Jared P Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 (edited) Thread dedicated to coming up with an accurate conversion rate / coefficient for SGR <--> RGC, within a reasonable tolerance on the average. Any data you can provide to help with this is much appreciated. As ratings and rating mechanisms vary individual to individual and rating to rating, the goal isn't perfection but rather finding a number that is relatively accurate on the average. Here is some data to get things started: Standard Ni 67 kg SGR / 152 lbs RGC 67 / 152 = 0.440 coeff 65 / 147 = 0.442 coeff 63 / 142 = 0.443 coeff Edited August 2 by Jared P 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared P Posted August 2 Author Share Posted August 2 On 7/21/2024 at 5:27 AM, degradated said: Hey Jared, on the topic of SGR>RGC ratings, I'm receiving 8 Silarukov grippers from a Russian gripster within a month or less. He has the exact machine that you've discussed and will be rating them for me. I have decided to also send them to Cannon to see how the numbers compare. I will be sure to report back. On 7/21/2024 at 5:44 AM, weightlifter said: Hi! Could I ask you to measure grippers' dimensions, like spring diameter, inside coil diameter etc. to compare SGR/CPW ratings with theoretical ratings based on torsion spring formulas? I would send you instructions what dimensions are required and how to measure it properly. On 7/21/2024 at 8:17 AM, DoctorOfCrush said: I’ve done the same exact thing with 10 Silarukovs. We can combine our data when you get your results. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 Do they ever have partial kilograms? I only do whole number pounds, but if they also only do whole number kilograms then that builds in quite a bit of slop to where the coefficient should probably be only 1 decimal place at most. For the record, I don’t like conversions but I understand the motivation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted August 2 Share Posted August 2 (Another side note is that I don’t like and personally don’t use the RGC acronym. I wish it would go away. Ideally I feel the numbers would just be ratings.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared P Posted August 3 Author Share Posted August 3 6 hours ago, Cannon said: Do they ever have partial kilograms? I only do whole number pounds, but if they also only do whole number kilograms then that builds in quite a bit of slop to where the coefficient should probably be only 1 decimal place at most. For the record, I don’t like conversions but I understand the motivation. Since ratings aren't perfectly precise anyways, I don't think it matters too much. I mostly want to know if 91 kg means 199 lbs or 211 lbs, to better understand what level of gripper is being closed. 6 hours ago, Cannon said: (Another side note is that I don’t like and personally don’t use the RGC acronym. I wish it would go away. Ideally I feel the numbers would just be ratings.) In this instance, I think RGC is used to differentiate between the vertical strap system and the 'SGR' horizontal device system. Both are ratings, but utilize two different systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
degradated Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 6 hours ago, Cannon said: Do they ever have partial kilograms? I only do whole number pounds, but if they also only do whole number kilograms then that builds in quite a bit of slop to where the coefficient should probably be only 1 decimal place at most. For the record, I don’t like conversions but I understand the motivation. Hey Matt, it has probably been discussed but I am wondering if you round up or down for fractions of a pound. Or does that situation not arise? Hey Jared, saw that you tagged me - my Silarukov grippers have cleared Russian customs on 7/31, I'll hopefully have them relatively soon. The process that my friend Vitalik took to measure the grippers is in this video: It can be translated to English and it's quite long, but there's some good data in there. I will make a summary (if that helps) for anyone that doesn't want to watch or scan through it. Notice that he uses a special spacer to standardize the process, which also places the measuring device a little bit higher on the handle and could result in different readings compared to how others do it. The levels I have coming are: 80kg, 90kg, 100kg, 110kg, 120kg, 130kg, 140kg (x2) and 150kg (x3). A couple grippers are for some other board members but I believe they are okay waiting so I can send them in for a 2nd rating. Also, I attached a screenshot of his previous findings from several different trials. The Silarukovs, I'm noticing, are not super consistent like Standard grippers that Cannon manufacturers. The ratings seem to be all over the place, especially with the higher levels. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorOfCrush Posted August 3 Share Posted August 3 (edited) Here are my numbers- (SGR / CPW) Silarukov 40: 27.4 / 52 = 0.523 Silarukov 60: 36.0 / 72 = 0.5 Silarukov 80: 46.6 / 95 = 0.491 Silarukov 90: 51.0 / 103 = 0.495 Silarukov 110: 61.3 / 126 = 0.487 Silarukov 120: 69.7 / 144 = 0.487 Silarukov 130: 72.0 / 148 = 0.486 Silarukov 140: 79.5 / 163 = 0.488 Silarukov 150: 93.9 / 198 = 0.474 Average coefficient of 0.492 Edited August 3 by DoctorOfCrush 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
degradated Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 (edited) Hello gripsters! I have received the Silarukovs and took some measurements for @weightlifter and @Jared P mainly. I will be sending them to Cannon next week for proper ratings, but in the meantime I have the other data I might as well post. I dm'd weightlifter but haven't heard back, so here is my best shot at correctly measuring them: Coil Thickness/Inside Coil Diameter/Handle Spread 80: 7.00mm / 23.23mm / 57.45mm 90: 7.00mm / 20.23mm / 54.37mm 100 (#1): 7.48mm / 23.00mm / 52.67mm 100 (#2): 7.48mm / 20.93mm /52.93mm 110: 7.48mm / 21.31mm / 53.36mm 120 (#1): 7.48mm / 19.48mm / 56.01mm 120 (#2): 7.48mm / 19.46mm / 57.77mm 130: 7.99mm / 22.26mm / 51.42mm 140 (#1): 7.99mm / 21.02mm / 53.34mm 140 (#2): 7.99mm / 20.95mm /54.62mm 150 (#1): 8.99mm / 28.59mm / 54.72mm 150 (#2): 8.99mm / 29.05mm /58.12mm 150 (#3): 8.99mm / 28.65mm /60.75mm I would be happy to take video/photos of these measurements just for some extra eyes to double check accuracy, however, I was very careful to measure as best I could. On 7/21/2024 at 4:44 AM, weightlifter said: Hi! Could I ask you to measure grippers' dimensions, like spring diameter, inside coil diameter etc. to compare SGR/CPW ratings with theoretical ratings based on torsion spring formulas? I would send you instructions what dimensions are required and how to measure it properly. Edited August 11 by degradated 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
degradated Posted September 8 Share Posted September 8 Ok, got the ratings from Matt. Here it is: Level / SGR / RGC / Coefficient 80: 46.9kg / 97 = 0.484 90: 49.4kg / 100 = 0.494 100: 54.9 / 113 = 0.486 110: 60.4kg / 124 = 0.487 120: 69.7kg / 144 = 0.484 130: 70.8kg / 146 = 0.484 140 #1: 78.8kg / 163 = 0.483 140 #2: 81.0kg / 170 = 0.476 150 #1: 91.2kg / 194 = 0.470 150 #2: 96.0kg / 204 = 0.471 150 #3: 103kg / 216 = 0.477 Avg = 0.481 coeff 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copy(1).thumb.jpg.8797b394b0445aa22a51b14cc4844418.jpg)
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.