As with all the ‘what-if’s’ we could come up with, this was a great solution unless the after-use mover were to forget to remove the tie line. I recall that a good set of the Darnell-Steinway casters (double rubber O-stem ball bearing hub ) could pose a rolling-away problem for an enthusiastic pianist, a problem for which my friendly stage manager taught me the wonders of a few snug wraps of 1/8” tie line around the base of wheels. The issue is somewhat confused by the fact that we’re speaking of a NY (long-leg) D, as opposed to the more massive Hamburg leg with brass concert casters, which, when well maintained, will begin to roll if you look at them funny. The matter of stress is more a function of the efficiency of the caster. The most appropriate way to move a grand piano of any size (on its casters) would be to have personnel taking some weight off (lifting) at each leg. You propose that the wheels are intended (not just as a matter of happenstance) to relieve stress on leg to keyboard joints (as well as leg structural joints), but you portray those stresses as being introduced by moving, on those casters: without that movement, there’s no stress for the wheels to relieve. There is a bit of inconsistency in your argument. The carpet scenario is yet another ‘special’ circumstance that can needs to be addressed appropriately, but which should not be used as the justifying norm. No one implied that piano (S&S D) was going to be mindlessly pushed around. Terry, you too end up setting up something of a ‘red herring’. (And, as an afterthought, is it possible that the metric weight would have included brass concert wheels, while the English measurement was without? ) Meanwhile, while Horace was quick to correct his dissemination of the flawed weight data found on the Steinway website (and thus, not a flaw – a feature?), his estimate of hundreds of other variables. > *To:* *Subject:* Re: Steinway D casters > *From:* [mailto: *On Behalf Of *Joseph Garrett > a piano truck for someone’s gracious living room? > idea of ANY of the specific circumstances. > the assumed resources and the motives behind the choice. > the purpose of the casters, the perceived financial dissonance between
#Steinway casters cups series
> You made a series of assumptions in proffering your response, including
> that the hardest thing to quantify, definitively, is human stupidity.
> range of ‘best’, ‘normal’, and ‘worst-case’ situations, keeping in mind > interesting to have real numbers to assign to those stresses, in a > generation of such pronouncements, they’re true only in the most cosmic While I am loath to deny you the visceral pleasure derived from the
0 kommentar(er)
