Jump to content

Future Of Rating Grippers!


mightyjoe

Recommended Posts

mightyjoe

Before I head to bed I thought I would mention that Saturday I will be headed to Tyler to invest in

a simple device to add to my DDM setup that will make it even more pin point accurate and in my estimation

pretty darn fool proof and possibly not even up for debate! ;)

Aaron C, you're going to LOVE this my friend!!! Hopefully others will as well!!!

I LOVE Rating Grippers!!!

Can I get a hell yeah?!?! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mightyjoe

    13

  • Magnus

    9

  • climber511

    7

  • Cannon

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You really need to go to more comps and close more rated grippers with different numbers then. At comps in the past and then at Nationals this year (and several of us since then) have had (and are cu

The future of gripper rating is going to mean a graph of gripper strength done every mm etc to create a graph showing force needed throughout the close from start to finish. I have no idea what it wi

Good idea Joe. I've also dreamed up many other ways to streamline the process, or take weights out of the equation, etc. Thank you for experimenting with this. I'm saving my money for a computerize

Posted Images

bubba29

None of this will matter when i get certed on the coc 3 cause i can't change how that gripper is rated, in other words it is what it is because no matter what you do that big gripper is still going to be a pain in the A#@ to shut, I blacksmith and spring steel is great but its not perfect i like the fact the one three is harder than the next if they was all the same it would suck. And far as the way you rate your gripper i would have to say why not digital its 2013 its accurate its spot on im with Joe on this one because in the long run its just a ideal of what your up against its still gonna be a pain to close no matter what your rating system does.

Agreed and well said!

No one has yet to explain how this data would matter one bit in a contest!

How would this look on a scoring sheet? Bottom line is the highest number force closure wins!

There's no way around it folks! Just accept it! What seems to matter from my estimation of what's being said

is that an accurate, repeatable method of rating grippers is needed. What me and Aaron are testing is a huge

step towards this direction. You can graph strength curves all day long but when the scores are counted at a contest

(Nationals or not) the highest rated gripper close will be what counts! I would challenge anyone to explain differently

or how on earth a strength curve could be calculated into the scoring. Please! Be my guest! Can't wait to read it!!!

I will go ahead and give a bow in advance to the challenger for even trying! :bow

LOVE this thread!!! :rock

As they say in the UFC, LET'S GET IT ON!!! :devil

COME ON WITH IT!!!! :D

REMINDER TO MYSELF :calm

i'll admit, much of this stuff is over my head. i do have a question. do you think it is possible that a gripper that you rated with your system that has a closing poundage rating higher than another gripper you rated would be easier to close in the hands humans?

Link to post
Share on other sites
jchapman

None of this will matter when i get certed on the coc 3 cause i can't change how that gripper is rated, in other words it is what it is because no matter what you do that big gripper is still going to be a pain in the A#@ to shut, I blacksmith and spring steel is great but its not perfect i like the fact the one three is harder than the next if they was all the same it would suck. And far as the way you rate your gripper i would have to say why not digital its 2013 its accurate its spot on im with Joe on this one because in the long run its just a ideal of what your up against its still gonna be a pain to close no matter what your rating system does.

Agreed and well said!

No one has yet to explain how this data would matter one bit in a contest!

How would this look on a scoring sheet? Bottom line is the highest number force closure wins!

There's no way around it folks! Just accept it! What seems to matter from my estimation of what's being said

is that an accurate, repeatable method of rating grippers is needed. What me and Aaron are testing is a huge

step towards this direction. You can graph strength curves all day long but when the scores are counted at a contest

(Nationals or not) the highest rated gripper close will be what counts! I would challenge anyone to explain differently

or how on earth a strength curve could be calculated into the scoring. Please! Be my guest! Can't wait to read it!!!

I will go ahead and give a bow in advance to the challenger for even trying! :bow

LOVE this thread!!! :rock

As they say in the UFC, LET'S GET IT ON!!! :devil

COME ON WITH IT!!!! :D

REMINDER TO MYSELF :calm

Joe, I think there are a couple different thoughts going on in this thread. You are talking about finding the best way to measure the final pressure needed to touch the handles of the gripper in that one plane of motion. Then, the gripper with this highest final closing pressure is ranked as the hardest gripper to close.

Others are talking, more theoretically at this point, about finding a way to factor in other variables that make up how hard it is to close a gripper. Some of the variables mentioned are the spread, the mounting depth, the amount of skew of the handles that would require rotational forces or forces in more than the one plane of motion, force curves throughout the range of motion, etc. as well as the final pressure needed to touch the handles in the one plane of motion. If these variables could be taken into account, then a new value/unit of measure could be created for how hard it is to close a particular gripper. Then at a contest, the grippers would be ranked according to this new, possibly more inclusive, system.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin_Arildsson

One way to rank a gripper's toughness could be to take several measurements, like 20% from closed, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% and then take the average from those numbers. It would give a better understanding on how hard the gripper really is. On the other hand I always preferred the euro rating, but it's a lot harder to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mightyjoe

None of this will matter when i get certed on the coc 3 cause i can't change how that gripper is rated, in other words it is what it is because no matter what you do that big gripper is still going to be a pain in the A#@ to shut, I blacksmith and spring steel is great but its not perfect i like the fact the one three is harder than the next if they was all the same it would suck. And far as the way you rate your gripper i would have to say why not digital its 2013 its accurate its spot on im with Joe on this one because in the long run its just a ideal of what your up against its still gonna be a pain to close no matter what your rating system does.

Agreed and well said!

No one has yet to explain how this data would matter one bit in a contest!

How would this look on a scoring sheet? Bottom line is the highest number force closure wins!

There's no way around it folks! Just accept it! What seems to matter from my estimation of what's being said

is that an accurate, repeatable method of rating grippers is needed. What me and Aaron are testing is a huge

step towards this direction. You can graph strength curves all day long but when the scores are counted at a contest

(Nationals or not) the highest rated gripper close will be what counts! I would challenge anyone to explain differently

or how on earth a strength curve could be calculated into the scoring. Please! Be my guest! Can't wait to read it!!!

I will go ahead and give a bow in advance to the challenger for even trying! :bow

LOVE this thread!!! :rock

As they say in the UFC, LET'S GET IT ON!!! :devil

COME ON WITH IT!!!! :D

REMINDER TO MYSELF :calm

Joe, I think there are a couple different thoughts going on in this thread. You are talking about finding the best way to measure the final pressure needed to touch the handles of the gripper in that one plane of motion. Then, the gripper with this highest final closing pressure is ranked as the hardest gripper to close.

Others are talking, more theoretically at this point, about finding a way to factor in other variables that make up how hard it is to close a gripper. Some of the variables mentioned are the spread, the mounting depth, the amount of skew of the handles that would require rotational forces or forces in more than the one plane of motion, force curves throughout the range of motion, etc. as well as the final pressure needed to touch the handles in the one plane of motion. If these variables could be taken into account, then a new value/unit of measure could be created for how hard it is to close a particular gripper. Then at a contest, the grippers would be ranked according to this new, possibly more inclusive, system.

I very much understand the other issues but like I said show me what this would look like on the scoring sheet.

Regardless of what you label this other term would it show on the score sheet and make a difference in the final score?

Put another way, would this mystery unnamed figure mean anything to determine who won the gripper event? I simply can't

envision this in my small, finite mind. Believe me, I'm open to testing whatever you guys come up with but I think after

you see what I've came up with his weekend we can at least lay to rest the accuracy part of total amount of force to close said gripper.

I really do appreciate your input guys! Give me an experiment and I'll try to pull it off. Eric is even coming over next week

and we can double team our ideas here and see what we come up with.

What do you think my friends???

Did I mention I LOVE grippers?

Link to post
Share on other sites
mightyjoe

One way to rank a gripper's toughness could be to take several measurements, like 20% from closed, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% and then take the average from those numbers. It would give a better understanding on how hard the gripper really is. On the other hand I always preferred the euro rating, but it's a lot harder to do.

Thanks Martin! This is something I started to experiment with but when going this large of jumps would we have an accurate

estimate of the sweep and then we're back to the drawing board of how to incorporate this figure into the scoring that

would amount to nothing more than how hard a said gripper felt. let's say we come up with a way to quantify this feel and we further find a way to show this on a graph. Now, my question is what does one do with the data? Even more important how would this data reflect the final

scoring on a gripper event? Are we to imagine that contestant "A" closed a #200 gripper but the sweep has a number that reflects how it felt

through the sweep and it's higher than contestant "B" that closed a #201 gripper with a lower number through the sweep? in this scenario who

won the gripper event? I believe that even with data it boils to down to the arena of subjectivity.

If my thinking is in error then please help me understand this whole concept better. I have no problem adjusting my thinking to a better

way that's demonstrable in some objective manner. Make sense? No? Help me out then with your own examples/explanations!

I appreciate everyone's time on this thread!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
barbe705

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Link to post
Share on other sites
mightyjoe

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!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hubgeezer

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
jchapman

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Electron

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Gray

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cannon

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Randall Strossen

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
Jared Goguen

I just learned a lot from this thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
greasygorrilla

And to think I was just happy knowing the poundage of my grippers. Didn't know people were looking into it on this kind of level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rico300zx

Joe how about testing how much weight is needed for right handed close vs a left handed close maybe by tilting the gripper in the rating device. you may end up with a different curve for each direction which could help those certifying on off hand certs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Dax

Good idea Joe. I've also dreamed up many other ways to streamline the process, or take weights out of the equation, etc. Thank you for experimenting with this.

I'm saving my money for a computerized rig like this. :D You could map anything you wanted:

(If you know how to make this happen, please contact me. :flowers: )

Only problem with that setup is the fore is being applied at different point on the handle through the test (at the end it is ~halfway up the handle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.