Jump to content


Photo

Future Of Rating Grippers!


  • Please log in to reply
76 replies to this topic

#61 OFFLINE   Magnus

Magnus

    GripBoard Mash Monster Level 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,661 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 7 Months and 26 Days
  • Local time: 04:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:13 AM

the x factors could be used the change the poundage needed to close into another number that would represent gripper difficulty.  so, a 200# gripper that rated out to a 7.4 for example would beat a a 7.3 that had a closing poundage of 201#.  that's what people are trying to say.  scoring wouldn't be based on 2 different numbers for each gripper.  these numbers and factors would all be combined so that dificulty was rated, rather than poundage to close.

 

of course, we aren't really even close to figuring out and measuring all the other factors.

 

^Exactly. This isn't something that you whip up overnight. Nobody's even remotely suggesting that we scrap every scoring method we use now. 

 

What I would like to see is to take two grippers - one with a hard but consistent sweep, and another that binds like crazy like the MM3 - and just collect the poundage at small intervals of distance. I'm taking a guess that the first would exhibit more ideal spring behavior (linear), while the other would depart from that towards the end of the close and start to peak a bit. They need not be the same closing strength, but that would be a plus.



#62 OFFLINE   mudhutmasher

mudhutmasher

    MM4, CoC 3, KOAB, Red Nail

  • GB Contributor Level 1

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,982 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 11 Months and 10 Days
  • Local time: 03:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 11:53 AM

 

the x factors could be used the change the poundage needed to close into another number that would represent gripper difficulty.  so, a 200# gripper that rated out to a 7.4 for example would beat a a 7.3 that had a closing poundage of 201#.  that's what people are trying to say.  scoring wouldn't be based on 2 different numbers for each gripper.  these numbers and factors would all be combined so that dificulty was rated, rather than poundage to close.

 

of course, we aren't really even close to figuring out and measuring all the other factors.

 

^Exactly. This isn't something that you whip up overnight. Nobody's even remotely suggesting that we scrap every scoring method we use now. 

 

What I would like to see is to take two grippers - one with a hard but consistent sweep, and another that binds like crazy like the MM3 - and just collect the poundage at small intervals of distance. I'm taking a guess that the first would exhibit more ideal spring behavior (linear), while the other would depart from that towards the end of the close and start to peak a bit. They need not be the same closing strength, but that would be a plus.

..im just not seeing where any "data" would be needed i guess. all you have to do is give a gripper a squeez to know if its got a hard sweep or an easy one. and MM3 doesnt really "bind up". its just got a relatively easy sweep in comparison to its closing poundage. AND, heres the kicker- i didnt need any sweep data to come to that conclusion with the MM3.



#63 OFFLINE   Magnus

Magnus

    GripBoard Mash Monster Level 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,661 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 7 Months and 26 Days
  • Local time: 04:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:01 PM

 

 

the x factors could be used the change the poundage needed to close into another number that would represent gripper difficulty.  so, a 200# gripper that rated out to a 7.4 for example would beat a a 7.3 that had a closing poundage of 201#.  that's what people are trying to say.  scoring wouldn't be based on 2 different numbers for each gripper.  these numbers and factors would all be combined so that dificulty was rated, rather than poundage to close.

 

of course, we aren't really even close to figuring out and measuring all the other factors.

 

^Exactly. This isn't something that you whip up overnight. Nobody's even remotely suggesting that we scrap every scoring method we use now. 

 

What I would like to see is to take two grippers - one with a hard but consistent sweep, and another that binds like crazy like the MM3 - and just collect the poundage at small intervals of distance. I'm taking a guess that the first would exhibit more ideal spring behavior (linear), while the other would depart from that towards the end of the close and start to peak a bit. They need not be the same closing strength, but that would be a plus.

..im just not seeing where any "data" would be needed i guess. all you have to do is give a gripper a squeez to know if its got a hard sweep or an easy one. and MM3 doesnt really "bind up". its just got a relatively easy sweep in comparison to its closing poundage. AND, heres the kicker- i didnt need any sweep data to come to that conclusion with the MM3.

 

 

I've closed the MM3 dude. My cert video was hosed up due to crappy lighting and you couldn't see the close, but I know what it feels like. I think most would agree that it binds at the end.

 

its just got a relatively easy sweep in comparison to its closing poundage

 

 

This would constitute binding. 


Edited by Magnus, 18 July 2013 - 12:10 PM.


#64 OFFLINE   mudhutmasher

mudhutmasher

    MM4, CoC 3, KOAB, Red Nail

  • GB Contributor Level 1

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,982 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 11 Months and 10 Days
  • Local time: 03:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:22 PM

 

 

 

the x factors could be used the change the poundage needed to close into another number that would represent gripper difficulty.  so, a 200# gripper that rated out to a 7.4 for example would beat a a 7.3 that had a closing poundage of 201#.  that's what people are trying to say.  scoring wouldn't be based on 2 different numbers for each gripper.  these numbers and factors would all be combined so that dificulty was rated, rather than poundage to close.

 

of course, we aren't really even close to figuring out and measuring all the other factors.

 

^Exactly. This isn't something that you whip up overnight. Nobody's even remotely suggesting that we scrap every scoring method we use now. 

 

What I would like to see is to take two grippers - one with a hard but consistent sweep, and another that binds like crazy like the MM3 - and just collect the poundage at small intervals of distance. I'm taking a guess that the first would exhibit more ideal spring behavior (linear), while the other would depart from that towards the end of the close and start to peak a bit. They need not be the same closing strength, but that would be a plus.

..im just not seeing where any "data" would be needed i guess. all you have to do is give a gripper a squeez to know if its got a hard sweep or an easy one. and MM3 doesnt really "bind up". its just got a relatively easy sweep in comparison to its closing poundage. AND, heres the kicker- i didnt need any sweep data to come to that conclusion with the MM3.

 

 

I've closed the MM3 dude. My cert video was hosed up due to crappy lighting and you couldn't see the close, but I know what it feels like. I think most would agree that it binds at the end.

 

its just got a relatively easy sweep in comparison to its closing poundage

 

 

This would constitute binding. 

use whatever excuse you like. it didnt bind on me. :laugh



#65 OFFLINE   Magnus

Magnus

    GripBoard Mash Monster Level 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,661 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 7 Months and 26 Days
  • Local time: 04:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 03:03 PM

 

use whatever excuse you like. it didnt bind on me. :laugh

 

 

Lol.

 

http://www.gripboard...nk snyder mm3

 

See post #14. Botched video of the attempt is also on page 3. 


Edited by Magnus, 18 July 2013 - 03:06 PM.


#66 OFFLINE   mudhutmasher

mudhutmasher

    MM4, CoC 3, KOAB, Red Nail

  • GB Contributor Level 1

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,982 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 11 Months and 10 Days
  • Local time: 03:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:42 PM

 

 

use whatever excuse you like. it didnt bind on me. :laugh

 

 

Lol.

 

http://www.gripboard...nk snyder mm3

 

See post #14. Botched video of the attempt is also on page 3. 

 

wow.. okay well it looks like it didnt bind up on you either. lol!

i think MM3 is just an easy one to set is all.. i actually missed an attempt on an over-set. it feels a lot like an Elite when you set it, but does finish like a 180lb gripper.

being that i deal with hardware daily, i just cant call what the MM3 does a "bind"..  to me, it just does what a tsg is supposed to do, and that is- get harder the closer the handles come together.



#67 OFFLINE   Mighty Joe

Mighty Joe

    Master Collector

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,591 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 4 Months and 26 Days
  • Local time: 02:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:31 PM

 

the x factors could be used the change the poundage needed to close into another number that would represent gripper difficulty.  so, a 200# gripper that rated out to a 7.4 for example would beat a a 7.3 that had a closing poundage of 201#.  that's what people are trying to say.  scoring wouldn't be based on 2 different numbers for each gripper.  these numbers and factors would all be combined so that dificulty was rated, rather than poundage to close.

 

of course, we aren't really even close to figuring out and measuring all the other factors.

 

^Exactly. This isn't something that you whip up overnight. Nobody's even remotely suggesting that we scrap every scoring method we use now. 

 

What I would like to see is to take two grippers - one with a hard but consistent sweep, and another that binds like crazy like the MM3 - and just collect the poundage at small intervals of distance. I'm taking a guess that the first would exhibit more ideal spring behavior (linear), while the other would depart from that towards the end of the close and start to peak a bit. They need not be the same closing strength, but that would be a plus.

 

Magnus, I will do the experiment you suggest and I have the ideal grippers as well.

 

How many increments do you want between start to closed?

 

Now I would like to bring up something I discovered today from a retired math professor at Henderson County Junior College

in Athens Texas. I explained to him what was being discussed here and even encouraged him to go to the GB forum and read

the exchanges on this subject. He reminded me that the total force to close the gripper can never be left out of any percentage

formula one may use and that the "x" factor number can never be higher than the total force number. It was beyond him as to

how the increments between open and closed could be put into a formula that would be beneficial to the user. Nothing will change

how much force it takes to shut the gripper.

 

Now we have Tommy and yourself disagreeing over how an MM3 felt at the end which is a subjective disagreement that has

no formula to allow quantification into the mix so that the disagreement can be cast into the objective realm and the issue

be resolved.

 

I'm pretty much done with arguing over something that doesn't yet exist but I'm far from done on testing what's suggested

here! Anyone else want to throw something into what Magnus has suggested so that I can accomplish several tests at one

time? I'm game guys! I love testing and experimenting anyways! I must say I won't run an arbitrary test that is not conducive to

this topic just for the sake of satisfying one's curiosity on a certain aspect of rating grippers. i do like what Magnus is suggesting here though!

 

If conditions are right and humidity levels are low this Sunday I will even video the tests!

 

BTW, some of my remarks may seem cocky and arrogant but that's not my intent here. I'm actually trying to throw some humor into

a serious topic worthy of serious discussion but hey we need to have fun too guys! Agree? Hope so!!!

 

Thanks again to everyone participating in this thread!!!



#68 OFFLINE   Magnus

Magnus

    GripBoard Mash Monster Level 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,661 posts
  • Joined 6 Years, 7 Months and 26 Days
  • Local time: 04:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 06:50 PM

Depends on how many you feel like doing. 10 would be OK for the sake of producing a decent graph, but the more the better, particularly with the gripper with the easy sweep/hard close. Also depends on if you have a convenient means of measuring the increments. It could be a pain if you're only using a ruler or tape measure. 



#69 OFFLINE   bwwm

bwwm

    GripBoard Gripomaniac

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,817 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 1 Month
  • Local time: 01:56 PM

Posted 18 July 2013 - 09:33 PM

We have to be careful, because a lot of terms are being thrown around.  The maximum force, will be the force at close, unless there is something really funky going on with the spring (but assume we ignore that for now).  The work performed over the sweep of the gripper is what people are proposing.  For example, if one had a 180# gripper that ramped up quickly to say 170# within the first few degrees, and then slowly increased to 180# (max) over the rest of the spread, that gripper would definitely feel harder than a gripper that ramped up to 120# within the first few degrees, and stayed that way until say the last few degrees before close where it increased to 180# (max).  So if one were to come up with a 'gripper difficulty metric', then one would probably need to state what the 'minimum curve' would be for a particular gripper over the sweep.  For two grippers with the same RGC, I think most folks would agree that the gripper with the higher curve would be harder.  

 

Where it becomes a little less clear, is when one starts comparing curves of a different maximum force.  It's possible that a gripper with a much tougher sweep, but somewhat less maximum force is compared with a gripper that has an easy sweep, but higher maximum force, that the work exerted to close the first would exceed that to close the second.  That's where I see there being some potential conflict between using the work instead of the maximum force.

 

With the plate loaded grippers (again assuming no funny business), one will experience the maximum force throughout the sweep.  What then becomes interesting is what role hand size and 'set' of the plate loaded gripper might play, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.   



#70 OFFLINE   Hubgeezer

Hubgeezer

    GripBoard Gripomaniac

  • GB Contributor Level 3

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,511 posts
  • Joined 10 Years, 5 Months and 18 Days
  • Local time: 01:56 PM

Posted 19 July 2013 - 01:27 AM

I remember, in 2004, on this board, where the holy grail of gripper difficulty was "wire size". Before that, there was the Euro-calibrated grippers by Mikael, the methodology of which was explained by him in David Horne's Iron Grip Magazine. Both of these would seem outright silly by virtually everyone who has posted on this thread in the last few days. It will be interesting in another 8 or 9 years how this current discussion will be viewed.
All of this time, the original "Mash Monster" grippers, which will never be calibrated, continue to roll along, and remain unchanged. It's kind of nice to have something that does not change one iota, even during times at which everything is constantly evolving, opinions being changed, and more sophisticated methods of measuring being developed.

#71 OFFLINE   jchap

jchap

    GripBoard Gripomaniac

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 737 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 11 Months and 21 Days
  • Local time: 02:56 PM

Posted 19 July 2013 - 05:25 AM

I remember, in 2004, on this board, where the holy grail of gripper difficulty was "wire size". Before that, there was the Euro-calibrated grippers by Mikael, the methodology of which was explained by him in David Horne's Iron Grip Magazine. Both of these would seem outright silly by virtually everyone who has posted on this thread in the last few days. It will be interesting in another 8 or 9 years how this current discussion will be viewed.
All of this time, the original "Mash Monster" grippers, which will never be calibrated, continue to roll along, and remain unchanged. It's kind of nice to have something that does not change one iota, even during times at which everything is constantly evolving, opinions being changed, and more sophisticated methods of measuring being developed.

Who thinks wire size is silly?



#72 OFFLINE   Electron

Electron

    Elite 59k

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Joined 3 Years, 3 Months and 22 Days
  • Local time: 02:56 PM

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:29 AM


I remember, in 2004, on this board, where the holy grail of gripper difficulty was "wire size". Before that, there was the Euro-calibrated grippers by Mikael, the methodology of which was explained by him in David Horne's Iron Grip Magazine. Both of these would seem outright silly by virtually everyone who has posted on this thread in the last few days. It will be interesting in another 8 or 9 years how this current discussion will be viewed.
All of this time, the original "Mash Monster" grippers, which will never be calibrated, continue to roll along, and remain unchanged. It's kind of nice to have something that does not change one iota, even during times at which everything is constantly evolving, opinions being changed, and more sophisticated methods of measuring being developed.

Who thinks wire size is silly?

Those who have compared:

-grippers with same wire but different spreads.
-grippers with same wire but different mounts.
-grippers with same wire but different handle lengths.
-grippers with same wire but different winds.
-etc. I could go on, but we've covered many X factors on this very thread.

#73 OFFLINE   Randall Strossen

Randall Strossen

    Sponsor

  • GB Contributor Level 3

  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined 3 Years
  • Local time: 12:56 PM

Posted 20 July 2013 - 12:25 PM

 

Joe,

 

     Very interesting Article.

     One Question I have had for a long time (although a little off-toptic).  Where do you place the strap on the gripper handle -  at the very end of the gripper handle or at the middle of the gripper handle?

     Lee Hayward on behalf of HG said HG rates their grippers at the middle of the gripper handle.  ( the Cannon wedsite also rates the CofC much lower than Ironmind.  Does Ironmind also rate the CofC at the middle of the gripper handle?) 

     It would  nice if all gripper companies would rate their grippers the same way.

 

Gary,

 

For RGC, you add the strap to the end of the knurling, not necessarily the end of the handle.

 

I did not know Lee did this for HG.  Where did you see this?  What were the numbers he got?

 

IronMind numbers do not come from a rating device as far as I know.

 

Jedd

 

Jedd -

 

I always thought the HG numbers were meant to sound good but had little relationship to any real world standard because I've never seen grippers come out with load levels like 100, 150, 200, etc. no matter who rates them.

 

Incorrect about IronMind grippers—the Captains of Crush book has a lot of detail on this subject if anyone's interested—but even though IronMind pioneered rating grippers, we have also been in the vanguard in terms of trying to explain the limitations of rating systems.  

 

Also, I think we're better known for the latter (pointing out the concerns) than the former (pioneering gripper ratings), especially because TEDS tends to go on and on about GOPD.   :D



#74 OFFLINE   raven2

raven2
  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • Joined 4 Years, 9 Months and 14 Days
  • Local time: 02:56 PM

Posted 20 July 2013 - 08:53 PM

[quote name="bwwm" post="577658" timestamp="1374208422"]
Where it becomes a little less clear, is when one starts comparing curves of a different maximum force.  It's possible that a gripper with a much tougher sweep, but somewhat less maximum force is compared with a gripper that has an easy sweep, but higher maximum force, that the work exerted to close the first would exceed that to close the second.  That's where I see there being some potential conflict between using the work instead of the maximum force."
 
I think this is where the rotational forces come in to play. I.e. a dude can bench 300 on a barbell, but can't bench two 150 lb dumbells or do a ring push-up with 300 lbs on his back. While the max force production requirements are the same, there are multi-planar issues that throw a hitch in said dude's giddy-up.
  • Mike Sharkey likes this

#75 OFFLINE   Gary Gray

Gary Gray

    GripBoard Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined 2 Years, 4 Months and 1 Day
  • Local time: 03:56 PM

Posted 22 July 2013 - 05:26 AM

 

 

Joe,

 

     Very interesting Article.

     One Question I have had for a long time (although a little off-toptic).  Where do you place the strap on the gripper handle -  at the very end of the gripper handle or at the middle of the gripper handle?

     Lee Hayward on behalf of HG said HG rates their grippers at the middle of the gripper handle.  ( the Cannon wedsite also rates the CofC much lower than Ironmind.  Does Ironmind also rate the CofC at the middle of the gripper handle?) 

     It would  nice if all gripper companies would rate their grippers the same way.

 

Gary,

 

For RGC, you add the strap to the end of the knurling, not necessarily the end of the handle.

 

I did not know Lee did this for HG.  Where did you see this?  What were the numbers he got?

 

IronMind numbers do not come from a rating device as far as I know.

 

Jedd

 

Jedd -

 

I always thought the HG numbers were meant to sound good but had little relationship to any real world standard because I've never seen grippers come out with load levels like 100, 150, 200, etc. no matter who rates them.

 

Incorrect about IronMind grippers—the Captains of Crush book has a lot of detail on this subject if anyone's interested—but even though IronMind pioneered rating grippers, we have also been in the vanguard in terms of trying to explain the limitations of rating systems.  

 

Also, I think we're better known for the latter (pointing out the concerns) than the former (pioneering gripper ratings), especially because TEDS tends to go on and on about GOPD.   :D

 

Randall,

 

     I agree the HG (round numbers) look questionable.

 

     Ironmind does list poundage for the CofC Grippers, and this poundage is much higher than the RGC Ratings found on both the Cannon and Gillingham Websites.    From following the GripBoard for over a year I believe that the CofC gripper is a top quality, consistant  gripper.   (a No. 2 made today is the same as a No. 2 made 5 years ago)

 

     I also believe that the RGC is an accurate way to rate grippers - assuming that the strap is always placed at the same place on the handle (at the end - not the middle).



#76 OFFLINE   Cannon

Cannon

    GripBoard Mash Monster Level 1

  • Moderators

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,558 posts
  • Joined 8 Years, 5 Months and 16 Days
  • Local time: 02:56 PM

Posted 22 July 2013 - 12:14 PM

I try and have a healthy perspective about what's possible with the RGC method.  Here is a message I wrote recently while discussing the issue.  Figured I would post it here with a couple more comments added:

 

 

The averages posted on Cannon PowerWorks are for marketing in my opinion.  A way to organize or even make a recommendation. I don't think it's useful to talk about different era grippers and try to generalize about their strength.  Any given gripper could be anywhere.  You just have to rate them and find out.  You're learning more about THAT gripper, not all grippers 

 

Any given rated gripper is what it is -- pounds at the close.  Doesn't tell you everything you need to know about how it will feel in the hand.  And actually only tells you ONE thing about how it will feel in the hand.  There are many more variables which are not easy to capture.  Margin of error?  Definitely.  Some major sources are spring use, spring maintenance, and strap placement. 

 

I think it's crazy when I see decimals reported, as if we can be that accurate.  It might be what the weights totaled, but how can you say the rating is 150.32 unless you checked each .01 increment?  One thing I've experimented with is using a cup of sand to finish off the gripper.  Add sand at the last little bit until the gripper is exactly shut, then weigh the cup.  It's not that tidy, though.  It's actually not that obvious when the gripper is exactly "closed" but closed so lightly that none of the weight is pinning the handles together.  This is why Cannon PowerWorks drops the decimal.  It's fairly obvious if you need a 1lb increment or not.  So the gripper either made it to the next pound or it didn't.           

 

I've raised my concerns about rated grippers in contests.  Ratings might help you organize a table, but it's not going to affect my choice much.  You better believe I'm not choosing a wide spread, thin handles, smooth handles, or any Atomgripz or Baraban (they just feel HARD to me).  In the end, even with ratings, I feel it's hard to tell what happened.  It's more like everybody is agreeing that they will be in a certain order, and you either went higher in the order than your competitor or not.  The same organization could be done with or without the ratings, but the ratings are at least one objective way to decide.  But I actually don't think ratings have helped issues like records tracking.  It probably is misleading.  I've exressed this to the IGC probably 2 years ago.     

 

Just some thoughts.  I could go on forever.  It just seems really simple to me -- what the ratings capture and what they do not.  One thing I know is the rating service is awfully popular at the store.

 



#77 OFFLINE   Randall Strossen

Randall Strossen

    Sponsor

  • GB Contributor Level 3

  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined 3 Years
  • Local time: 12:56 PM

Posted 22 July 2013 - 02:08 PM

I remember, in 2004, on this board, where the holy grail of gripper difficulty was "wire size". Before that, there was the Euro-calibrated grippers by Mikael, the methodology of which was explained by him in David Horne's Iron Grip Magazine. Both of these would seem outright silly by virtually everyone who has posted on this thread in the last few days. It will be interesting in another 8 or 9 years how this current discussion will be viewed.
All of this time, the original "Mash Monster" grippers, which will never be calibrated, continue to roll along, and remain unchanged. It's kind of nice to have something that does not change one iota, even during times at which everything is constantly evolving, opinions being changed, and more sophisticated methods of measuring being developed.

When it first came out, I got a headache reading the description of Mikael's method and it was easy to poke fun at because it had a subjective element to it, but as anyone reading this thread understands, whatever its weakness(s), it attempted to cover the very area(s) missed by RGCs or any other terminal load rating (sounds kind of fatal).  

 

TEDS says KISS and remember what the guy said about no matter how much you want to measure it, when it comes time to close the gripper, it is what it is and you will or you won't.