macaz Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Two more calibrated Atomgripz IV = 166.1lb and Atompripz V = 205.4lb Ordered late friday night from Gripper Superstore & received today (monday). Cant believe how fast GSS is with orders! Thanks Wade I swear the handle is not touching. the gap is aprox. 4mm on the left. its just hard to tell with photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goezdd Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Nice work Rich...that is awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IZMAN Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I've never seen such a powerful grip! I think that is unlikely in the near future someone will shrink it, of living specimens of man on earth! " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted June 14, 2011 Author Share Posted June 14, 2011 Three more grippers calibrated today. RB260N = 126.5lb RB240B = 136.3lb new COC2.5 = 127lb Ordered them to get something in the 130+ range. The RB240 was a success at 136 Wish the 2.5 was 132 or so but it is nice to be able to close a 2.5 on an off day All were oiled 1st Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverbackgrip Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Great work Rich! Now all you need to do is build a titanium bench to test the T13......lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geralt Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Hahahaha! Insane stuff! Those grippers are far beyond usefull trainingequipment.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted July 25, 2011 Author Share Posted July 25, 2011 Built a RGC mount to calibrate the adjustable type grippers. Finished with my RB here are the results: RB Adjustable (in pounds) Silver Spring #1 = 20.3 #2 = 26.5 #3 = 32.8 #4 = 40.7 #5 = 49.7 #6 = 59.0 #7 = 67.7 #8 = 79.9 #9 = 89.7 #10 = 101.7 Gold Spring #1 = 55.3 #2 = 69.8 #3 = 86.8 #4 = 107.0 #5 = 125.9 #6 = 147.2 #7 = 168.3 #8 = 191.7 #9 = 216.7 #10 = 243.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 25, 2011 Share Posted July 25, 2011 Rich this is an awesome set up! One question from someone totally unfamiliar with gripper cailbration: if the strap holding the weights is "mounted" on the very end of the top gripper handle, should the bottom handle also be inserted so that the very end of the handle is being forced against the apparatus (rather than the middle of the bottom handle)? Something like this: | > | rather than this | > .| Please tell me if something like this doesn't make a difference or if this has been ansered before. Again-awesome set up! I have to get my grippers calibrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 Rich this is an awesome set up! One question from someone totally unfamiliar with gripper cailbration: if the strap holding the weights is "mounted" on the very end of the top gripper handle, should the bottom handle also be inserted so that the very end of the handle is being forced against the apparatus (rather than the middle of the bottom handle)? Something like this: | > | rather than this | > .| Please tell me if something like this doesn't make a difference or if this has been ansered before. Again-awesome set up! I have to get my grippers calibrated. Since the bottom is fixed and does no moving it does not matter where it is held. To the back is standard and also the only way you can do it because if the gripper was held towards the front then it would be in a position where the strap and the side (stabilizing) bars would interfere with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 The new rig... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGally Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 You got skills man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 You got skills man Thanks bro! What happened to your hairy chest Avitar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Awesome Rich, thanks for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGally Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 You got skills man Thanks bro! What happened to your hairy chest Avitar? I can put it back up if you really miss it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 .... Since the bottom is fixed and does no moving it does not matter where it is held. To the back is standard and also the only way you can do it because if the gripper was held towards the front then it would be in a position where the strap and the side (stabilizing) bars would interfere with each other. It depends on what you use for the bottom hold. Mine is full length but is 1" C channel with a little leather on top as to not ding the knurling, not pipe. same numbers as the regular design as I have cross calibrated with Eric, Chris, and a few others. I'm hoping to build a new version I drew up sometime in the next few months and I will post pics if you are interested. - Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share Posted July 26, 2011 .... Since the bottom is fixed and does no moving it does not matter where it is held. To the back is standard and also the only way you can do it because if the gripper was held towards the front then it would be in a position where the strap and the side (stabilizing) bars would interfere with each other. It depends on what you use for the bottom hold. Mine is full length but is 1" C channel with a little leather on top as to not ding the knurling, not pipe. same numbers as the regular design as I have cross calibrated with Eric, Chris, and a few others. I'm hoping to build a new version I drew up sometime in the next few months and I will post pics if you are interested. - Aaron I am interested in the pics Aaron. Im having trouble visualizing how you made it with a C channel. Also interested in the new design. Mine seems to be fairly accurate with regular grippers, I'd say + - 2 to 3 pounds. The main problem I have when calibrating regular grippers is that the last few plates gets sketchy. Like ill have a 2mm gap and add a 5 pound plate and it seems to over close so then I take off the 5 pounds to try a 2.5 pound plate. But when the 5 is removed the gripper stays closed. So did it need it? Ill usually pull it up a bit to see if it re closes which it may sometimes. The adjustable gripper seemed very accurate in measuring. I could get repeat #s to within less than a pound. It seems the pivot point in the RB adjustable makes for good reproduction. I find that the torsion spring in a regular gripper gets in the way of its self and a slight shift in handle position makes a couple pound difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 .... Since the bottom is fixed and does no moving it does not matter where it is held. To the back is standard and also the only way you can do it because if the gripper was held towards the front then it would be in a position where the strap and the side (stabilizing) bars would interfere with each other. It depends on what you use for the bottom hold. Mine is full length but is 1" C channel with a little leather on top as to not ding the knurling, not pipe. same numbers as the regular design as I have cross calibrated with Eric, Chris, and a few others. I'm hoping to build a new version I drew up sometime in the next few months and I will post pics if you are interested. - Aaron I am interested in the pics Aaron. I’m having trouble visualizing how you made it with a C channel. Also interested in the new design. Mine seems to be fairly accurate with regular grippers, I'd say + - 2 to 3 pounds. The main problem I have when calibrating regular grippers is that the last few plates gets sketchy. Like ill have a 2mm gap and add a 5 pound plate and it seems to over close so then I take off the 5 pounds to try a 2.5 pound plate. But when the 5 is removed the gripper stays closed. So did it need it? Ill usually pull it up a bit to see if it re closes which it may sometimes. The adjustable gripper seemed very accurate in measuring. I could get repeat #s to within less than a pound. It seems the pivot point in the RB adjustable makes for good reproduction. I find that the torsion spring in a regular gripper gets in the way of its self and a slight shift in handle position makes a couple pound difference Bottom Leg of the gripper rests on top of the C Channel. It kind of cradles it. Little bit of leather between to keep the knurling nice and keep the gripper from shifting. as far as holding the gripper in place I used to use heavy duty velcro strips wrapped around the the c channel and over the bottom handle. That held with up to a 227# #4 I tested but I didn't want to go any higher with that method. Will likely be switching to hose clamps in the future in the same orientation. I will be happy to show you the setup next time you come down. - Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 I modified my 1st gripper calibrator. I welded a small bar at the bottom. The small bar acts as an anchor for the grippers via a hose clamp. The bottom handle is fixed and this clamp does not affect the ratings as it does not interfere with the spring or gripper closing. This was done to keep the grippers from moving side to side. I think this was the biggest factor for any variations in RGC results. I tried to keep the handles touching centered but it was difficult before. Quite often the top handle would move a tad to the right or left. I think that the way it compresses the spring differently would make a small difference in results. I’m sure that anyone who has calibrated grippers knows about this problem and what a pain it is to correct. One thing I noticed is that with the bottom gripper fixed the springs natural slant makes the top handle shut moving towards the left (if you are facing it in the calibrator) If I started the gripper centered it would be touching the left bar at the close. To fix this I started the top handle almost touching the right bar as shown in1st photo Three new grippers calibrated and one old that was filed. COC#2.5 = @127 now 130.2#filed COC#3 = 158.0# (bummer I was hoping for an average 150#) COC#3.5 = 183.6# COC#4 = 213.7# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 That seems like a good mod, although I'd be interested to see you go back and re-rate some of your grippers a few times. Just to have lots of examples that you got essentially the same numbers as before, but less variation with the new set up. I know I reset every gripper I rate about 5ish times to ensure it's pulling down properly. Lots of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted September 7, 2011 Author Share Posted September 7, 2011 Thanks Matt. I intend to re do a few. Also two that I bought calabrated by someone else just to see how #s compare. One thing that was not clear in my post is that my 2.5 data @127 was unfiled and the 130# was after fileing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 I still think various sized blocks acting as inserts could differentiate grippers across the entire range of motion. Blocks ranging from 2.5 inches down to .25 inches, plus the close, and average the numbers for the total. Matt had my MM3 at 190 and my MM4 at 195, but he and I agreed the MM3 was tougher during the sweep. The insert method probably would have revealed that the MM3 was more than the MM4 overall. Nice set-up Rich! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 The new rig... Earl this the calibrator I PMed you about. I would add that stub thing 9in last calibrator mod) for you because it really makes life easy and makes the results more accurate. The bar with the red strap (weight hanging thing) you would have to make yourself. Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwwm Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 (edited) RichAZ - I don't know if you happened to have noticed this yet, but I took your CoC data for 1,2,2.5,3,3.5,4 and plotted the 'actual' that you measured versus what IM rates them for. I then put a trend line to the data, and the R^2 of the fit is 0.9883. Actual = 0.5663 * Rated + 1.6723 A 0.988 R^2 suggests to me that what you are doing has a very repeatable technique to it. Granted it's only 6 data points. Assuming a linear correlation gives the following estimates for the 'average' CoC: CoC Estimates (lbs) 1 78 2 109 2.5 133 3 157 3.5 181 4 205 {sorry for the editing - formatting of the table is not coming out very nice} Edited October 25, 2011 by bwwm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwwm Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I've been thinking about this, and I'm guessing the reason for the 0.56 slope is that they are probably assuming that the hand closing the gripper exerts the vector of force about maybe half way up the handle. In other words, and hand would exert force distributed along the handle, but the center point would be about half way up the handle. I wonder what your numbers would read if you centered your strap on the center of the handle. I'm guessing the slope would be closer to 1 for this correlation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaz Posted October 25, 2011 Author Share Posted October 25, 2011 RichAZ - I don't know if you happened to have noticed this yet, but I took your CoC data for 1,2,2.5,3,3.5,4 and plotted the 'actual' that you measured versus what IM rates them for. I then put a trend line to the data, and the R^2 of the fit is 0.9883. Actual = 0.5663 * Rated + 1.6723 A 0.988 R^2 suggests to me that what you are doing has a very repeatable technique to it. Granted it's only 6 data points. Assuming a linear correlation gives the following estimates for the 'average' CoC: CoC Estimates (lbs) 1 78 2 109 2.5 133 3 157 3.5 181 4 205 {sorry for the editing - formatting of the table is not coming out very nice} Are the estimate numbers you listed all based on my #s ? Very neat what you did. Are you a math major? Keep in mind if you used my 2.5 that is 140# that is a freak 2.5 I have an other that was 127# Thanks for what you did! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.