Choking decreases RGC

[C8Myotome]

I've heard it doesn't, however my first ever GHP8 I owned was CPW rated 176. I ended up filing 4.5 mm off this, and putting it in a choker and forgetting about it for a long time, it was in a choker for months and months.

I later sent this now-filed GHP8 back to CPW and it came back as 175 when filed, which is less than the original unfiled RGC. So I think that is pretty sufficient evidence that choking does in fact lower RGC, as I had expected this GHP8 to file from 176 into the 180's, not become lighter than it was originally.

[josé adalton]

It does, and more with Chinese springs. I put a Grip Genie 6 (167 originally) for only two hours in choking and lost one or two mm of spread. Without a doubt, the spring deforms more than with 30 full closes. Some people put the springs in choking to reach a more stable RGC, especially super heavy springs, but, that only deforms the springs unnecessarily in my opinion.

[climber511]

I used to do a lot of RGC measurements. My experience was mixed - some did and some did not lose after having been choked - I never measured any that had been choked for any length of time.  All brand new Grippers seemed to lose a couple pounds - then kind of settle in and stay there (when not in a choker).  Higher quality grippers held up better.  

[Cannon]

I believe the filing might have reduced the rating over time, not necessarily the choker. We could do more tests on this, which I think would be necessary before declaring such facts. 

1 hour ago, josé adalton said:

It does, and more with Chinese springs. I put a Grip Genie 6 (167 originally) for only two hours in choking and lost one or two mm of spread. Without a doubt, the spring deforms more than with 30 full closes.

I’m not saying this didn’t happen, but it also makes no sense. I would have to see this to believe it happened as you describe. 

[DoctorOfCrush]

I haven’t specifically seen this with choked grippers, but I’ve seen drop offs with the handful of grippers that I have had re-rated. I have an IM 2.5 that started life at 134, but after usage and filing, it re-rated a few years later at 131. I also have a Tetting SM that was once 139 that re-rated at 129 after years of reps (mostly singles). Lastly, I have a Tetting GM that was made adjustable and choker by @acorn and set to 150 at the time of the mods. I never changed the mount, but I did use it as a choker. I recently got it back from @Cannon, and it came in at 143 when flush mounted. 
I think those are all the ones I’ve had rated two separate times. 

[Cannon]

I will run some experiments on this and post the results here. It will take some time though because part of the question leaving them for a while. 

[Cannon]

The million rep experiment we did showed that the rating falls off over time. That gripper started at 150, was 146 after 10k reps and then stabilized, and was 145 right before it broke at 34k reps. 

I believe that filing paradoxically accelerates the loss of strength over time despite initially increasing the rating. This, I think, is due to the reason the rating decreases in the first place—that the way we use springs technically exceeds manufacturer recommendations for the material by quite a bit. Closing a gripper does put excessive strain on the spring for how it’s designed. They should only really be closed to shy of parallel. So I believe what we experience is that many reps over time does slightly deform the spring, which manifests in a slight loss of spread. 

I’ll try and put some guts behind this though. My own comments here should be viewed as slightly bro science, but all the same it’s what I have learned from manufactures and my experience so far. 

[marko]

I tested your theory after only reading the title.  I have to say choking someone while rating grippers does decrease accuracy.  I just wanted to cover that test case for the thread in case others had questions.  I am curious what the most reliable manufacturer is for long term spring durability.  I have some old grippers but I tend to not leave them choked.

 

Edited August 29 by Broc2

[C8Myotome]

15 minutes ago, Cannon said:

The million rep experiment we did showed that the rating falls off over time. That gripper started at 150, was 146 after 10k reps and then stabilized, and was 145 right before it broke at 34k reps. 

I believe that filing paradoxically accelerates the loss of strength over time despite initially increasing the rating. This, I think, is due to the reason the rating decreases in the first place—that the way we use springs technically exceeds manufacturer recommendations for the material by quite a bit. Closing a gripper does put excessive strain on the spring for how it’s designed. They should only really be closed to shy of parallel. So I believe what we experience is that many reps over time does slightly deform the spring, which manifests in a slight loss of spread. 

I’ll try and put some guts behind this though. My own comments here should be viewed as slightly bro science, but all the same it’s what I have learned from manufactures and my experience so far. 

I would really like to see another million rep gripper experiment to mirror the 150 coc 3, with another baseline 150 filed to whatever, to see the difference in lifespan just due to filing. I'd guess instead of 34k maybe it would last like 20k reps due to filing?

About 90% of my gripper work is on filed grippers so this is very interesting to me, and I'm wondering how long my grippers will last or how much easier they will get during my life time. I'm just wondering if I should be getting backups for later down the line

I would imagine narrow springs get damaged less by full closes since they deform less, and that wide springs basically have havoc wreaked on them and will probably lose more rgc and break sooner

Hopefully better adjustable compression or extension spring grippers will be made some day that aren't so bulky, and have 19 mm handles, as I'm definitely seeing the limitations with torsion grippers just in functionality and performing consistently over time with heavy use

[acorn]

On 8/28/2024 at 5:52 PM, DoctorOfCrush said:

I haven’t specifically seen this with choked grippers, but I’ve seen drop offs with the handful of grippers that I have had re-rated. I have an IM 2.5 that started life at 134, but after usage and filing, it re-rated a few years later at 131. I also have a Tetting SM that was once 139 that re-rated at 129 after years of reps (mostly singles). Lastly, I have a Tetting GM that was made adjustable and choker by @acorn and set to 150 at the time of the mods. I never changed the mount, but I did use it as a choker. I recently got it back from @Cannon, and it came in at 143 when flush mounted. 
I think those are all the ones I’ve had rated two separate times. 

@DoctorOfCrush I never noticed a drop from choking a gripper over time. Anything is possible though with age I suppose. If you had moved the mount though, or it was moved another possibility exists. I modded hundreds of Tetting grippers over the years for adjustable mounts. Something that was pretty noticeable, especially towards the end of his run making them was that he wasn't drilling the holes for the springs straight. Meaning, rotating the handles could net up to a 1/4" difference total in spread if it was really bad and handles moved out to 1/4" mount. Depending on the position of each handle. One of the reasons I added flats to the springs for the setscrews as well as a paint dot on the tops of the handles facing outward to define the position of them when they were rated and shipped. 

- Aaron

[Cannon]

@acorn so good to see you 👀

[John Knowlton]

Good to see you on the board again 

Edited September 13 by John Knowlton

[anwnate]

Retired is cool. 

[DoctorOfCrush]

4 hours ago, acorn said:

@DoctorOfCrush I never noticed a drop from choking a gripper over time. Anything is possible though with age I suppose. If you had moved the mount though, or it was moved another possibility exists. I modded hundreds of Tetting grippers over the years for adjustable mounts. Something that was pretty noticeable, especially towards the end of his run making them was that he wasn't drilling the holes for the springs straight. Meaning, rotating the handles could net up to a 1/4" difference total in spread if it was really bad and handles moved out to 1/4" mount. Depending on the position of each handle. One of the reasons I added flats to the springs for the setscrews as well as a paint dot on the tops of the handles facing outward to define the position of them when they were rated and shipped. 

- Aaron

Yeah, the Elite you modded for me was like that, so you put that black dot at the top of the handle so I would know the orientation for the rating. I also have a Grand Master hybrid that is very obviously not straight and has a really wide spread. It rates 163!

I never actually ended up moving either of those modded mounts though. 

[matek]

I'm pretty sure the more you take away with filing, the more it affects the rating over time (if you use the gripper of course).
As Cannon said, I don't think these torsion springs are designed for a leg angle that is over the parallel position. The legs are just too open for that in the relaxed position.

That being said, I think keeping a gripper in a parallel choker would also affect the rating in the long run, so I always set my choker gripper back to the relaxed position after training.

But I expect different spring materials to behave differently. When I designed my stainless handle gripper, first I wanted it to be fully stainless, including the spring. But the spring maker told me he wouldn't suggest using stainless spring steel for this application, because it will deteriorate faster than tempered high-carbon steel.

[insane.warrior]

On 8/29/2024 at 3:52 AM, DoctorOfCrush said:

Tetting SM that was once 139 that re-rated at 129 after years of reps

hmm... what if it was a mistake in 1 digit (SM was always 129)?

139 is quite rare number based on CPW data.

[DoctorOfCrush]

7 hours ago, insane.warrior said:

hmm... what if it was a mistake in 1 digit (SM was always 129)?

139 is quite rare number based on CPW data.

You’d have to ask @Cannon.  He would have had to pick up the wrong stamp and not notice it going out that way, and I think he’s a pretty meticulous guy. 🤷‍♂️

[Cannon]

9 hours ago, insane.warrior said:

hmm... what if it was a mistake in 1 digit (SM was always 129)?

139 is quite rare number based on CPW data.

I think that 139 is what established the high water mark on the chart. It’s the same gripper. 

[Fist of Fury]

If it doesn't change the rating it atleast changes the difficulty of the gripper. I had a #3.5 choked to around 5 mm for months, maybe a whole year and it surely got easier after that.