ztyper wrote:

​I can actually see the logic behind this. It's a very old machine, and if it was heavily used, then a lot of the parts were worn down more. I wouldn't treat my 1909 Underwood 4 the same way I would treat my 1953 Underwood SX-100 because the #4 is less refined and needs more attention to get it working sometimes...

I disagree with your reasoning. First off, the video's author was making a blanket statement asserting that increased typing speeds were not "healthy" for typewriters in general. No distinction was made between lame, clapped-out typewriters and examples that are in pristine condition. The typewriter used in his video, and even your 1909 Underwood, was designed to work at sustained speeds far greater than the videographer was demonstrating, and companies back then went to great lengths to prove the performance capabilities and durability of their models. Typing speed competitions were already being held during the late 1800s, and by the time your Underwood was manufactured they had already become established international showcases.

If you want to assume that a particular machine has been so heavily used that its parts threaten to break while typing, then it doesn't make any difference if a person is tapping out sentences at 40 or 80 words per minute - providing that he is a good typist (if typebars are constantly being jammed because a poor typist has exceeded his capabilities, then of course the machine is more likely to be damaged). The notion that increased speed is more damaging makes no sense. If a part is that badly worn then it will eventually fail regardless of any slight difference in typing speed. 

The example you used to prove your point has more to do with the current condition of two specific machines, and can't be used to discuss typewriters in general. From your description it sounds like your older Underwood is in worse overall mechanical condition compared to your newer one; stretching that to mean all older machines are less robust and more prone to fail because of increased typing speeds compared to newer models doesn't work. I could easily pull two typewriters off a shelf that would demonstrate the exact opposite that an older machine types better and faster than a newer one, and only because I picked out a newer one that was in worse condition.

Especially when it comes to standards, I never take their age into consideration when using them and apply the same technique and speed regardless of which machine is in front of me. Even my oldest machines (ones that are in good mechanical condition) are far more capable performers than I am, and they are more than likely to outlive me too - regardless of how fast I type.

The premise that newer models are automatically more refined or robust is also flawed. Manufacturers didn't always make changes with the goal to improve on the performance or durability of a previous model. Some changes were based on manufacturing costs, and the preservation of market competitiveness and profit margins, and those considerations became increasingly more dominant as the typewriter century entered its final few decades. There were also changes that were purely cosmetic. None of this is meant to suggest that I'm claiming your 1909 typewriter is in every way the equal of your 1953 model, it isn't, but I will contend that it is as capable of, and as likely to survive, higher typing speeds if the mechanical condition of the machines are equal to each other.

Uwe wrote:

If a part is that badly worn then it will eventually fail regardless of any slight difference in typing speed.

Agreed with one caveat: faster speeds are likely to mean higher accelerations of parts and higher accelerations mean more external force and more stress. Please don't read anymore into this than I put there - I did include any statement about good, bad, should or should not and certainly not the lame and meaningless "good for".  Jet turbine blades develop stress cracks and I suppose it's just possible that typewriter components do also, and the crack will propagate faster with hard use rather than light use and with light use rather than no use.  And so what?  Planes still fly and typewriters can still be typed on at any speed their owner is comfortable with. It's possible that the parts are so far away from their ultimate strength and from failure that this difference is insignificant, and even if it is significant you may decide to consume the residual life. You can't have your type cake and eat it too.
 

Uwe wrote:

The example you used to prove your point has more to do with the current condition of two specific machines, and can't be used to discuss typewriters in general. From your description it sounds like your older Underwood is in worse overall mechanical condition compared to your newer one; stretching that to mean all older machines are less robust and more prone to fail because of increased typing speeds compared to newer models doesn't work. I could easily pull two typewriters off a shelf that would demonstrate the exact opposite that an older machine types better and faster than a newer one, and only because I picked out a newer one that was in worse condition.

​Perhaps I wasn't clear about something. I never meant to say that all​ older machines are less robust and more prone to fail. My Royal standard line (which spans from 1928 to 1963 with 5 machines) is a great example of this. I found it significant how Royal did not really change their overall design from the 10 to the 440 with an exception of the typebar mechanism to improve the touch. And yes, you would be right to say that the later models were perhaps not made to the same standard of quality as previous models with the Royal 10 vs. the Royal 440 being a great example. What I meant to give, was just an example of a refinement​ that might be considered an advantage​ when talking in regards to the ​Underwood ​standards. There are more points on the #4 than on the SX-100 for wear. Ball bearings are much smoother than the metal-on-metal back carriage rail in my opinion. But what do I know.

And I had also meant to give an example of how the #4 needed a bit more care to reduce wear on it. It's in great condition considering its age, and so is the SX-100. Yes, there are a lot of changes that were not made in 40+ year, like the escapement and the ribbon advancement mechanism. But the carriage and the typebar mechanism are great examples of how some changes were made to slightly reduce the wear that went on in the machine. Did it work? Who knows, both typewriters are still going at about the same rate. But it was an effort to reduce the possibility of wear. ​And perhaps this is where the misunderstanding is. You believe that there is no difference, where I believe there is. Though to be honest, neither of us know, and nor did the original engineers because they all died before they could find out.

​I hope this cleared some stuff up. I never meant to say that the #4 is somehow a worse machine compared to its descendent, just a different one in its operation and care.

By the way, TypewriterKing, you set an example for modesty when you place yourself in the middle of the scale of intelligence for typewriter users because I would set you far beyond that mark - you have been maintaining wonderful mechanical writing instruments which the world had foolishly cast aside for a long time now, until the world comes to its senses. It's as if traditional musical instruments had been piled by the curb as worthless when the synthesizer was invented while a few people collected and maintained them.

I think this was allowed to happen because so many typewriters led purely utilitarian lives. The office standards we love to write on today for the sheer pleasure of writing were designed for business correspondence and the author who owned one probably never got it new even when the machines were available new. They have been solidly superseded for their original market but in the process we almost lost them as instruments of prose and poetry. And we still will eventually unless enough interest can be created to start manufacturing at least a few fine ones again - hard to do because the discard heap is still so very well stocked.