Hi Floyd -
I'm not familiar enough with Yamaha checking to give you precise numbers... hopefully someone who is will share information with you shortly. In the meantime, I have a couple of questions:
You are addressing two issues: 1) off-set tail facing; 2) tail radius for high checking
- Have these new/old hammers been filed? If so, how much? Compensating for significant filing in the let off will, as you know, increase the passive distance between the bottom of the tails and the top of the check.
- Have you assessed what the checking distance is at present, with both the straight and angled checks?
- I know we've been taught that the angled tail/backcheck configuration is flawed in that it purportedly stresses the action centers. Not addressing that question full-on right now, it strikes me that there are still manufacturers that use this setup. If it's executed well, do you have to change it to get the checking height you want? Just wondering.
- In general, I prefer a larger tail radius ('straighter', with less 'bump') with appropriately shaped backcheck.
------------------------------
David Skolnik [RPT]
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
917-589-2625
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-07-2021 17:17
From: Floyd Gadd
Subject: Hammer tail shape
My new/old set of Yamaha hammers has the tails already shaped, but the checking surface of the tenor and bass hammers is not perpendicular to the shank. As I have done before, I will glue some wood into the coving notch to give to give me more leeway in adjusting that angle.
Is the existing tail shape going to give me the close checking I desire, or is there a modification of the shape that is possible, given what material is already removed, that will be more amenable to my goal?
Thanks for any input you can offer!
------------------------------
Floyd Gadd
Regina SK
306-502-9103
------------------------------