Roark Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Having morning coffee, this thought popped into my head: Is the Millennium bell the heaviest, thick handled cast (non-revolving), dumbell in the world? Not including shot-loadable bells here, just solid cast. Unless I am having a senior moment, I think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mac Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I cannot think of any off-hand, although there may be some obscure one somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom of Iowa2 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Good thought Roark.I would guess the Millenium would be the heaviest cast iron dumbell.Or the heaviest thick handled,cast iron,dumbell.But there are probably heavier revolving or custom jobs out there somewhere. The 240 ,2 7/16"will certainly considered ,perhaps?,the heaviest thick handled-SOLID- out there?(That was the idea).Perhaps we'll name it after the first person that lifts it....no invites going out to Mark Henry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roark Posted January 28, 2003 Author Share Posted January 28, 2003 Yes, there are heavier revolving- I was seeking info on an 'unchangeable' solid dumbell bigger than the MB. Desbonnet's was the same size/weight, but off the top of my ever decreasingly hairy head, I can't think of one heavier. Which makes a body wonder, what was the heaviest cast, barbell? Beats me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom of Iowa2 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 quote:'Yes,there are heavier revolving-I was seeking info.on an 'unchangeable' solid Dumbell bigger than the MB. They hope to call the solid 240lb 2 7/16 the 'Bigger' dumbell........... someday? There I go again being annoying and obnoxious.Sorry. Apparently for publicity purposes they are toying with the idea of making a 300 with an 1 1/4" handle....if they don't like it? or want to put it on a weight reduction plan? it being steel (with access to the right machine shop)makes it easy to 'reduce'...... ROARK,seriously, Other than some 'joke'dumbell sitting in front of a gym or something what IS the HEAVIEST(non shot loaded) dumbell.....PERIOD!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGuy Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I have an unliftable 300 pound solid dumbbell given to me by Thomas Inch. It's called "The big dummy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom of Iowa2 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 That should have read they are toying with the idea of making a solid 300#PLUS dumbell with an 1 1/4 "handle. The guy building these is the same guy that knocked out a PDA 'Wrench'facsimile-(because he wanted to see what it felt like)....which is about 5 hours of machine work...he said making the dumbells is much easier and they have the raw material which is used for another unrelated project...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobsterone Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 I'd heard that there are a set of bells which go to 300 pounds at a Hawaiian gym and which were used by Ronnie Coleman for some looseish dumbbell rows. But these will be non-cast. By solid bells are we referring to bells which have had the weight welded or bolted on but which do not revolve or have revolving discs? Of note is that the MDB has a steel shaft put into the mold and then the iron is poured (for the globes). S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom of Iowa2 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 These will be welded up.But clearly 3 seperate pieces.They will be non revolving and non loadable--- but they may make a 155 #that has room to BE loaded... So 300's are apparently the heaviest dumbells out there..and they are?likely bolted together or plate loaded?It is very easy for these guys to make them as heavy as ..or heavier than anything ever made so if someone has the exact number?They want to surpass the biggest...... Again this is for publicity....but I'm sure plenty of people will be able to pick them up with 1 1/4" handles...which will still be a very cool sight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGuy Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 400 on a dumbbell is not too hard to lift with a 1 1/4'' handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersqueeze Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Tom, I don't know welding but it seems likely that at the poundages you are talking about if the bells are dropped from greater than waist height the welds may break. You might want to discuss the degree of manhandling the bells may be subjected to with the welder to see if the welds are going to be strong enough. Just a thought. Mike M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom of Iowa2 Posted January 28, 2003 Share Posted January 28, 2003 Good thought.The handles will be 'imbedded' about 3-4 inches? inside of the solid steel weight...I don't have the exact specs.The steel weight will have a snug sleeve,the handle inserted, then the weld will take place on the outside.Hopefully?They have calculated the sort of stresses that they may be put through.....they do build stuff that is utilized in heavy industry though...this is pretty bonehead stuff for these guys. One guy is an engineer the other a machinest.They have several welders in the shop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roark Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 An uneducated guess is that the handle of the bell should enter the spheres more than 3 or 4 inches. The diameter of each sphere will be what 11 or 12"? Barbender would have more insight, but would it not be better for the handle to enter each sphere about 3/4 of the way thru it? Also, a handle of 1.25" is too thin for such a bell if it suffers repeated drops, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersqueeze Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Sounds like you took the job to the right place. Good luck with the finished product ... you have to get it to waist height before it can be dropped from there!!!! Mike M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom of Iowa2 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Roark, They said this 2 7/16" solid steel isn't going to get bent by such a (in their words)small amount of weight(compared to the things they are used to working with) and that everything they have calculated(the general constuction) is "overkill".Plus its unlikely anything but the thick bar 155?172 and maybe the 200(someday?) will ever get to the shoulder?? I'll ask about the 1 1/4" on the 300 plus(if it's stout enough?),again its a solid steel bar for the 'worlds biggest dumbell'(that was my nickname once)..maybe that should go further in??or maybe it should be 1 3/8 or 1 1/2?...BUT They DON'T want grip to limit lifting it....or to be a factor...Also on the big 300# PLUS dumbell(if they build it).... will probably not go much further than the waist?more of a conversation piece to be one arm deadlifted by some??Publicity item.its going to be awfully hard to fully stand up with that thing...? Also-food for thought-The gym has 165,175 and 187.5pounders(fairly heavy stuff) that get dropped all the time-sometimes-when someone does incline presses with them- or uses one for 'double arm'overhead tricep extensions they get dropped from quite a height....! and they are ONLY 1 inch steel handles that AREN'T solid.They get everyday use at the gym and are 8 years old.Some of them wobble a little but....... The 200 pounders on order(just inexpensive cast iron plate loaded) are also just 1 inch handles.. Mike, Good point.picking up a 300lb plus dumbell off the ground(although I'm sure doable by many)isn't like a nice farmers walk implement or even a rolling thunder handle....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGuy Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I would go with 1 3/8'' or 1 1/2'' on the handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersqueeze Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I remember reading somewhere that Bud Jeffreys was either doing or working toward doing one arm DB rows with 300 lbs. Anybody know what his DB set-up is? Anybody know anything about this? Mike M. 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.