plastic mechanics

The question to ask is: what is the difference between the mechanics of a Kawai from '64 and today?

It does not seem to me that Kawai used plastic components in the 60s, so if there are any, as often happens even with "refurbished" Yamahas from God-knows-what workshop (Chinese), they must be attributed not to the factory but to subsequent interventions.

That said, from the late 80s and early 90s, we began to see the results of wood/resin integration experimentation on Kawai actions. That is, some components were replaced with composite materials, leading up to today's ABS in Millennium actions, which are as excellent and precise as other equivalent actions with all-wood components. It is not plastic, but a material studied to have good resistance properties and low coefficients of friction. Where necessary, wood remains, for example in the stiletto where a certain elasticity is required.

In practice, what changes? In my opinion, nothing regarding environmental conditions, etc., except for the fact that if a wooden part breaks it can be repaired, and that spare parts, in the case of Kawai, must be requested from Furcht (in the Italian case) and are not always so ready and available.

But I believe your case is even different, i.e., an action revisited with non-Kawai components because they were not compatible with the actions of that time.

Is it worth proceeding with the purchase? You have to see the piano and play it.

Thank you

Translated in other terms, although for amateur use I would look for something more recent, there are many 30-year-old instruments in mint condition and original, where any interventions to get them running again are minimal or non-existent

I'm arriving late, but I agree. Furthermore, Giovanni, plastic forcole are very difficult to work with when redoing the pins, which often, in the case of plastic, become tight with even a minimal variation in humidity. The absorption of relative humidity from the ambient air is handled solely by the cashmere cloth around the pin which, by swelling, tightens around it. In the case of a traditional forcola, the absorption is partially compensated for by the wood. Do you agree?

Of course I agree, that is the major limitation Paolo, the fact that "one part moves and another remains constrained"... The American Steinway also made a big mistake with the Teflon gaskets, I believe, and a few years later other manufacturers tried it again because, as they say, one prefers to make mistakes alone rather than do well based on others' experiences;

I expressed myself poorly in the first post; rereading it, I saw there is a typo—I often write on my phone—in addition to a concept that wasn't expressed quite clearly; I meant to say that there is currently no difference between the two types of action for the pianist's purposes, if the instruments are kept in suitable environmental conditions. I believe the probability of finding stuck pins on a Kawai Millennium is equal to or similar to finding stuck pins on a Renner, to put it another way.

I also continue to prefer dear old wood, because it entails a whole series of advantages, some already mentioned, that pianists might not perceive; it is also true that wood, well-selected wood... costs!!

Certainly Giovanni! Yes, teflon was a failure. I also believe that wood remains valid. With lightweight materials, the inertia changes too but, in my opinion, that doesn't necessarily mean it is better. When I was young, I used to ski and play tennis. Just a few days ago, in a summer village, I picked up an expensive new-generation racket (just to see it, naturally) and I had the impression that it was extremely easy to play with! Many friends tell me, however, that they suffer more and more from pain and epicondylitis. Surely carbon offers the same strength with greater lightness... but also with more vibration and less inertia. Consequently, in my opinion, the muscular system of the arm is more stressed and engaged. Naturally, it is not like this for the mechanics of a piano, but whereas Steinway has even shaped the flanged joints screwed with a felt pad onto a shaped bar, also shaped to almost zero out vibrations at the moment of hammer-string impact, with carbon mounted on other mechanisms, the vibration from imperfect tightening of the flanges is added to the vibration of the material which, although lighter, does not absorb stresses (bending, torsion, etc.) like wood. This affects the responsiveness of the action at sustained and continuous "forte" levels. This is what I believe. We will see if time proves me right. It might just be an obsession of mine.

Interesting discussion... I'll ask a question that might be somewhat irrelevant.

Is Yamaha mechanics less "elastic" compared to a Renner? What I have always noticed (especially in vertical pianos) is a greater lightness in Yamaha, but also greater effort and stress on the epicondyles and generally for the arm.... does this have to do with some specific technical strategy of Yamaha...?

pianoexpert wrote:

Certainly Giovanni! Yes, teflon was a failure. I also believe that wood remains valid. With lightweight materials, inertia changes as well but, in my opinion, it's not necessarily better. When I was young, I used to ski and play tennis. Right in a summer village, a few days ago I picked up an expensive new generation racket (just to see it, naturally) and I had the impression that it was extremely easy to play with! Many friends tell me, however, that they always suffer more from aches and epicondylitis. Surely carbon offers the same resistance with greater lightness... but also with greater vibration and less inertia. Consequently, in my opinion, the muscular system of the arm is more stressed and engaged. Naturally, this is not the case for the mechanics of a piano, but where Steinway has even shaped the key bushings screwed onto a felt pad on a shaped bar, also to zero out almost all vibrations at the moment of hammer-string impact, with carbon mounted on other mechanisms, the vibration from imperfect tightening of the bushings is added to the vibration of the material which, although lighter, does not absorb stresses (bending, torsion, etc.) like wood. This affects the responsiveness of the action at sustained and continuous "forte" levels. This is what I believe. We will see if time proves me right. It might just be an obsession of mine.

Well, to support your thesis, we can say that any energy dissipated (in vibrations, in friction, in idle movements...) is something that does not contribute to the useful end, which is the sound. Furthermore, I believe that the modern approach to pianos and pianists cannot do without a certain inertia, which moreover should guarantee a certain controllability... no?

certainly Giovanni!