I will ask them, but to my knowledge , no flange with the old dimension, only shanks with the roller at 16 mm are availeable both from Steiway and renner (but Renner makes some parts that are only availeable from Steinway)

Also, to my knowledge, Steinwy NY uses and make sits own flanges and shanks, I'll let you know what they say.

Moving the spoon ,why not but if the spread is not good , no way to have touch.
Aint just a question to place the jack under the roller , unfortunately, but one need to be pianist to feel that the action is not acting normally.

I am assuming that an action may be in the process of analysis here so pardon me if I am wrong and for thinking out loud for a few minutes.
Curious if you think that spread has more impact on leverage in regard to whippen and key ratios - if the hammer flange center position in regard to spread changes slightly because of new shank flanges, I would think that the overall impact is less than moving the whippen rail. I would need to experiment with that.
I do not find that a spread of 113mm is anything magical. Increasing the spread gives more leverage but has a price and that is more required key dip - If your action is already at 11mm you cannot go in that direction.
Not certain how the verticle dimension of whippen center to string means anything for action placement - I have found that having the whippen centers paralell to the keybed is an advantage but what can be done with the distance to the strings? It is certainly good to have the whippen centers paralell to the hammer shank centers. I have used the 64mm verticle dimension between the two - it also works on other pianos than Steinway. Note that altering this verticle dimension will also change the spread and could be used to help with jack knuckle alignment issues (slightly). It also slightly alters leverage as lowering it will travel the key capstan whippen heal interface toward the whippen rail. I mention this only in the context that if this dimension is not close or varies somewhat, it pays to correct it.
Things that have not been mentioned: How many leads in the keys and what is the pattern from bass to treble?
How heavy are the original hammers and how heavy are the new ones?
70 grams down was mentioned but what about up?
It sounds like the hammers are too heavy for the action and there also may be too few key leads.
Great topic - got my curiousity going.

What I find odd about this is that since Steinway action rails are soldered together, the spread is not adjustable. So why worry about what it is? You have to live with it.

Hello Gene,

Thanks for your loud think ! I do the same, sometime it helps !

No an action is not yet there in analysis but I am expecting a NY mod M (L ?) from the 1910-20 years, for stack soldering, and I am about to work on a mod O from the same era but German (there analysis will begin shortly).

I am unsure I expressed myself well, to me the corect spread, change leverage a bit, and as you said if you are at 11 mm keydip you have passed the limit. I anyway try not to go as far and to have 10.25 max (it depend to the keyboard as well) .

It does not change directly the action ratio so much, even if when in the 80's to obtain a heavy touch which was in the trend, some makers where using up to 115 spread on the Renner action (with heavy hammers)

But Steinway rails have to be changed and that is the occasion to get to the normal spread for an action, then the jack align well under the roller, which I find important. (in fact I could even move the old rail if I fell it may be useful, but the jig is not easy to make)

I will answer later, but the elegant solution for old actions is to have new keys made with an higher KR ratio, then new parts will fit and we can place the magic line better.

Now is modern hammer and its weight a must on an old 1920 Steinway, to me, it only depends of the soundboard and level of dynamic availeable. I believe we are obliged to needle so much new heads on old pianos that the advantage is not so high, so I am looking for intermediate solution, may be with 16 mm from shank and 9 mm roller, so lighter hammers are counteracted with highers speed , which in the end lend to better tone than too heavy hammers for the soundboard.
DO you know which ratio (measured, or weighted) is considered good for this kind of setup ? and which original Steinway action ratio in the 1920 on "small models" S - B (while B is different I guess).

Thanks for participating, I'll write later.

Isaac

changing the spread will change the whippen leverage mostly, and the shank leverage also a little, but geometry of parts prevails there, for me.
I guess only for the whippen centre placement, this measure have been given to me for old German model without explication, then, on a given action sketch the first place to be find is the whippen center because it is the end of the magic line, while from the instrument point of view, the first place to be find is the strike line.

Pure thinking, but the whippen pin height once well placed, you can asess the hammer bore, as then you will know how high will be the hammer center.

That said no practical method to find it out of a sketch.

If Steinway NY action have the same 64 mm spread, they may be use the same wedging than the German ones (I've read somewhere the wedging was different)
BTW I regularely find German Steinways from 1910 -1930 who, to my surprize, where shipped to USA or Mexico immediateley.

I have another thinking about the placement of the capstan under the whippen heel (frankly toward the back) as the better compromise to have the sharps passing the magic line.

I'll make anbother thread about that.

Kamin,
I think that you should consider contacting Wessell Nickle and Gross http://www.wessellnickelandgross.com/ to get a sample parts kit for experiment.
Their whippens have infinitely more options for design modifications and threrfore are highly adaptable. When combined with their shanks that have variable knuckle positioning you would appreciate these new alternatives.
Matching hammer mass to soundboard is something that I am only now begining to learn but is more adapted to new soundboards where the design is understood and the scale is part of this.
I have not found consistency with Steinway action dimensions. I measure overall action ratio = hammer travel divided by key travel and attempt to alter/lower it so it is closer to 5.0 when practical. For the Steinway, moving key capstans and or altering knuckle spread are the most simple options, and as mentioned they are not the only options.
I also like to measure key ratios across the action. As the keys shorten form bass to treble, their ratios should remain the same. If not then this is a clue that the placement of the balance rail is not correct or the key capstan line is skewed or the whippen rail is not positioned correct or all of the above. This is where I have learned to appreciate the position of the whippen rail and the 64mm spread to the hammer rail.

Hi Gene ! what I say about the hammer weight relate more to the tone ability of the soundboard. Old boards are saturating sooner than new ones, but give also a longer sustain that compensates somehow.

That is one of the correct way of thinking, I guess that then it may be better in the end to use not to hard hammers, not too heavy hammers, and using a higher ratio if possible then the hammer acceleration may be higher. (what was intended in first place, generally, BTW)

This last provide also some compensation for the pianist, and the piano is not to be used in concertos, only chamber music, so to say.

Trading weight for speed in the intention of providing enough key resistance in the end, seem appropriate for old Steiwnays, then one have to use the special heads made by Renner for older Steiwnays, even if this is not well accepted when an estimation of the value is made by Steinwnay.
Even in the 60's the original heads where lighter in some regions of the instrument. Some prefer that kind of tone, also.

But I did not rebuild so many Steinway actions , customers dont have always enough budget to get there.

Thanks for the Wessel&Gross parts, even just for experimentation they may be interesting, I'll consider buying a sample kit. Their presentation and documents are well done (but I like the feel of wooden parts because it vibrates more than synthetics so it "tones" a bit).

SHortening of key ratio is generally intended to provide faster acceleration in the treble, the ratio may change it is not a problem, what is is if sharps get too far from magic line (or the whole setup) often you'll see the capstan line moving as well.

We may think twice before saying that this or this is a mistake from the maker, it may be based on an idea that does not provide the expected result, or the setup is fine with original parts in good condition, and the slights differences provided by adapteable parts (like the very slightly taller Renner whippens) bring us just slightly off the best place.

Yes on Steinway's every mm may count, some are really on the edge... but they also are very tolerant, one can generally have them playable even if the feel is not perfect.
problem is with professional pianists that knows what they want ! (or with some techs which are too much nit picky or play piano themselves !)

I respect the connection to wood action parts.
Is it not true that designers try to minimize the string energy that bleeds back into the action?
I believe that WNG parts offer so many solutions to geometry issues that any sympathetic sound they produce or do not produce is not an issue of any consequence.
In fact, the stiffness of the shank may allow in increase in energy transfer to the string and minimize action saturation. Just my opinion.
There is a completed restoration in a shop where I sometimes visit, with WNG shanks. Not one person that played it had a comment about them. Some were accomplished pianists.
As the parts are so new, my opinion is evolving but I like what I see so far.

Well I really don't know. just that makers take care of the sound and vibes radiating from the keys and keybed, and that I fell something missing with the actions id carbon fiber. (like Shigeru). What misses I can't say.
String energy may effectively remain on the string side, but I guess it is mostly adbsorbed by the hammer "suspension zone", I guess that impact coming from the hammer center, and vibes from the shank only transfers partially towards the action to the keys.

"resonnances" of the hammer shank seem important part of the percussion tone, in the treble anyway.

I can feel the difference between the strong original Steinway shanks and the replacement parts which are one mm less in diameter.
I can even perceive the difference between a hammer glued with hide glue and one glued with Vynil glue.

We don't really know what happens that makes the tone, it may be an addition of events happening within the action, the sound body, case and even the plate.

Nowadays,a s you say WNG parts allow for so much setups that I would like to have some. I hope the set contains more than one whippen of each sort, as it is easier to test more than 1 note each time (bass/medium/treble, sharps/whites). I'll have a assortiment, then I'll have an idea of their quality as well, pinning, cloths, gluing, rigidity etc.

Indeed I can't get it why Renner did not do something like Tokiwa, I guess they like to sell their complete solution eventually computing it for you, more than having their parts incorrectly used. At last that is what they seem to say, and I know I can always ask for a replacement part if I give data for the problem they will send me a whippen with the correct size and leverage.

Nowadays I like to understand what may be possible and what is not, so I can choose among solutions.

litle update while exchanging with some head tech from a factory.

Whippen is level at half stroke, tendancy to leave the hammer without overcentering when new, (it will be overcentering after a few shapings) and the best respect of roller/jack alignment at rest (action placed so it is optimum).

other thoughts but too difficult to explain in english at that time ..

The above setup is the point of view of one reputed brand, most generally hammers are overcentering from the start, and overcenter more when shaped after some years, which is not very good for touch.

I still misses global picture on the reason why even when no overcentering, the bore is done at 91 ° (while different explanations have been given to me)

Coming back to the center pin distance, what I realized is that if you use the real levers measured with an action at rest you will get a 5 ratio or so, reflecting the action ratio at the beginning of the stroke, which is an important thing. (if you uses simplified method of measuring you find 6.0 or 6.5 ratio for the same grand, which is a huge difference) 5 may be not enough particularly while in the high treble it is less (4.7 for instance) , but the leverage get better during the stroke, so in the end the global ratio or the ratio at mid blow (?) may well approach the weigh ratio as find with Stanwood measures (?) .

at 5.03 50 g mass on the key side will balance 9.93 g of Hammer /shank mass. with 17 mm knuckle I get a 4.66 ratio hence 50 g equal 10.71 g of hammer weight , which is easier to setup.

I will experiment to get the measurements at mid blow and compute the ratio then.

To get there the whippen effort arm have to be measured from the whippen centerpin to the point of contact at the back edge of the jack (around the knife mark) and that makes more sence that the usual 99 mm measure which stay fixed, while the other one (facing its opposite with hammer center to contact point of the roller, i.e 21 mm on a 17 mm/10 diameter shank), will reflect any change you make.( 15.5 mm , 9mm roller, changing spread)

Those 2 dimensions together, less 1 mm give approx the spread.

I received the small flanges for Steinway made by Abel and they help a lot with roller placement and geometry.
that 1924 mod O have a 6.7 action ration (horizontal method of measure) and 1.9 key ratio which oblige to use very light parts. Even changing the capstan position would not change the ratio by much. The best I can do (to avoid assist springs) is use a 113 spread, small flange 17 mm roller and look at the progression of the jack/roller (action height) so to avoid too heavy friction at letoff.

I wish I could use a 16mm setup with 9 mm roller, but then I have to make extra light hammers. decision in a few days, as I like the tone with that accelerated hammer.

Changing the spread, depending of the side it is done, change the whippen ratio but the shank ratio as well (at last at the beginning of the move)

Alignment at mid stroke or slightly after rest position, influence the efficiency between whippen and key, but also the efficiency of the whippen itself. Lot of pressure is given upward and slightly backward directly in the whippen center bushing then during the stroke it reverses that makes a loss of energy for what I can understand of it.

Then, the angled whippen not only influences the friction at capstan it also provide a pushing pressure during the stroke, same direction all the time.


Regards

As a practical solution, for that old hamburg, I decided to trade all the modern flanges for the one (1 mm smaller) made & sold by Abel.

The better placement of the roller allow the whippen to be back in its original position, that make a huge différence in the whippen to key relation, then the touch get really better, even with the original spread.

I will also trade the old whippens for a new set from Rener (they have exactly the good dimension)

will probably have to keep the assist springs, but only minimal tension with shanks a 16mm. or 17 mm and may be get rid of the springs, but the touch will may be a tad heavy then.

I also wanted to acknowledge that the short flange sold by Abel is worth the try.
Indeed you can always more or less have the jack under the roller even if for that you have to chisel the aperture in the whippen lever, but then the center of the jack ... where is it located ? it is way more efficient when the vertical of center of the jack is nearer the top of the jack, and the move between jack and roller is way more efficient. with the jack too far, you have a too good leverage at the beginning of the stroke and the key slips under the finger, then get stiff, bot very pleasing.

Very simply putting the short flange and a 16 mm roller bring evidence of original setup, as everything then get smooth, with an easy regulation of drop/letoff, the correct behavior between whippen heel and capstan. All those details can be felt under the finger, so I choose to take the shanks of choice and change the flange.

Then I will not have to compromise the whippen position.

action is fast , the tone clearer, I will make a recording when all will be finished. the touch is not that "old" while it goes more in direction of smaller dip, actual sensation remain present enough so to to keep that solution.

spread is then 112.5 - 112 (it seemm to change slightly with more in the bass region)
the quality of the parts (roller, shanks) is way better than it was a few years ago and the flange shape is now good .