Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 12, 2014 - 10:47am PT
|
Frequency content is of interest too. The accelerometer came with a fixed 200 Hz low pass filter so frequencies above 200 are attenuated. I don't know how much but it seems to be a simple RC filter.
|
|
Brian in SLC
Social climber
Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
Wow...nifty data!
I'd love to have a McD hammer if anyone wants to part with one...
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 12, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
|
I am considering making some copies of the McDevitt hammer head. I don't know what steel they used but am thinking of using 4140, cold rolled, square stock and see what happens. Matching the handle might be a problem too but I am looking into it.
In the meantime, here is a subjective comparison between the D5 and the McDevitt. Read the last paragraph of the first post here:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1743679/Testing-Aric-s-New-Hand-Drill-Prototype
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 14, 2014 - 09:05am PT
|
I've tested all the hammers I have. A couple things to bear in mind; I am looking at drilling only and my study may not be relevant to big wall climbers who don’t drill very often, there are uncontrolled variables and I have tried to remain objective and unbiased but I am human.
I had hoped that I could correlate my weight and balance measurements with drilling rate but I didn't find any reliable predictor. There is some relationship between weight and drilling rate; a hammer that is too light probably doesn't work because the rock doesn't pulverize, too heavy doesn't work either - perhaps because I cannot control a heavy hammer and it is tiring to swing. My optimum weight is somewhere around 26 ounces but the optimum weight will no doubt be different for different people. If you weigh 95 pounds and have skinny arms, you may want a lighter hammer.
For the drilling rates in my tests I used both sharpened and unsharpened bits. I have adjusted the unsharpened rates by multiply each by 3.70/2.35 (the ratio for the two McDevitt results). Whether or not this is appropriate is debatable.
1) The McDevitt hammer (0.426 "/min, #1 of 10) was clearly the fastest driller. The weight is right and the handle is long enough. I have large hands (thumb to pinkie span of 9.5 inches) and I like that it has a fairly fat handle making it easier to grip and control. Other factors may be the axially symmetric head and no tangs for a solid matching of head and handle. The steel head seems to be of the right hardness. The hammer seems to be well damped and doesn't vibrate. The head appears to be machined, hardened and tempered which works and is probably much easier to make than a forged head. It’s odd but to me this hammer feels heavier in the hand than it is.
2) The GI Yosemite Hammer knockoff (0.385 "/min #3 of 10) is my second pick. The tangs and handle are set in something that looks like epoxy which makes the head firm and stable. The head is harder than the Chouinard and seems to have properties similar to the McDevitt. The handle is very similar to the Chouinard but it somehow feels better and the hammer is better damped than the Chouinard.
3) The Chouinard (0.234 "/min #8 of 10) is a good hammer but didn't drill very fast. It may be better at piton work than drilling. My hammer is old and the head may be a bit loose which may have slowed it down. The steel is soft which may waste energy. This is a popular hammer and I had thought it would do better. If BD is reading this, send me a new one and I would be happy to test it.
4) Modified Engineers Hammer (0.258 "/min #5 of 10) I used an old Swiss engineers hammer to make this a few years ago. I installed a fiberglass handle and drilled a funk hole with a carbide drill bit. This hammer worked better than I expected and was faster than the Chouinard. The handle is very secure but could be longer. The steel is very hard and dented the striking surface on the drill holder. If I was making another one of these, I would use a longer handle and temper the steel to make it a little softer.
5) The Salewa Rockhammer (0.256 "/min #6 of 10) is an odd little hammer but Salewa claims it is balanced and that the handle damps vibration. It makes an annoying ping and vibrates when it strikes. I think the pick is too large and would get tangled in things. This hammer should be heavier, have a longer handle and a shorter pick. The face is quite hard.
6) Omega Pacific Wall Hammer (0.269 "/min #4 of 10). This hammer did better than I expected and better than the Chouinard. The shape of the head makes the center of gravity fairly low but the striking face curves down so this isn't too bad. I find I usually hit at the bottom of the face with most hammers which may compensate for Imbalance. The steel is soft and about the same as the Chouinard. The handle is long enough and although it worked OK the grip is weird. The grip is fairly fat which may help. I like how solidly the handle is mounted in the deep head. Although wood is traditional for handles, I think climbers should consider fiberglass handles since they seem to work well, stay tight, are very tough and don't shrink and swell with moisture change. When your wood handle shrinks up in the desert, drilling efficiency probably drops off.
7) Grivel Thor (0.223 "/min #9 of 10). This hammer is too light and not well balanced. It vibrates but not as much as the Salewa perhaps because the pick is shorter. The wire cleaning tool hidden in the handle works its way out when pounding. I didn't like this hammer much but I would take it as an emergency hammer because it is light. I would remove the cleaning tool and throw it away though.
8) The Forrest Hammer ( 0.391 "/min #2 of 10) is a nice and very fast hammer with a machined head similar to the McDevitt but has a pick welded on. This is not the forged Forrest wall hammer and I am not sure what it was called. It doesn’t seem to be an alpine hammer since the pick is designed as a cleaning tool and isn’t sharpened. The handle length is good. I think I would remove the pick and make the head a bit heavier to compensate. With some modification, this could be better than the McDevitt hammer.
9) Old Ball Peen hammer (0.255 "/ min # 7 of 10) that I had in the garage. I like the axially symmetric and forward weighted head but I think it was too heavy and the skinny handle was hard to grip and control. The steel is very hard. This hammer was tiring to use but did drill faster than the Chouinard.
10) The 2 lb Estwing Drilling Hammer (0.095 "/min #10 of 10) is way too heavy and hard to control.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 23, 2014 - 11:04am PT
|
What should I test next?
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 11:48am PT
|
The Bridwell Hammer of course:-)
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 23, 2014 - 01:28pm PT
|
The Bridwell may be an excellent piton hammer but I'm thinking it is way too heavy for drilling. I'll probably do the D5 or the old Chouinard next.
I can't compare myself to or compete with Deuce with my skinny little chicken wing arms. My 2.3 inches in 5 minutes is nowhere near his 47 seconds.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 01:36pm PT
|
Damn right DMT
I will tell you what, there most certainly IS a perfect hammer for everyone.
Somewhere in that gaggle lays a bolting beast.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA/Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
|
Chouinard hammer from the 70's and see how it compares to the newer model. Deuce claims that a 'forged' head is better than 'cast' head so this could be a very good test to see if there is a significant difference.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 23, 2014 - 06:50pm PT
|
Tried the D5. It's a nice hammer, it swings well, has a great handle and hits solid but I think It's too heavy for me to drill with. Like the other heavier hammers, I have to pace myself and occasionally stop to shake out my arm. If a guy was strong enough and had the stamina, he could probably drill much, much faster with it. The data point fell nicely in line with the other heavier hammers.
These heavier hammers probably work great as piton hammers. I think that for me I need a lighter hammer for the sustained pounding required for drilling. This is a 5 minute test and I doubt anybody pounds on a piton nonstop for 5 minutes.
A good drilling hammer may be the heaviest one that an individual can swing continuously. Maybe carpenters went to heavier hammers when nail guns became common. Not many hand nailed shear walls out there although I have done this when I was much younger.
I clearly need to try a hammer around 22 ounces.
Edit: I had written A5 but meant D5. Sorry about that.
|
|
ClimbingOn
Trad climber
NY
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2014 - 09:11pm PT
|
I'm most curious about the Bridwell hammer and the D5 hammer. I have the BD Yosemite hammer, although have been looking to replace it with a D5 (anyone want to sell?). I would also be curious how a Chouinard Alpine Hammer would do. I have one I could send you for testing once you finish with the batch you currently have.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 24, 2014 - 05:19pm PT
|
Added three more hammers to the data today.
Forrest wall hammer with cast steel head: 26.7 Oz., 0.304 in/min
70's Chouinard with carbon steel head (Cast?): 24.5 oz., 0.296 in/min
Chouinard Alpine: 24.5 Oz., 0.298 in/min
I expected better from the Forrest cast, perhaps because I wish fiberglass handle would work since they are stronger and don't shrink and loosen the head.
The 70's Chouinard may have drilled slow because the head is a little loose and it has a broken tang. I still believe that tangs slow the drilling because there is more stuff rattling around.
The old 1970's Alpine hammer did better than I thought it would. It hasn't seen much use and the head is tight.
I think what limits drilling speed when the hammer weighs more than 25 ounces is my endurance. Lighter hammers seem to be limited by how many hits per minute I can make. If I could hit at 10 per second with a light hammer, I could drill like a roto-hammer.
Edit: Added cast to description as suggested by Clint below. The hammer with the long pick is referred to as Forrest. I don't think the one with the long pick was called a Nut Hammer, it isn't a Mjollnir.
|
|
looks easy from here
climber
Ben Lomond, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2014 - 05:29pm PT
|
Somehow missed the last page and a half of developments. I'm loving these experiments (including DAMMERR thread).
If you have been excited by this thread so far, prepare for better.
Fixed that for you. :D
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2014 - 06:03pm PT
|
Dan,
You should probably edit your latest text description to always say
"Forrest Cast" instead of "Forrest",
because you have that other Forrest hammer (perhaps "Forrest Pick") in the graph already.
|
|
Banquo
climber
Amerricka
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 30, 2014 - 08:36am PT
|
I took the Banquo hammer and cut some steel off the face to match the weight of the DAMMERR (now DAMMERR 01) creating the DAMMERR 02. I have no idea what is happening here but this actually ended up with slower drilling and in no way matched the results of the DAMMERR 01. I made a lighter hammer, the DAMMERR 03, but since the hardware store had run out of the handles I was using, I ended up with a fatter handle. This wasn't particularly impressive either. I Somehow, a fat handle makes a hammer feel heavy.
I also tested a steel handled CMI hammer.
I don't know what has happened, perhaps my technique has changed or maybe I am sharpening drills differently. I do seem to be having more trouble with bits binding which might mean I am hitting harder and perhaps too hard. I am certain I am drilling slower for some reason.
Another series of tests might be in order but I'm not inclined to take it on. I'm getting pretty tired of the process. Maybe somebody else should take over testing. I would advise taking any of my results with a grain of salt.
I am still going to conclude that a hammer with a gross weight of about 25 ounces is best for me.
The numbers in case you want them:
Antique Ball Peen 32.6 0.255
Banquo 28.1 0.364
Bridwell 34.1
Chouinard (1970's?) 24.5 0.296
Chouinard (1980's?) 25.2 0.234
Chouinard Alpine 20.6 0.298
CMI 25.8 0.345
D5 29.3 0.314
DAMMERR 01 24.1 0.441
DAMMERR 02 (was Banquo) 24 0.334
DAMMERR 03 22.7 0.323
Estwing 2Lb drill hammer 38.7 0.150
Forrest cast 26.7 0.304
Forrest Nut Hammer 24.6 0.391
G.I. Surplus Yosemite Hammer 25.2 0.385
Grivel Thor 16 0.223
McDevitt 26.2 0.426
Modified Engineer's Hammer 25.3 0.258
Omega Pacific Wall Hammer 31.8 0.269
Salewa Rockhammer 16.8 0.256
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA/Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 09:02am PT
|
Banquo,
Clint once told me that he thought bits tended to bind more as they wear(even with sharpening). I can't remember the details, but hopefully he will chime in.
ps- interesting to see the venerable Chouinard 1980's hammer at the bottom of the drilling speed list.
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2014 - 11:34am PT
|
bits tended to bind more as they wear(even with sharpening). It's because the outer edges of the carbide tip insert wear down.
So it becomes a smaller diameter drill bit.
Eventually the tip is not a larger diameter than the twisted shaft,
and the shaft binds.
Plus there are less degrees of freedom for the dust to clear from the hole.
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
Ever think about getting away from wood for the handle?
It makes a difference. For starters they're much easier to hold onto when you're pumped.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
The Forest hammer has a fiberglass handle.
Maybe the worst hammer I have used for drilling. Felt everything up to my elbow.
John-
I would be into a custom rig, those Stanley's look stout. They look great for pitons, how are they for drilling?
|
|
johnkelley
climber
Anchorage Alaska
|
|
They work better then they did with the wood. I cut the head off of a Stanley contractor graphite hammer to get the shafts. Stanley changed their handles in between the time I made these. The older handle, on the left, is the better of the two handles. They're way easier to grip when tired compared to wood.
The one on the left is a BD head that's been modified to make it lighter. The one on the right is a Snow Peaks head, I think, also modified to loose some weight.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!