Typewriter Talk

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



16-12-2017 12:36:14  #1


Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

I'm doing some comparisons between a 1940 KMM and 1948 KMM and I noticed on the older one there are springs  on all the type bars' back rod things (I assume there's a more technical term I have yet to learn) and the newer one doesn't have any. Please tell me it's an improvement on the design and I'm not missing a bunch of springs. Here's a picture (this is what it looked like before I cleaned it) of the springs on the '40:
https://i.imgur.com/o8gGOHQ.jpg?1


Also, if I ever need new springs where would be the best place to get them and how can I find out the correct tension to use? Can I take the old spring to a Lowes or some similar place and find a spring that looks and feels the same? Or does Amazon have a good selection? Thanks!

 

16-12-2017 13:38:36  #2


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

I think you are referring to the Universal Bar Link Springs, shown in the diagram here:
https://imgur.com/W4JIpFt.jpg

You need those springs to provide the tension to pull the type bars back; the tension of these springs provide the touch control for the action. Without the springs there is nothing to pull back the type bars after striking the key, except gravity and the bounce off the platen. To replace the springs you will need to pull them from a dead Royal standard. They used the same springs for decades, so it wouldn't have to be a KMM.
 

 

16-12-2017 14:14:28  #3


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

Here is what one looks like that I pulled from a parts machine:
https://imgur.com/vx85tAd.jpg

 

 

16-12-2017 15:12:54  #4


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

I can assure you that will not find a spring like that at a big box store. Just where to get specialized springs is a challenge; probably need to see if there are any specialized sellers on the 'net. But how do you know what spring tension to get? 

 

19-12-2017 15:01:52  #5


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

Now that I have both KMMs side by side I noticed that there isn't a spot for the springs on the '48. All those holes on the older one aren't there on the newer. And once I get the keys moving freely I don't see the point in having springs at all. My Underwood from '47 doesn't have springs either, so maybe it's just the evolution of the design. For reference the '48 Royal's serial number is 3737880 with a 10" platen. 

     Thread Starter
 

19-12-2017 15:50:43  #6


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

SquireDante wrote:

Now that I have both KMMs side by side I noticed that there isn't a spot for the springs on the '48. All those holes on the older one aren't there on the newer. And once I get the keys moving freely I don't see the point in having springs at all. My Underwood from '47 doesn't have springs either, so maybe it's just the evolution of the design. For reference the '48 Royal's serial number is 3737880 with a 10" platen. 

It is not an evolution of design, because they used the same springs on the KMG, which came after. Underwoods wouldn't have those springs as it is not the same mechanism. These springs are unique to Royal standards.

I was not aware they made KMM's without these springs, so I am curious to see a photo of the underside of your machine.
 

 

19-12-2017 16:20:47  #7


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

SoucekFan wrote:

You need those springs to provide the tension to pull the type bars back; the tension of these springs provide the touch control for the action. Without the springs there is nothing to pull back the type bars after striking the key, except gravity and the bounce off the platen.

I was rethinking my remark here, and it is not 100% accurate. There are a couple other parts of the mechanism that also provide some push or pull back at various points in the type bar movement, but it is just very limp without the springs--on the typical Royal KMM mechanism.

 

20-12-2017 12:19:32  #8


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

It is not an evolution of design, because they used the same springs on the KMG, which came after. Underwoods wouldn't have those springs as it is not the same mechanism. These springs are unique to Royal standards.
 

When I compared the Royal to the Underwood I meant that a typewriter from the same time didn't have springs, so it is possible they're not required.

I do wonder how much the size of the platen/carriage changes the overall design. I've been inside both the '40 (which has a 14" platen) and '48 quite a bit and there are subtle differences. Maybe they wanted the smaller KMMs to be easier to type and left the springs out. I changed the touch control on both of them and the '48 never needs as much force to type as the '40.
Or maybe the guy who was supposed to put in the holes and springs missed work that day. 
I personally like the snap and bounce of my Underwood better than either of these lumbering Royals. 

Here are some pictures of the '48. 

https://i.imgur.com/v0lJA5k.jpg?4


https://i.imgur.com/MxqcZEc.jpg?1

     Thread Starter
 

21-12-2017 00:31:38  #9


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

Is there no part at the rear, linked to the touch control, with a bunch of tiny holes, that adjusts the length of the springs for tension? I am confused as to how it could have touch control with no Universal Bar Link Springs.

 

21-12-2017 12:29:04  #10


Re: Missing springs on newer Royal KMM?

Aha! The springs are at the front of the typewriter. Novice that I am, I never studied the touch control on the '40 to see what it connected to. I wonder when and why they made the change. 


https://i.imgur.com/qijQhkr.jpg?1

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum

Typewriter Talk