CAUT

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

------------------------------
| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
Jason Kanter
Lynnwood WA
(425) 830-1561

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 17:28
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Original Message:
Sent: 4/23/2024 5:05:00 PM
From: Parker Leigh
Subject: RE: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

------------------------------
Parker Leigh RPT
Winchester VA
(540) 722-3865

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 12:02
From: Dave Conte
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

------------------------------
Dave Conte, RPT

Piano Technician in Residence
The University of Tennessee
College of Music
Knoxville TN
(817) 307-5656
Owner: Rocky Top Piano
------------------------------

Yes, those were an add-on to my 2016 Journal articles; they were from a slide show I gave on the Tuning Pin Symposium I conducted at Sonoma State University.    I can send the full slide show to anyone who wants it.  

Also to reiterate the point about measuring both up and down torque; Paul Larudee, inventor of the Lo-Torq tuning pin, wrote that torque readings taken in only one direction is akin to giving a touchweight value that only takes downweight into account, without an upweight value. 

------------------------------
Larry Lobel RPT
San Francisco chapter
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 19:10
From: Jason Kanter
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

------------------------------
| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
Jason Kanter
Lynnwood WA
(425) 830-1561

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 17:28
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Original Message:
Sent: 4/23/2024 5:05:00 PM
From: Parker Leigh
Subject: RE: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

------------------------------
Parker Leigh RPT
Winchester VA
(540) 722-3865

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 12:02
From: Dave Conte
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

------------------------------
Dave Conte, RPT

Piano Technician in Residence
The University of Tennessee
College of Music
Knoxville TN
(817) 307-5656
Owner: Rocky Top Piano
------------------------------

Yes, those were an add-on to my 2016 Journal articles; they were from a slide show I gave on the Tuning Pin Symposium I conducted at Sonoma State University.    I can send the full slide show to anyone who wants it.  

Also to reiterate the point about measuring both up and down torque; Paul Larudee, inventor of the Lo-Torq tuning pin, wrote that torque readings taken in only one direction is akin to giving a touchweight value that only takes downweight into account, without an upweight value. 

------------------------------
Larry Lobel RPT
San Francisco chapter

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 19:10
From: Jason Kanter
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

------------------------------
| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
Jason Kanter
Lynnwood WA
(425) 830-1561

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 17:28
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Original Message:
Sent: 4/23/2024 5:05:00 PM
From: Parker Leigh
Subject: RE: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

------------------------------
Parker Leigh RPT
Winchester VA
(540) 722-3865

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 12:02
From: Dave Conte
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

------------------------------
Dave Conte, RPT

Piano Technician in Residence
The University of Tennessee
College of Music
Knoxville TN
(817) 307-5656
Owner: Rocky Top Piano
------------------------------

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

------------------------------
| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
Jason Kanter
Lynnwood WA
(425) 830-1561

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 17:28
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Original Message:
Sent: 4/23/2024 5:05:00 PM
From: Parker Leigh
Subject: RE: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

------------------------------
Parker Leigh RPT
Winchester VA
(540) 722-3865

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 12:02
From: Dave Conte
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

------------------------------
Dave Conte, RPT

Piano Technician in Residence
The University of Tennessee
College of Music
Knoxville TN
(817) 307-5656
Owner: Rocky Top Piano
------------------------------

I'm attaching a .pptx (Powerpoint) file with the full slide show of my 2016 Tuning Pin Symposium (attachment below)  If you double click on it, it will download onto your computer so you can open it.  

------------------------------
Larry Lobel RPT
San Francisco chapter
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 19:10
From: Jason Kanter
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I found something in the 2016 Journals. In my full-year 2016 this material occurs after the December issue. Perhaps it was an add-on.

It's an unusual layout. Here's the cover page:

Here's the one page of about 20, the one most relevant to what you're discussing?

------------------------------
| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
Jason Kanter
Lynnwood WA
(425) 830-1561

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 17:28
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Original Message:
Sent: 4/23/2024 5:05:00 PM
From: Parker Leigh
Subject: RE: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

I have always considered down torque most important with a reading of 80 inch lb as a minimum.

------------------------------
Parker Leigh RPT
Winchester VA
(540) 722-3865

Original Message:
Sent: 04-23-2024 12:02
From: Dave Conte
Subject: Tuning pin torque measurements revisited

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave

------------------------------
Dave Conte, RPT

Piano Technician in Residence
The University of Tennessee
College of Music
Knoxville TN
(817) 307-5656
Owner: Rocky Top Piano
------------------------------

Hello, all.

Reading back through various posts over the years, I notice there seems to be a number of schools of thought about how tuning pin torque should be measured. 

Averaging clockwise/counterclockwise, with strings, with no strings, etc. 

Averaging seems logical, but doesn't seem to pan out in reality. Say there is a lot of rendering resistance pulling up (clockwise) but very little in the downward/push direction (counter-clockwise). For example, a grand piano in a practice room here reads 85in/# in the pull but less than 15in/# in the push direction. The pin doesn't hold over even a short time, but averaging them, math says this should be fine: 80+15 = 95/2 = 47.5. Minimal but should hold. Subtracting 80-15 = 65; should definitely hold. Removing the string eliminates resistance, but can't tell you what the factors of string rendering would be, and they are considerable. 

Has anyone come up with a better method of determining real torque; not just what it should theoretically be, but how to arrive at it in real life? Perhaps down torque as a percentage of pull torque or net torque. Maybe this has already been satisfied, but I can't find it anywhere, just a lot of discussion. I have historically made this determination by manual manipulation, but I want to be able to present and support my findings in a way that is quantifiable. 

Dave