 
> the Standwood measurements the balance weight is way too high (48.5) 
> and so is the Strike Balance ratio (6.36).  (I don't plan on using 
> spring assisted whippens--the jury is still out on those with me--I've 
> gotten too many mixed reviews).  When I put on a New York Style 17 mm 
> shank and did a quick regulation the DW dropped to 56 and UW to 28 
> (still using the Renner whip--which measures out to match the drawing 
> of the Hamburg style whip in the Steinway manual--from 1992) and the 
> other numbers (Balance weight and Strike balance ratio) got a lot 
> closer to what I've read is acceptable (and it certainly felt a lot 
> better!).   I'll test a few more notes on Friday to make sure 
> that regulation is really possible and to make sure my initial results 
> weren't just wishful thinking.  Are there any problems 
> combining Renner whips with Steinway style shanks?  Purists or 
> distributors need not reply.  Just trying to keep this a low-budget 
> fix-up--but I'll do what is necessary, of course.

The whole picture is going to change when you move to 17 mm of course, 
as from the get go the ratio  (SWR included) is radically changed.  If 
you want a low budjet but nice action re-do, I'd suggest finding the 
existing ratio with the new shanks and puting on a set of Strike Weights 
that are light enough to keep the balance weight nice and light. You are 
not going to be able to get around dealing with some kind of weigh off 
tho.... outside of just leaving things as is.  David Love suggested a 
very nice quick and dirty solution a few months back.  Just measure BW 
(after the hammer install and good bench regulation) and then 
subtract/add the deviation from your target BW to your FW's.  Works 
great--quickly done... lasts a long time :)

>
> > So, after all that, those look like S&S hammers; and, from what 
> little can be seen of them, they look as if they are
> > fairly well molded and shaped...so, look elsewhere before simply 
> throwing them out and starting elsewhere.
>  
> The hammers are going to work.  When I first heard them, they sounded 
> just about as nasty and glassy as you could imagine, but now they have 
> that nice broad, gutsy tone--producing a nice variety of tone color as 
> they progress from soft to hard blows.  The strike weights run from 
> 12.5 - 6.5.  A friend tells me that's a little heavy, but I'm inclined 
> to leave them they way they are--for now, anyway.


Yep.. thats a bit up there... I've used them that heavy but shy from 
doing so now.  And given your # 1 key at 56/28  --> 42 gram BW you 
probably wouldnt regret droping them a half a gram or so.. which is very 
doable.

>  
> I'm looking forward to what everyone has to say.
>  
> Barbara Richmond
>  
> PS  At 12:23 PM 8/31/04, Ric wrote:
>
> > Jimminees Chrasmus.... look at those knuckle cores... that HAD to be 
> done willfully... ..
> > or maybe its just the picture is a bit distorted...
> > RicB
>  
> The picture is inaccurate.  The knuckle is crooked but not bent.  Does 
> that make sense?

Well... if its not 90 degrees from the shank, then the ratio is 
changed.  As I remember the pictured appeared slanted in (distal in Eds 
words...grin) towards the hammer, which will essentially make things 
lighter.  Doesnt take much to alter the ratio for an individual key, and 
variations there makes getting an even BW tricky usuing Stanwoods 
method. Its worth the time to try and identify and correct any off line 
knuckles me thinks.

Cheers
Ric

>  
>  
>
>
>