Tom Black Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 I just uploaded an article on my website detailing a way to measure and compare grippers. This actually started out as a post for the Gripboard, but became much too long and extensive. Also, after I started taking measurements and comparing I realized that I was on to something. I’d be very interested in some measurements of particular grippers, most notably Joe Roark’s #4 and some calibrated grippers. I have many grippers as a starting point to compare, but more would be even better. Please check out the article here: http://www.bigsteel.iwarp.com/Articles2/WAMA/Gripper.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apdwler Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Very very interesting. It looks like I have some measuring to do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roark Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 Tom, I never measured my #4 in this manner. Heath, If you see this, will you please supply the measurements? Now I am curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apdwler Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 Sorry, Tom, I'm really sleepy but isn't this backwards? If you want to just compare your own grippers you can also place them side-by-side, and the higher one with the same spring should be the harder gripper (if they are both seasoned). I’ve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DavidHW Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 FWIW: My No. 3: 131 mm high, by 37 mm diameter = (131-18.5) = 112.5 David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Black Posted July 26, 2002 Author Share Posted July 26, 2002 apdwler, You are correct. Just wanted to make sure people were paying attention I'm correcting it now. Funny I should make that error, it was precisely that observation that got the ball rolling on this idea. When I compared my training partners really strong double stamped #2 with my Master, I placed them side by side and they were the same height, and yet they were totally different in width. When I looked at the spring it is mounted so low it's unbelievable. This gripper isn't quite seasoned, but I can tell that it is very close to the Master and will end up the same closing force when completely seasoned. Joe, I didn't think you had measured your gripper that way, it was a hint for Heath to do so. I'm predicting in the 107 or 108 range. David, Excellent, I'll add it to the spreadsheet. Handle width would be good too, and I forgot to ask for the year the gripper was purchased, if you know it. Here's another tidbit, I did a blind test with my BB Advanced grippers. They have the same width, but the spring is mounted a bit deeper in one and the WAMA is thus 1mm different. I picked out the stronger gripper with no problem, and yet they look so similiar I had to remeasure to confirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Say Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 Here are the stats of mine: store gripper a: 142-16 = 126 store gripper b: 142-17 = 125 xmas T: 124-17.5 = 106.5 xmas #1: 127-17.5 = 109.5 July (really hard) #1: 124-18 = 106 xmas #2: 126-18 = 108 July #2: 123.5-17.5 = 106 July #2: 124-18 = 106 March #3: 126-18.5 = 107.5 My newest grippers aren't as squeaky as the ones I already had. I think that's why they're harder to keep closed, because there's less friction. I only used a ruler for measuring though. If I had a micrometer the measurements might be different. ??? Not that it really matters, but I guess there's no way of comparing a #2 to a #3? Oh yeah, the hard #1, all #2s & the #3 are all double-stamped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DavidHW Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 Just a thought ... I'm not a math whiz, so be nice. :-) What if one took the circumference of the spring and plopped it into the equation? Would it then be possible to establish an absolute scale of comparison where, say, a No. 1 could be compared directly to a No. 3? For example, my No. 3's spring has a circumference of 23 mm, my No. 1 is 20 mm, and my No. 2 is 21 mm. Assuming these numbers are the same for Tom's, we then feed them into his figures, dividing his WAMA by the circumference (call it the WAMAC) and the lower the number, the tougher the gripper: Vintage 1999 #1- 126mm total height, WAMA=108.5mm WAMAC = 5.425 Vintage 2001 #1- 129mm total height, WAMA=111.5mm WAMAC = 5.575 Vintage 2001 #1- 131 total height, WAMA=113.5 WAMAC = 5.675 Vintage 2002 Double Stamped #2- 126mm total height, WAMA=108 WAMAC = 5.143 Vintage 2002 Double Stamped #2- 128mm total height, WAMA=110 WAMAC = 5.238 Vintage 1998 #2- Total height- 129mm total height, WAMA=111 WAMAC = 5.286 Vintage 2000 #3 - 129mm total height, WAMA=110.5 WAMAC = 4.804 Vintage 2001 #3- 131mm total height, WAMA=112.5 WAMAC = 4.891 Vintage 2001 #3- 131mm total height, WAMA=112.5 WAMAC = 4.891 I'd be interested to get the spring circumferences on the non-IM grippers, Tom. David P.S. to Tom: My No. 3's handle width is 76 mm (interior space between handles) and was purchased in 2001. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Say Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 I don't think it would make a difference, as the circumference & radius are directly related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DavidHW Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 Nathan: Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post above. Tom's radius measurement is of the big hole in the middle of the wound rod of steel that makes the spring; I'm talking about the circumference of the rod itself, that if hammered out would be a straight piece of tubular steel with a measurable circumference. As far as I can tell, putting circum. in the mix does make any two grippers easy to compare. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngun Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 I thought I would measure my grippers to give you more data. August 2000 Trainer: 128-17=111 August 2000 #1: 128-17.5=110.5 October 2000 #2: 128-18=110 2001 BBM-Modified: 117-18=99 October 2000 #3: 130-18.5=111.5 October 2001 #3: 127-18.5=108.5 July 2002 BBE: 131-18.5=112.5 October 2000 #4: 132-19=113 My #4 seems like it's stronger than that, but I guess I'm just weak. I wish I had a micrometer or something to measure spring width, because the BBE spring can't be the same as my other #3s. It is much harder then either of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Say Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 How is that M modified Jesse? (am I allowed to call you Jesse or is it youngun? ) Did you file down the handles or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngun Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 You can call me Jesse. I filed/sawed off 3/8" from the handles. My easier #3 is only slightly harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apdwler Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 I going to remeasure this weekend before I post. With a mm making a big difference, I want to make sure they are correct. What technique is everyone using to make sure the gripper is straight up/down. I'm thinking of a small level I have. That seemed to be a tricky part when I measured. And will mm makeing a difference... The idea is holding up, with my grippers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terminator Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 All very interesting and compelling information, BUT there are too many variables as far as spring material etc. Remember, this spring stock is cheap stuff, and there are variations in surface hardness, microstructure, and tempering even several feet down the line. Not to mention coil friction and probably ten thousand other variables. I think the holy grail of being able to accurately compare two grippers miles away from each other will never be accomplished. Side by side comparisons are the only way, you either close a gripper or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Black Posted July 26, 2002 Author Share Posted July 26, 2002 Please guys be careful with the measurements, double check those 106mm, that's a pretty dramatic gripper. I also need the handle widths, especially on something really out of spec. If the 106's are say 75mm, then the handle would practically have to be touching the spring to get a 106 reading, being ~2mm closer than the 108 mm I've tested. I must be missing something regarding Nathan's incorporation of the spring C. I only compared between different spring sizes to get more data on the average gripper configuration, I don't think comparing two different sized springs is necessary, the bigger spring wins every time unless the gripper is real out of spec. (I've only seen one this bad). Also, I own a micrometer and the springs are actually very close in diameter, with the Elite only being .002" thicker than the #3, probably due to the chrome. Nathan, please check your spring coil width again, I didn't see any variance on the grippers I tested all the same springs had the same widths, yours vary. Here's an important mathematical and physical point: Incorporating a number that is essentially constant for any series of particular grippers (like spring size) would not yield any more information regarding how one gripper of the same sized spring compares to another. Spring size is essentially a constant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Black Posted July 26, 2002 Author Share Posted July 26, 2002 Terminator, I've done side by side comparisons with grippers of slightly different numbers (My two BB Advanced at 1mm) and I can tell the difference. If the BB advanced was at my limit I predict that the first one just closed would be the easier, which is consistent with what you are saying. Yes, the spring varies, but we need to explore this measurement before we dismiss it. Once others compare their grippers side by side and have the same observations as me then we can compare at a distance. Spring steel quality does make a difference, but it may not be as much as the other two main variables, width and spring mount. For instance, if the steel varies by only 10% then the widths and mounts would overshadow the steel differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DavidHW Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 Tom: I think you meant me re: circumference. I re-measured and there's definitely a difference between the Nos. 1 (20mm), 2 (21mm), and 3 (23mm). Are we talking about the same thing? I would think that including circumference of the spring would allow measurements of difficulty across brands of gripper; maybe I'm just confused. :-/ David [on edit: circum. would only matter of course if density of the spring material was relatively constant] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Say Posted July 26, 2002 Share Posted July 26, 2002 July (really hard) #1: 124-18 = 106Change toJuly (really hard) #1: 124-17.5 = 105.5 July #2: 123.5-17.5 = 106 Change to July #2: 123.5-18 = 105.5 Remember I used a ruler for the measurements, but the spring diameters are consistent with those of others of the same level. the 105.5 for the #1 I think is accurate, as it is a totally different gripper from the other #1. I wrote elsewhere that it is effectively a weak #2. As for the #2s....I don't know. I measured them a few times & got the same measurements. I held the ruler on its end, which is square & lined up the spring so that it was parallel with the desk & perpendicular to the ruler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Black Posted July 27, 2002 Author Share Posted July 27, 2002 David, I don't have time now to get into this, but I wouldn't use circum. anyway because it is very easy to measure the diameter of a spring with a micrometer, if you're not using a micrometer you would be way off in your measurement anyway. I realize they have different circum., in fact, it is little known that the BB Masters are actually thinner than the #2, I forget the exact difference, but you can see it if you hold them side by side. Incorporation of either of these numbers without knowing the effect of the different spring materials doesn't add anything to the WAMA measurement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sybersnott Posted July 30, 2002 Share Posted July 30, 2002 Tom, Have you been able to close your "chalked" #3 gripper? I thought it was slightly easier than my own #3's (which is why I was able to close it and look like the mighty one I am!). The toughest #3 I've come across is one of my "virgin" #3 grippers, the one rated at 420 IP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Black Posted July 30, 2002 Author Share Posted July 30, 2002 I'm not sure which one you mean by the "chalked" number 3. If you mean the one I use the most, and hence has the most chalk on it, I am very close. I can close it while touching my wrist, and did so today fairly consistently. I'm doing grippers many times a week so my edge on any one day is not at my peak, and yet very consistently high. I don't know how long it will take for a clean close, but it feels like soon. I totally dominate my old Master gripper now, and that feels like a good sign. Thanks for calling it "slightly" easier, after Heath did 15 reps on it I thought people would think it was as easy as a #2! (It's definitely not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Harlan Jacobs Posted August 4, 2002 Share Posted August 4, 2002 Tom, Here is my numbers: #3-112 BBE-112 #4-111 I thought mine where a bit weaker than some of the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Black Posted August 4, 2002 Author Share Posted August 4, 2002 Harlan, The #3 and #4 are just about average compared to the 18 I've personally measured. I haven't calculated a new average with the new numbers. The Elite is higher than average. This must be one of the newer ones. Could you measure widths too, and estimate when you bought them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Harlan Jacobs Posted August 4, 2002 Share Posted August 4, 2002 Tom, I bought the IM"s 6/01 and the BBE 5/02. #3- 7.2 Dia. and 109.4 over handles #4- 7.8 Dia. and 108.4 BBE- 7.5 Dia. and 106.0 So by your formula, Mine are on the easy side. Per-say 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.