Measuring Gripper Spread

[sid_arnes]

Honest query here.

Been following the discussions about gripper cert standards and I have apparently missed something, hopefully someone can clarify.

Why is gripper spread being measured on the inside of the handles?

The question is not "why measure gripper spread?" that is clear.

Performing an accurate measurement on the outside of the handles with the flat face of the caliper is much simpler and repeatable.

To get inside dimensions just subtract handle widths etc...

 

[John McCarter]

I've been out of the grip game for a good minute. The measuring started with the GHP gripper certification, but it wasn't important, until a certain cheater from Italy altered the gripper(s) and said grippers lost huge width concerning their spread.

[DoctorOfCrush]

1 hour ago, sid_arnes said:

Honest query here.

Been following the discussions about gripper cert standards and I have apparently missed something, hopefully someone can clarify.

Why is gripper spread being measured on the inside of the handles?

The question is not "why measure gripper spread?" that is clear.

Performing an accurate measurement on the outside of the handles with the flat face of the caliper is much simpler and repeatable.

To get inside dimensions just subtract handle widths etc...

 

I think part of it is just that this has just been established as the standard. Measuring inside the handles gives you an apples to apples comparison in common parlance with other gripsters. It’s also not as simple as just adding the handle diameters because the handles aren’t parallel. There’s a touch of trigonometry involved, though it’s likely almost negligible.

[sid_arnes]

1 hour ago, DoctorOfCrush said:

I think part of it is just that this has just been established as the standard. Measuring inside the handles gives you an apples to apples comparison in common parlance with other gripsters. It’s also not as simple as just adding the handle diameters because the handles aren’t parallel. There’s a touch of trigonometry involved, though it’s likely almost negligible.

You are Def right about the trig and a handle at an angle etc. For heavy gripper closes when proving that the before and after spread are the same the trig does not matter, it just seems better and easier to measure on the outside. Watching someone whos hands are shaking from a hard close pick up a precision device and try to take a finnicky measurement on knurling of two round objects at there closest point ... its brutal.   Since best practices and standards are being discussed then why this method ?

[DoctorOfCrush]

11 minutes ago, sid_arnes said:

You are Def right about the trig and a handle at an angle etc. For heavy gripper closes when proving that the before and after spread are the same the trig does not matter, it just seems better and easier to measure on the outside. Watching someone whos hands are shaking from a hard close pick up a precision device and try to take a finnicky measurement on knurling of two round objects at there closest point ... its brutal.   Since best practices and standards are being discussed then why this method ?

I agree, when you’re only worried about the delta of the spread before and after, taking the inner versus outer measurement doesn’t matter. I imagine that taking the inner measurement in the cert setting stems from the fact that GHP was the first to establish such a rule (which didn’t require a second measurement), and that’s how they chose to establish it. But I agree it can be painful to watch some folks do this. 

This reminds me of a frustrating placard that sits on the desk of one of the administrative assistants where I work. It reads “There is no policy; it’s just how it’s always been done.”

[Cannon]

I have taken to a jig I made that aligns with the outside of the handles. Then I set the jig, remove the gripper, and measure the angle with a digital protractor. I have found this to be a much better way to deal with spread. However, for public consumption, I still just measure the spread in millimeters.