Jump to content

Inch Dumbbell specifications


Cannon

Recommended Posts

I feel like I should be able to find this--and I know I've seen threads over the years--but I'm looking for specifications on the Inch Dumbbell.

Weight is well documented. But dimensions, globe size, is it just cast iron, was the original painted, etc. 

Links to threads are welcome. I feel like a noob. I swear I tried the search function.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'll post stuff too as I find it. 

Stats confirmed so far:

Weight 172lbs
Handle diameter 2.38"
Handle circumference 7.50"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More info from Roark. 

Updated confirmed stats

Weight 172lbs
Handle diameter 2.38"
Handle circumference 7.50"
Handle length 4"
Sphere diameter 8.5"

Separately that post does address overall length but there is a discrepancy:
Overall length 20" or 20.5" (however if the bell diameters are 8.5" and the handle is 4" that indicates 21")

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cannon said:

More info from Roark. 

Updated confirmed stats

Weight 172lbs
Handle diameter 2.38"
Handle circumference 7.50"
Handle length 4"
Sphere diameter 8.5"

Separately that post does address overall length but there is a discrepancy:
Overall length 20" or 20.5" (however if the bell diameters are 8.5" and the handle is 4" that indicates 21")

 

 

Math here is missing the portion of the sphere absent due to the handle, called a frustrum. Not simple arithmetic to get the length. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Climber028 said:

Math here is missing the portion of the sphere absent due to the handle, called a frustrum. Not simple arithmetic to get the length. 

That makes sense. I reached out to Roark to see if he has consolidated info and clarification on the overall length. I actually included a guess about the absent part of the bell circumference as the reason for being shorter. But you taught me a new word! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

Handle size is the only important factor. The globe size depends on what material you use.

It probably barely matters, but the globe size does matter in that it changes the rotational intertia of the globe which is some portion of the difficulty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fist of Fury said:

Handle size is the only important factor. The globe size depends on what material you use.

Important in terms of what, though? 

I am looking for confirmed specs of the original bell, or the best information available. Any detail would be as important as another. 

But you've raised another question for me... original material? :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

Important in terms of what, though? 

I am looking for confirmed specs of the original bell, or the best information available. Any detail would be as important as another. 

But you've raised another question for me... original material? :)

Important if you want to manufacture one. If you want to know out of historical reasons then it's another thing of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fist of Fury said:

Important if you want to manufacture one. If you want to know out of historical reasons then it's another thing of course.

That’s where I found it curious that many (most?) replicas had a larger 2.47” handle. Insert “you had one job” meme here. :tongue

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a thread in the "Gripboard" section last month, I had quoted from Willoughby's 1970 book, and this is copied from the Super Athletes book:

 

In 1956, at the annual Aberdeen (Scotland) Sports Revue, the Thomas Inch Challenge Dumbbell was brought onto the stage for all and sundry to have a go at. The bell was then owned by the Reg Park Barbell Company, Ltd. As long as Inch himself had possessed the bell, he had kept all information on its size to himself. (I know, because I once inquired of him concerning it.) But now, the dumbbell was on public view, and upon being measured its dimensions proved as follows: weight, 172 pounds, overall length, 20 inches; diameter of each sphere, 8 1/2 inches; circumference of handle, 7 3/4 inches (which would make the diameter 2.47 inches); length of handle between spheres, 4 inches

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

What I do not understand, is that it has always been stated as "Gospel" that Inch Replicas were 2.47 in diameter, and that the Original was 2.38. Here, we have possibly the most respected strength historian of the 20th Century stating that in 1956, the Original was measured, and the diameter was 2.47. 

Who changed History to make it less than the Replicas? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some theories. Back then they likely measured the circumference and calculated the diameter, so rounding pi could cause an error, calculating by hand could give an error, or even something like the tension of whatever they used to measure could give an error. All of these could easily add up to a difference of 0.09 which is still a good error for hand measuring. 

It's not like they dragged this to a machine shop and it was measured by someone who understood metrology very well. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 9/10/2021 at 10:15 PM, Hubgeezer said:

In a thread in the "Gripboard" section last month, I had quoted from Willoughby's 1970 book, and this is copied from the Super Athletes book:

 

In 1956, at the annual Aberdeen (Scotland) Sports Revue, the Thomas Inch Challenge Dumbbell was brought onto the stage for all and sundry to have a go at. The bell was then owned by the Reg Park Barbell Company, Ltd. As long as Inch himself had possessed the bell, he had kept all information on its size to himself. (I know, because I once inquired of him concerning it.) But now, the dumbbell was on public view, and upon being measured its dimensions proved as follows: weight, 172 pounds, overall length, 20 inches; diameter of each sphere, 8 1/2 inches; circumference of handle, 7 3/4 inches (which would make the diameter 2.47 inches); length of handle between spheres, 4 inches

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

What I do not understand, is that it has always been stated as "Gospel" that Inch Replicas were 2.47 in diameter, and that the Original was 2.38. Here, we have possibly the most respected strength historian of the 20th Century stating that in 1956, the Original was measured, and the diameter was 2.47. 

Who changed History to make it less than the Replicas? 

Very interesting... Thanks for the info! 

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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