Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 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" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 Interesting comment from Roark that the original Inch handle was not cast. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 Lots of evidence that the original handle is 2.38" but notable replicas are 2.47" handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 Length of handle on the original is another question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 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") 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Climber028 Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist of Fury Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 Handle size is the only important factor. The globe size depends on what material you use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Climber028 Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 9, 2021 Author Share Posted September 9, 2021 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist of Fury Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted September 10, 2021 Author Share Posted September 10, 2021 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubgeezer Posted September 10, 2021 Share Posted September 10, 2021 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? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Climber028 Posted September 10, 2021 Share Posted September 10, 2021 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. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Conjugate Iron Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 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! 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.