[pianotech] Shank questions

[John Delacour]

At 11:36 -0400 24/05/2011, Alan Eder wrote:

>>I this case, I don't think they were looking for the stiffest 
>>results. In fact there are different wall thickness to achieve the 
>>desired stiffness from bass to treble.
>
>Yes, it seems that greater-than-hardwood stiffness was going to be a 
>given, by virtue of the nature of the material.  Would even stiffer 
>than that be even "better"?  In the sense of less energy lost, the 
>manifest difference may only be incremental.

My reading of the WNG literature and also a conversation I had with 
Bruce Clark, so far as I recall, talks of a stiffness equal to the 
best of wooden shanks rather than anything much stiffer.  Uniformity 
is certainly to be desired especially as the last set of upright 
maple shanks I had from a big American supplier were not at all 
reliable.  As to grand shanks, here also you can't rely on the grain 
being anywhere near parallel to the line of the shank, especially 
from one German supplier.

I can't use the WNG shanks on the Brinsmead because it hasn't got the 
Erard-Herz action -- alI would need is plain shanks.  In fact, 
because of the rarity of the instrument I would hesitate to fit 
carbon fibre shanks and rather stiffen the existing shanks in the way 
I described if I feel it makes an improvement.  The shanks themselves 
are of excellent quality.

As to the oval cross-section treble shanks that are now all the rage, 
I first recall seeing these on a Blüthner grand from the '30s. 
Blüthner always had trouble with the high treble.  I don't know by 
how much they are stiffer, though it can be calculated, but there are 
plenty of pianos that have a very good high treble without the use of 
the oval shanks.  If their superiority is so certain, why, after 80 
years, doesn't everybody fit them?

JD