Hi Rob and Thomas,

A most perfect answer Rob. I could not have put it better.

The old makers knew nothing quantitive of stress and strain and force vectors, but they had a good intuitive grasp of pushes and pulls. I am reminded of the great Gothic cathedral builders, also empiricists. The cathedrals we see today are the ones that were successful in engineering terms. All the others collapsed during building or fairly quickly thereafter. So we only see a filtered residue of structurally excellent ones. In exactly the same way, harpsichords were developed empirically and the ones that busted apart from being unable to take the string band tension are no longer with us. So the residue of designs that worked are what we have left. Almost an evolutionary survival of the fittest (but I am not actually suggesting that).

Given also that time and materials are always expensive, makers like Ruckers put in just the bare minimum to do the job of holding up against the forces, but also with an awareness of resonance and lightness. The mistake the serien makers made was to build instruments that could withstand the weight of an elephant pulling on the case, with a gain in strength but a massive loss in tone.

I wonder what the basis of your question is exactly? Are you asking what parts could be left out, being of lesser importance? Can you clarify? It’s an interesting topic.

Andrew



::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::