Hi Nick,
I also thoroughly enjoyed your excellent post. David Rubenstein was in my class at the convention, and discussed the early action from an engineering perspective too.
The 70% figure reflects especially the earliest actions, especially the non-Erard/Herz actions designed by Henry Steinway Jr. and discontinued by 1866.. I find most 17 and 21 note scales to have a key ratio of 60 to 64%. That is, most Steinway grands from 1863/4 1878/1880.
But I think that the problem still exists at that key ratio point; the usual remedies aren't sufficient, and typical stock hammers - even "lites" - are too heavy for these actions unless we can move the balance rail back.
Also, the key ratio was so wildly variant even after 1880 that it's helpful to be aware of the problems that caused, for example, the incredible, ongoing frustration of Padarewski.
Don't know if the Phoenix chapter wants my half-day presentation, one period on actions, the other on structure/bellies/pinblocks. It would be fun I think, with real physical props etc.....And your analysis too.
Bill
Original Message:
Sent: 9/8/2022 1:30:00 PM
From: Nicholas Gravagne
Subject: RE: 1866 Steinwayaction geometry
Very informative post, Bill.
But wow, a key ratio of 70%. I've never seen this, but of course you would know, given your vast research. Our latest successes with rocker arm conversions were on an in-shop Bechstein C grand, and a consultation with a colleague, also with a Bechstein grand. In both cases the results were excellent. However, the original key ratio was close enough for a reasonable capstan relocation, yet special care had to be taken to work out the capstan block height and the wip heel position. Of course, the knuckle location and hammer weights were carefully taken into account.
i don't know how long key number 44 is on Blaine's old Steinway, but if it's close to, say, 300 mm, a 70% key ratio would place the capstan at 210 mm behind the balance pin, or 60 mm behind a 50% ratio. A standard wippen could not work, even given a max forward heel location.
Still, it would be an interesting investigation to see just how far modified replacement parts and various geometries could be taken to ameliorate the worst effects of simply throwing new parts on. From you post, however, very light hammers and a shallower key dip would be inevitable outcomes in any case.
Also, as you say,
"If conservation is desired you need to use the very light hammer and the original action, and it will work properly and be playable. But it is an antique piano, with a key dip closer to its contemporaries Broadwood, Erard, Chickering etc."
Your class on this subject sounds interesting. Ever thought of going on the Piano Tech Radio hour with host Eathan Janney? I would be sitting front row up center :)
------------------------------
Nick Gravagne, RPT
Mechanical Engineering
Nick Gravagne Products
Strawberry, AZ 85544
gravagnegang@att.net
928-476-4143
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 09-08-2022 11:04
From: William Shull
Subject: 1866 Steinwayaction geometry
Hi Blaine,
My convention class on best practices, early Steinway grand restoration extensively addressed this subject.
The wood frame indicates 1869 or earlier. Rockers were also original to the action. The stack elevation is higher than nmodern Steinway. But the big difference is the key, which, rather than 2-1 ratio {50%) is closer to 70%. This requires an extremely light hammer. Merely relocating the capstan will not make enough difference.
I have documented many of these original actions and found that indeed, Steinway used very light hammers, lighter that what we can usually order. Ray at Ronsen Hammer has made custom sets but he must be given the data - and these hammers won't look like your typical concert grand hammer!
The original key ratio was much lower, resulting in a dip of closer to 8mm.
Your chapter could have me present if they're interested in fleshing this out with photos and actual data etc.
There are many rebuilds just like this, beautiful but complete failures.
Many restorers use key makers like David Rubenstein to solve the fundamental key ratio problem. David sets the keys to a 50% ratio - or whatever is requested. As many of these old key sets are deteriorated and are also less beefy anyway, this cuts to the heart of the problem, and is recommended for this action.
If conservation is desired you need to use the very light hammer and the original action, and it will work properly and be playable. But it is an antique piano, with a key dip closer to its contemporaries Broadwood, Erard, Chickering etc.
Regards,
Bill
Bill Shull, RPT, M.Mus.
www.shullpiano.com
www.periodpiano.org
909 796-4226
Sent from my iPhone
Original Message:
Sent: 9/8/2022 1:55:00 AM
From: Blaine Hebert
Subject: 1866 Steinwayaction geometry
Today I worked on a "restored" Steinway 9" grand. This piano has Renner parts and the rocker arms were replaced with capstans.
The down weight was 65 to 70 grams. The keys had up to 9 weights in the bass with little room for more.
Obviously there is a serious geometry problem.
Has anyone worked on a similar piano with any good results?
------------------------------
Blaine Hebert RPT
Duarte CA
(626) 795-5170
------------------------------