The PDA Kettlebell Primer
PURPOSE
Why this Primer? Because we received the following message on 3/14/02. It was the last straw.
Could you provide a comparison of advantages/disadvantages of your kettlebell products with those of Ironmind and the cast-iron fixed weight kettlebells of dragondoor.com? If you are so inclined and with your permission, I would like to republish your comments on the message board of the same - dragondoor. Many readers like myself are trying to make purchase decisions with consideration of the three companies as kettlebell product sources. The implicit assumption already is that all three companies make quality products, so a precision reply would offer the most guidance. Thank you in advance.
Troy Sholl
PREFACE
As knowledgeable strength trainees are aware, PDA is an engineering company providing unique strength training equipment for serious trainees who know what they need to accomplish. We provide engineering solutions to maximize the effectiveness of training, correct shortcomings of existing available items, and, as in the case with kettlebells, re-introduce a historical equipment form while improving it. Our design developments are based on experience and, more importantly, highly prized input from responsible clients. Every facet of a PDA item is considered in the design. Every process, feature and characteristic is intentional. Every detail in every item exists for a specific reason. If an item does not have ‘something’, it is because that ‘something’ is not part of the design criteria and constraints, is not important enough to include, and is not justifiable as an included cost unless the client asks for that specific ‘something’. All PDA items are offered in a ‘build up’ format – clients pick and choose the specific features they want and are not force fed features they don’t want. All standardized options are itemized in the specifications. Options requiring calculations or evaluation are sorted out by order follow up. No products include plates or other items that are coincidentally adjacent in photos intended to illustrate use, plates, or the blue sky in the background. Customization is common practice for us. No item irrevocably includes or excludes any feature. PDA does not provide training advice or routines. We do not have salespeople. We do not lead clients in the direction of their purchases. There would be a clear conflict of interest for an engineering company to promote training methods as an adjunct to equipment. We simply provide a selection of superior solutions arrived at by a rigorous design process focused on established design parameters. Function is paramount but part of the criteria for a superior solution includes cost effectiveness. It is PDA’s responsibility to provide functionally superior items. It is the user's responsibility to purchase the correct equipment. We recognize our responsibility to make the intention and benefit of product features understandable and to make it precisely clear why we do things the way we do them. To that end, we offer this PDA Kettlebell Primer. We hope it helps you become a more informed trainee.
THE ORIGIN OF PDA KETTLEBELLS
Kettlebells from the early-American strongman era generate a certain fascination. Our Kettlebell project went on the boards in the early ‘90s. The initial goal was to replicate the 1800–1900 kettlebells. Those configurations featured globes of varying diameters with handles formed by an inverted U with a crossbar at the top for the grip. Most were cast iron, either solid or hollow. Hollow versions were sealed or provided access for changing the weight.
The penultimate design features were included in the American-made 1908 Milo Triplex kettlebell. The hollow globe consists of separate upper and lower chambers. The upper chamber has an access plug so the weight can be adjusted by adding or removing a filler such as shot or sand. The lower chamber unthreads via a bottom fitting so the globe splits in half and the half-sphere upper and lower chambers are clearly distinct. The lower chamber has a vertical sleeve for adjusting weight by adding or removing uniquely shaped plates. The plates are round in cross section but the edges are curvilinear. When the plates are properly stacked they conform to the shape of the inside surface of the sphere. When the full selection of plates are properly loaded onto a conventional barbell they form a half-sphere in and of themselves. The Milo features offer optimized flexibility, but adjustments are not quick or easy and, at 13” the assembly is too tall for some movements.
The Milo design embraced some of the primary PDA design criteria: any strength training tool should be loadable and should apply conventional plates. Why these precepts? Loadable equipment ensures progressive training capability. Loadable equipment provides the flexibility to add enough weight for your strongest movements and adjust the weight lower as appropriate for movements that offer less leverage. When equipment is loadable, the weight can be adjusted so anyone has the benefit of an appropriate starting point without being over loaded. When equipment is loadable you only pay the initial cost for the functional form of the equipment, not the ballast. The core of loadable hand-held equipment weighs a fraction of the ballast so your shipping cost is significantly lower. Conventional plates are omnipresent - anyone who trains has conventional Standard (nominal 1” diameter thru holes) or conventional Olympic (nominal 2” diameter thru hole) plates. Conventional plates are always affordable and sometimes dirt cheap if not free. Conventional plates offer the flexibility of use on all equipment not rigidly designed to exclude them. Conventional plates provide the benefit of a one-time purchase of ballast instead of paying for it over and over again.
We knew of the drawbacks of casting from previous projects. So, we focused on replicating the design using other methods and materials. We brainstormed a long list of alternatives, then waded through the analysis. Our approach is to take the perspective of ‘how can we make this work?’ as opposed to ‘why is this way no good?’ The former takes considerably more time, effort and brain power than the latter. We worked our way through and eliminated the alternatives, one by one, as we realized they were not feasible.
EVOLUTION
The simplest approach appeared to be a vertical sleeve arrangement. In order for it to pass muster, the plates had to load from the top. Why? There were several reasons. Vertical loads with collars on the bottom NEVER offer fail-safe security and multiply the likelihood and extent of damage from certain disaster. Workouts offer plenty of muscle and brain oxygen depletion; they are not the best situation to expect careful or proper assembly and scrutiny for safety management. At the time there were no collars that were properly designed for the vertical application. Now we have the GINCÔs. Regardless, the bottom-collar design is diametrically opposed to a core safety precept – ‘never place yourself in a pinch point’. It would have taken no thought to produce it, and it would be down-and-dirty cheap. It would also take a knucklehead to use it. There is more than one reason that bottle caps are on top. We looked at other fail-safe bottom loading alternatives as well as top loading vertical sleeve techniques. Both added undesirable complexity and expense.
Along the way we considered the dumbbell attachments such as offered by York and Good in the 1900s. They had been marketed as 'kettlebell handles' and initially looked like a simple solution, too. We have seen them rendered in aluminum. There are indications they were available in cast iron. The nomenclature was not functionally accurate but provided a snappy marketing tag. The handle position, cradled below the plate perimeters and nestled between the two plate loads created several encumbrances. The overall configuration departed drastically and unjustifiably from the classic kettlebell. The concept was dismissed as inappropriate.
We still hear from people looking for York kettlebell handles, primarily because they owned some when they were younger. They are rare as hen’s teeth, likely because very few were sold. In the case of York, one might suspect the handle was more of an attempt to use more casting capacity and marketing ability rather than address a functional goal.
The singular obvious benefit of the handles was the ability to create a properly rotating load on dumbbells. When deadweight loads are used for certain movements, they create dangerously high lateral loads on joints like the wrist. Olympic lifters learned this long ago; as did early strongmen using cast globe gear. The clean and jerk, and the snatch load the wrist enormously. Heavy training easily allows the overall physical structure and specific musculature to strengthen at significantly faster rates than other components. It was not unusual for a lifter to snap a wrist. The solution was revolving Olympic sleeves. As the lifter moves through the path of motion with a properly designed assembly he only flips the bar as it revolves within the sleeves and loads, not the entire weight of the loaded assembly. The inertia of the plates and sleeve keep them in nearly the same orientation as the bar is spun. This reduces the load on the wrist. The internal hardware required the sleeve diameter to increase from the nominal 1” Standard size. It was logical and natural to build Olympic sleeves onto the existing Standard bar format. The bars were heat treated to address the increasing weight load. The revolving mechanism evolved to include various arrangements using bushings and bearings. The misguided ‘more is better’ syndrome surfaced as some providers tried to make the sleeves as freewheeling as possible. This resulted in loads that would continue to spin after the path of motion of the lift was completed. That created another safety hazard with a very heavy uncontrolled gyroscope fully extended overhead. The danger and accidents multiplied by improperly designed, maintained or damaged freewheeling equipment when one sleeve over-revolved faster or longer than the other.
The fact that Olympic mechanisms were added onto Standard cores beget an unanticipated benefit. Very strong, heat treated Olympic bars could be stripped of the revolving sleeves revealing a high performance bar for Standard plates. This knowledge is still used today by those seeking superior strength bars for Standard loads. The difficulty is in finding a vendor who actually knows what is inside, or cares enough to find out for you.
Today, rotating barbell and dumbbell sleeves are functionally unnecessary and a costly convention for other than the Olympic style lifts or movements with similar characteristics where the load is spun around a joint. Squats, benches and deadlifts, as typical, employ a subtle path of motion such that the load moves hardly, if at all, in relation to the bar centerline. Only the most devout users disassemble and maintain their assemblies on a regular schedule. For the majority, time passes and the mechanism becomes sluggish at an unnoticeable rate until the performance degrades to essentially a nonfunctioning level. For situations where safety measures like squatters or racks are not necessary, and for the Olympic style lifts, it is not unusual for the load to hit the deck intentionally or otherwise. The deck impact is seldom uniform and one end hits before the other. The revolving mechanism is the weak link that takes the brunt of force. Revolving capability should be employed where it has a specific function. Otherwise, it is simply a personal choice. It is not necessarily a wise choice.
We continued through the analysis of alternatives for over a year, eliminating them one by one, while noting inherent positives of each. For the sake of thoroughness, and perhaps out of desperation and frustration, we threw common sense out the window and evaluated casting. Casting requires a properly completed design, a pattern maker, a pattern, a foundry, as well as the logistics of execution. The Milo Triplex would involve a detailed, time consuming analysis for a proper evaluation. We simplified the analysis by assuming just one simple model - a 50 pound fixed weight, solid, one-piece kettlebell. Here are the results, in generously rounded figures, to produce only one run of 100 units (M, a Roman numeral =1000):
1. Properly executed design – $1.5M
2. Seek, interview, evaluate and select a pattern maker - $500
3. Build the pattern: $1M
4. Seek, interview, evaluate and select a foundry - $500
5. Place an order with the foundry. Costs include set up time, per unit price, rework and lost material. Assume the pattern has not been damaged and does not yet require maintenance or replacement (which will actually occur on a regular basis). - $3 M based on rule-of-thumb for foundry processing by the ton
6. Now we wait for the foundry to fit us into their schedule. We are the newcomer. Our job is not major. We are not a priority. The run is finally completed.
7. Transport one hundred 50-pound kettlebells from the foundry. This requires a vehicle of the right dimensions and power, with room to hold and transport the goods securely (no rolling around) and without damage. Better use more than one man to get it done in a day. Could pay the foundry extra to deliver – they will just throw them in a pile in the truck and we still have to unload them and would expect damaged pieces. Assume we have the foundry deliver, the goods are undamaged, and two of our men unload them. - $500
8. Tabulate reasonable storage volume required for 100 units. How long will they be in stock? Who knows – they will be a brand new item (again)? For the sake of moving ahead let’s say it takes a year to sell all of these units. Workable space - $2M
Total outlay for one run - $9M
Cost per unit - $90
Items 1, 2, 4 and 8 are amortized as more batches are run. All other items are subject to fluctuate, usually upward. Finishing, profit, post casting machining for accuracy, rework and maintenance have not been considered; neither have improved efficiencies and other strategies to reduce unit cost over time. Packaging will be expensive and customer freight will be high for a unit with characteristics that go against the grain of our core philosophy. The most undesirable aspect is the unavoidable inaccuracy in casting without post machining. Casting inherently generates up to 10% fluctuation either way in weight accuracy due to the process and materials. Why? Most obvious is continual pattern wear that makes holes larger and parts smaller and lighter. Not so obvious is what density of material goes into the pour. Foundries will drop in scrap, recycle and beer cans in a heart beat if they can get away with it. Conclusion – this alternative is a drop dead loser. It is not a cost effective alternative and does not provide an accurately executed end product that our clients expect. The only thing it offers is having the make-you-want-to-grunt, unique, globe configuration. That is not enough to justify it.
Back to the drawing board. We realized we had boxed ourselves into failure by approaching this project improperly. We started out trying to replicate an old concept instead of engineering the desired results. That approach predicated failure. So, we started over in our conventional design manner. Assume all of our basic precepts as givens (loadable, safety, etc.). Allow form to follow function. What are we trying to do? Create a kettlebell. What are the basic characteristics? Essentially the kettlebell concept is a horizontal, one-hand grip with the load below. Details for the grip area were adopted from the popular ThumpersÔ. The grip height in relation to the load were taken from the Milo as a reference and assuming 10-pound Standard plates for the load. We knew the loading method had to be horizontal. PDA clients always want their equipment tailored to their specific needs. Therefore, we needed the flexibility of an adjustable length load area. To address that we attached a GINCÔ to the downrod so a bar of any length could be inserted and held securely. Perfect. The kettlebell could lock the bar, and the customer could use his own collars if he wanted to do so. If the kettlebell was unlocked, the kettlebell would rotate about the load, providing stress relief for the wrist. Great. Hard, stainless steel thrust washers would smooth the motion and prevent grinding of plates and components. We made preliminary material selections and executed load, yield, and deflection calculations. Material selection and assembly methods were adjusted to meet our safety factor requirements. Rerun the calcs. Terrific. Next was cost analysis – very affordable. Generate the CADD drawings and specifications and cut a work order. Voila! Let’s make a batch. We knew exactly how they would perform and look before they were completed.
GENERATION
Before the batch was done, we had calls from our regulars asking, ‘What’s coming up?’ ‘Kettlebells.’ ‘Tell me about them.’ Before we knew it, the batch was gone. So we made another and it disappeared. By the third batch we had time to take photos and get them on the website. They took off. Several months later John Quincy approached us to modify the design. As noted on our kettlebell page, the OVÔ design was the result. The essential change was to lower the grip centerline in relation to the load. Several months later, here comes Comrade Pavel reviving kettlebell training in his unique style and providing cast, fixed weight, globe bells. Some people told us they thought Pavel’s fixed globes were too expensive. We tell people they are very reasonably priced; it is the manufacturing methodology that is expensive. We noted how his design departed somewhat from the classic kettlebell inasmuch as the handles were somewhat integrated into the globe resulting in a lower overall format. Interestingly, Pavel’s arrangement is more similar to the PDA OVÔ kettlebell, whereas the original PDA kettlebell arrangement more closely approximates the classic kettlebell arrangement. Recall, the classic design was taller compared to the integrated handle of Pavel’s version. Frankly, Pavel’s puppies look great. Though we must admit, we no more believe kettlebells were ‘invented’ in his motherland any more than spaghetti or firecrackers. Still, a 53 would look great on the hearth next to the Milo.
We started getting feedback that resulted in the thicker grip and smooth grip options. Next we had an Olympic model request in the original configuration and executed it. At the time of this writing we have not yet been asked for an OVÔ Olympic model but are prepared to produce it. Anthony Follari requested a modified height Olympic Kettlebell. He wanted the handle to snug his plates. The Olympic version provided the opportunity to notch plates so they would fit around the downrod and fill up the gap - the load was now flush like the center-hung plates of the OVÔ. Anthony had the initiative to do that on his own. PDA now modifies plate assemblies on a case by case basis, even on the Standard version. Customizing and accommodating is not an issue. Our pricing structure is more than reasonable so if you are serious, it is within reach. If someone says our pricing is high, we insist they get quotes, and suggest they start under ‘K’ in the phone book.
The most common inquirer question is, ‘How much weight will your kettlebells hold?’ The short answer is, ‘Structurally, more than you will ever lift.’ The practical answer is, ‘Select a sleeve length. Deduct 1” for each kettlebell GINCÔ unit (on the kettlebell downrod(s) or actual collars). Divide the remainder by the thickness of your plates. Yes, sorry. You have to measure your plates – we can’t see them through the phone. There is no industry standard thickness. There are pancake models and lipped models with hubs. They range all over the map. So do their tolerances. Very inexpensive ten-pound pancake CAP plates are on the rack in Wal-Mart (not Kmart) that are ½” thick. There is 6” between our OVÔ downrods. You can load 10-12 plates in the usable sleeve if you only get a 1x8 bar. Do the math. Weight capacity is a non-issue no matter how you look at it. If you are using a full load on a PDA kettlebell with a 12” bar, you are a legend.
Coincidentally, we started getting calls for throwing tools. Our kettlebells provided a solution, the OVÔ in particular. The 1-3/8 grip (knurled or smooth) with an 8” bar and a pair of GINCÔs made a compact, easily adjustable, comfortably handling throwing device. The GINCÔs center the load, the grip is ideal, the overall height makes it ideal for pulling to the throw, and the hardware is bullet proof.
As Pavel became more well known, PDA received more and more calls from people asking for suggested routines, what kinds of equipment they should use, and the advantages of the different models and features of our kettlebells and those of other suppliers. We patiently explained, ‘we are an engineering company, we do not offer training routines, it would be unethical for us to suggest what you should buy, the benefits of the features depended on what you want to do, please formulate your goals’. We also do not offer test drives or returns on the basis of, ‘It’s not like I thought it would be.’ We deal with people who know what they want. We do not have time to deal with anyone who requires spoon-feeding. To do so would be an unforgivable act of disloyalty to our clients.
PDA provides equipment for those who know ‘specifically’ what they want to do. We are not a merchandising entity. We will not be put in the position of doing someone else’s thinking for them. We often suggest inquirers approach the Animal Ability board for independent third party input. At one point, we realized a way to increase efficiency. It went like this. Inquirer: ‘What kind of kettlebell assembly should I get?’ ‘We don’t do that. We’re an engineering company.’ ‘Huh?’ ‘Are you following Pavel?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Would you like to know the most popular arrangement among our customers who are Pavel followers?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘A painted OVÔ with a 1-3/8 smooth grip, a 1x12 bar and a pair of GINCÔs.’ Fini.
We have an ethics problem with spending 'sales' time for potential new business instead of focusing our resources on filling orders for those who have it figured out. We are not responsible for and have no interest in people who do not know what they want. It is unforgivable if we spend more than five minutes talking to a potential customer explaining features and benefits. We understand people sometimes want to chat about things however, they are stealing time from people who are already in the queue. Many do not understand that, but it doesn't matter. People who don’t think that way run most businesses. The majority of those companies fold within three years. We know what we are doing, why we are doing it, and will continue to do so. We have a deep-seated respect for our clients. And, PDA is not a democracy – it’s not up for vote. It’s our clients’ way or the highway.
Our heartfelt responsibility to our clients is part of our keen focus on customer service. To us, that means performance for our customers, not schmoozing to get any sale we can. Misinformed window shoppers erroneously classify themselves as customers; we are not so deluded. As the mainstream becomes more aware of us, we come across more people who belong at Kmart - and that's where we tell them to go. We are not afraid to decline orders and, when we do, it's permanent. We are taking, what some might think, are drastic measures to maintain the integrity with which we started, and will continue to do so.
Our site is, literally, an engineering specification within the limits of what we will divulge. We use it as much as possible to educate users about the equipment we design and build. Most people find everything they need to know here without any difficulty. Those that don't resolve their issues with what's here (less than 5%) offer comments (half and half) of 1. 'Too much information' (they are disorganized or lazy) and 2. 'Not enough information' (this one is just too hard to believe most of the time). The kettlebell requests we have been receiving, including Troy’s, are a clear indication this subject has not been addressed properly by anyone. Inasmuch as we typically step up to the plate when no one else does, we took his request as a timely, well intentioned nudge in the right direction.
CONCLUSION
What do we hope you take away from this Primer? A pathforward.
1. Decide for yourself if you are going to undertake a kettlebell training program.
2. Seek out kettlebell training information from old books and magazines, though there is not much in quantity or quality.
3. Seek out kettlebell training information from Pavel. He offers the most thorough and detailed treatment of the topic. Books are portable and long-lived. Tapes offer thorough illustrations.
4. Evaluate your training alternatives and structure your own program.
5. Decide your equipment specifications for yourself. How tall? How heavy? Loadable? Revolving? Right on down the line.
6. Get quotes for your requirements.
7. Evaluate the suppliers. Do you prefer an engineered product or merchandise? Do they evaluate equipment strength based on, ‘We loaded it up to 900 pounds and it did fine’? (Aren’t you glad they aren’t responsible for building codes?)
8. Evaluate the quality control of the supplier. Is accuracy a factor? Do they pooh-pooh accuracy for some items yet offer the most expensive calibrated Olympic plates on the market?
9. Evaluate the kettlebells, make a selection, and get to work. If you find additional features or customization will make things better, get a quote. If it’s detailed, make a sketch.
10.Most importantly, realize your equipment is a means to an end. Let it simplify and add enjoyment to your training experience.
11.Lastly, if you call PDA asking for training advice, or what you need or what you should buy, the next sound you hear will be the Kmart operator.
In closing, we hope you find this primer informative as well as enjoyable. We frankly offer our internal methods and goals. For those who know us already, we appreciate your indulgence. We intend for this Kettlebell Primer to help make the less informed wiser consumers.