B&R 1.1 vs B&R 2.0 side by side

[zergrusher2010]

I just opened it. A few initial few shots showing them next to eachother. Very little play in the sleeves and they spin a lot more with just a standard no weight hand spin. Knurling feels a little sharper on the new bar.

[Synthetickiller]

This requires an extensive review.
You don't have a choice in the matter.
10 pages in word... GO!

[Ramcharger310]

This requires an extensive review.
You don't have a choice in the matter.
10 pages in word... GO!

Seriously dude, that is night and day.

[GarageIron]

Does the 2.0 have the same aggressive knurl section between the knurl markers that the original has?

It is advertised as the same knurl so I'm curious if they carried over the whole deal or just a reproduction of the York power bar knurl throughout.

[Domicron]

i miss the old school pin and donut on the sleeves of the b&r 1.0

i understand why they switched, but yeah

[zergrusher2010]

Does the 2.0 have the same aggressive knurl section between the knurl markers that the original has?

It is advertised as the same knurl so I'm curious if they carried over the whole deal or just a reproduction of the York power bar knurl throughout.

I am not terribly certain but the knurling feels the same throughout. Here are closeups of center knurl and the knurl between the marks. attached.

The steel looks much cleaner. The older bar has imperfections and blemishes in the steel while the 2.0 looks much cleaner. The ridged sleeve texture is excellent too.

[Ramcharger310]

I am not terribly certain but the knurling feels the same throughout. Here are closeups of center knurl and the knurl between the marks. attached.

The steel looks much cleaner. The older bar has imperfections and blemishes in the steel while the 2.0 looks much cleaner. The ridged sleeve texture is excellent too.

Dude...pls embed brah lol...

[zergrusher2010]

Dude...pls embed brah lol...

Thanks, embedding on mobile is a chore. I will try to get some more detailed pics and videos up tomorrow. Let me know what else you would like to see compared because I have to send the 1.1 bar back soon.

[dieselmike]

The steel looks much cleaner. The older bar has imperfections and blemishes in the steel while the 2.0 looks much cleaner. The ridged sleeve texture is excellent too.

2.0 is Made in USA, so perhaps USA Steel. The 1.1 used "North American" Steel made in Canada. Perhaps that is why. So far sounds like you are happy with it. Glad to hear. Based on your first thread on this topic and then your "Scratched Sleeves" Thread, you seem like a tough consumer. Sounds like you found a winner.

A little update on my 1.1 version which I'll mention here because can't recall which of the many recent B&R threads I noted this:

I said in one of those threads how I consider the B&R bar a Power Bar as opposed to Multipurpose Bar which is used in Rogue's description. I said how it has no whip while squatting, which is preferred. I need to update that statement. The other day I had 515 on my back. The bar does indeed bend. If there is a difference in the steel being used I'd be interested if your 2.0 does the same.

[Mech6]

2.0 is Made in USA, so perhaps USA Steel. The 1.1 used "North American" Steel made in Canada. Perhaps that is why.

lol, gtfo.

[dieselmike]

Let me know what else you would like to see compared because I have to send the 1.1 bar back soon.

Zerg, I just read a review on Rogue commenting on the ridges in the sleeves, which the reviewer felt was a cheap downgrade. You mentioned earlier in the thread that you liked the ridge design. Can we see a comparison up close?

[zergrusher2010]

Zerg, I just read a review on Rogue commenting on the ridges in the sleeves, which the reviewer felt was a cheap downgrade. You mentioned earlier in the thread that you liked the ridge design. Can we see a comparison up close?

Sure I'll get a better up close shots tonight when I get home. I can try loading the bar up and photo the straightness as well. I've been doing a little more polishing and paint work on the CAP plate holes so I don't scratch the sleeves on this one.

[GarageIron]

2.0 is Made in USA, so perhaps USA Steel. The 1.1 used "North American" Steel made in Canada. Perhaps that is why. So far sounds like you are happy with it. Glad to hear. Based on your first thread on this topic and then your "Scratched Sleeves" Thread, you seem like a tough consumer. Sounds like you found a winner.

A little update on my 1.1 version which I'll mention here because can't recall which of the many recent B&R threads I noted this:

I said in one of those threads how I consider the B&R bar a Power Bar as opposed to Multipurpose Bar which is used in Rogue's description. I said how it has no whip while squatting, which is preferred. I need to update that statement. The other day I had 515 on my back. The bar does indeed bend. If there is a difference in the steel being used I'd be interested if your 2.0 does the same.

If they are both 29mm and the same length, they will bend the same regardless of the type of steel.

The B&R from York used US steel.

[Mech6]

If they are both 29mm and the same length, they will bend the same regardless of the type of steel.

This

The B&R from York used US steel.

For what it's worth, US Steel has operations in Canada also. And other companies vice versa. It's all the same until you get into proprietary alloys (hardox, weldox, algotuf...).

[GarageIron]

For what it's worth, US Steel has operations in Canada also. And other companies vice versa. It's all the same until you get into proprietary alloys (hardox, weldox, algotuf...).

Sorry, I didn't mean from the company US Steel... we have (or had) one of their operations here in Hamilton. I meant the bar stock was from the US.

[dieselmike]

If they are both 29mm and the same length, they will bend the same regardless of the type of steel.

Even if diff tensile strengths? Mine = 190k - 2.0 = 205k
I have no idea what this mean, no matter how many times it's explained to me. Sorry.

The B&R from York used US steel.

For what it's worth, US Steel has operations in Canada also. And other companies vice versa. It's all the same until you get into proprietary alloys (hardox, weldox, algotuf...).

When you(s) are saying "US Steel" are we referring to the corporation, United States Steel Corp, based out of Pitt, PA that's been around forever? or are you(s) using "US" as a generic term meaning "Steel from the United States"?

Not that it really matters as I am of the mindset it's all the same (apparently China Steel is the inferior one?) But like I said above I am not versed in the subject at all. Just curious.


Edit: GI answered as I was typing that question. So basically is it safe to say all steel on this side of the ocean is similar enough?

[Mech6]

Even if diff tensile strengths? Mine = 190k - 2.0 = 205k
I have no idea what this mean, no matter how many times it's explained to me. Sorry.

Tensile strength will indicate when a part will BREAK. Pretty much useless for our needs, unless it's very low.
Yield strength will indicate when a part will enter it's plastic defomation zone (no longer elastic). This just means when it will not recover it's original shape. Most important to weed out cheap bars.
GEOMETRY (diameter and length) is the ONLY thing that determines how much deflection (bend) a bar will get at a specific load. Along with young's modulus, but that's the same roughly for all steels of the same type/class.

When you(s) are saying "US Steel" are we referring to the corporation, United States Steel Corp, based out of Pitt, PA that's been around forever? or are you(s) using "US" as a generic term meaning "Steel from the United States"?

Not that it really matters as I am of the mindset it's all the same (apparently China Steel is the inferior one?) But like I said above I am not versed in the subject at all. Just curious.


Edit: GI answered as I was typing that question. So basically is it safe to say all steel on this side of the ocean is similar enough?

Yes, all the same.

[dieselmike]

That's awesome Mech. Thanks for putting it in terms I can understand. the one factor I did not realize is that "GEOMETRY (diameter and length) are the ONLY things that determine how much deflection (bend) a bar will get at a specific load"

Based on that statement it is not entirely true then on Rogue's part to call this a "no whip" bar? You agree:

[Bench905]

Based on that statement it is not entirely true then on Rogue's part to call this a "no whip" bar? You agree:

They are trying to compare it to their weightlifting bars which are 28mm or multi-purpose bars at 28.5mm. 28mm will bend more than 29mm under the same load.

Of course all steel will bend at SOME point...

[Mech6]

That's awesome Mech. Thanks for putting it in terms I can understand. the one factor I did not realize is that "GEOMETRY (diameter and length) are the ONLY things that determine how much deflection (bend) a bar will get at a specific load"

Based on that statement it is not entirely true then on Rogue's part to call this a "no whip" bar? You agree:

They are trying to compare it to their weightlifting bars which are 28mm or multi-purpose bars at 28.5mm. 28mm will bend more than 29mm under the same load.

Of course all steel will bend at SOME point...

This. A 2" fat bar would be "no whip". 29mm vs 28mm doesn't look like much of a difference, but the deflection follows the diameter at a power of 4. So that 1mm difference makes a big difference. 29 = 28 * 1.0357. At ^4, the difference in deflection would be 1.15, so 15% more for 28mm vs 29mm.

[keyboardworkout]

That's awesome Mech. Thanks for putting it in terms I can understand. the one factor I did not realize is that "GEOMETRY (diameter and length) are the ONLY things that determine how much deflection (bend) a bar will get at a specific load"

Sleeve design could be a factor. How close the plates are to the ends of the bar.

This is why you often see the big deadlifters using bumpers as the inside plates.

[matchsprint]

This. A 2" fat bar would be "no whip". 29mm vs 28mm doesn't look like much of a difference, but the deflection follows the diameter at a power of 4. So that 1mm difference makes a big difference. 29 = 28 * 1.0357. At ^4, the difference in deflection would be 1.15, so 15% more for 28mm vs 29mm.

Actually, doesn't deflection increase inversely as the fourth power of cross-sectional area, not diameter? At that point, the difference between 28 mm diameter and 29 mm diameter at the fourth power is over 30%.

[Mech6]

Actually, doesn't deflection increase inversely as the fourth power of cross-sectional area, not diameter? At that point, the difference between 28 mm diameter and 29 mm diameter at the fourth power is over 30%.

Moment of inertia I = (pi/64)*d^4.
deflection is inversely proportional to I.

[Synthetickiller]

Seriously dude, that is night and day.

Eh? What is night & day? Context my friend, I need it!

[c00nc4t]

Tensile strength will indicate when a part will BREAK. Pretty much useless for our needs, unless it's very low.
Yield strength will indicate when a part will enter it's plastic defomation zone (no longer elastic). This just means when it will not recover it's original shape. Most important to weed out cheap bars.
GEOMETRY (diameter and length) is the ONLY thing that determines how much deflection (bend) a bar will get at a specific load. Along with young's modulus, but that's the same roughly for all steels of the same type.

Since you seem to be pretty knowledgable in this area, I've been wondering what the relationship between tensile and yield strength is. From what I've gathered they're related by some kind of ratio, such that a steel with higher tensile will also have a higher yield, and vice versa. This would seem to mean that, in the absence of published yield strength figures, one could safely use the tensile number as a proxy. However, I've also heard the claim that some heat treatments can increase the tensile independent of the yield? Any insight?

[Mech6]

Since you seem to be pretty knowledgable in this area, I've been wondering what the relationship between tensile and yield strength is. From what I've gathered they're related by some kind of ratio, such that a steel with higher tensile will also have a higher yield, and vice versa. This would seem to mean that, in the absence of published yield strength figures, one could safely use the tensile number as a proxy. However, I've also heard the claim that some heat treatments can increase the tensile independent of the yield? Any insight?

There are no ratios because, as you said, heat treatment and hardness will affect it greatly. Look at a nail. You can bend it into a U and it won't break. The yield stregth is very low compared to the tensile strength. Now take the same nail, but harden it greatly. Such as a drill bit. It will break pretty much at the exact moment it starts to flex. Yield and tensile strength are very close. Which is one of th reasons you can't use screws for certain constructions. Must use nails.

[c00nc4t]

I think I get what you're saying, but I keep seeing figures in charts like these:

w w w.euroguarco.com/files/EG_Pipes&Tubes_Tab01.gif
w w w.columbuscastings.com/metals-cast.html

that seem to show a pretty clear relationship between tensile and yield strength, at least when comparing commonly used steels of similar compositions. From what I can tell the yield strength tends to be between 75-90% of the tensile strength. So while there is some variation, generally a higher tensile steel will also have a higher yield strength. I've found this to be true in real-life examples where both figures are published for barbells, as well. In all cases I've seen, bars with higher tensile also have higher yield.

So if you take for example a bar with a published 200k psi tensile rating and assume the y/t ratio is on the very bottom of the scale, around 75%, it would have a 150k psi yield rating. You could then compare it to a bar with say a 160k psi tensile, and even if it had y/t ratio at the very top of the scale, around 90%, it would only have a 144k yield. And a bar with a 130k tensile will obviously never get close to either in yield, as the yield cannot exceed the tensile by definition. So while if you have two bars that are pretty close in tensile like 190k vs 200k, then yeah you can't really determine which would have a higher yield from that...but you just won't see for example a 200k bar with a lower yield strength than a 130k bar, there isn't that much variation between the two numbers.

Obviously in an ideal world the manufacturers would just publish the yield strength, but until that happens I think the tensile can serve as an adequate proxy. Sorry for being so wordy about this, but this has been bugging me for some time. We should just start petitioning the big barbell companies to publish yield strength so that you don't need a mechanical engineering degree to choose a barbell!

[Ramcharger310]

Eh? What is night & day? Context my friend, I need it!

Those bushings and end caps.

[Mech6]

I think I get what you're saying, but I keep seeing figures in charts like these:

w w w.euroguarco.com/files/EG_Pipes&Tubes_Tab01.gif
w w w.columbuscastings.com/metals-cast.html

that seem to show a pretty clear relationship between tensile and yield strength, at least when comparing commonly used steels of similar compositions. From what I can tell the yield strength tends to be between 75-90% of the tensile strength. So while there is some variation, generally a higher tensile steel will also have a higher yield strength. I've found this to be true in real-life examples where both figures are published for barbells, as well. In all cases I've seen, bars with higher tensile also have higher yield.

So if you take for example a bar with a published 200k psi tensile rating and assume the y/t ratio is on the very bottom of the scale, around 75%, it would have a 150k psi yield rating. You could then compare it to a bar with say a 160k psi tensile, and even if it had y/t ratio at the very top of the scale, around 90%, it would only have a 144k yield. And a bar with a 130k tensile will obviously never get close to either in yield, as the yield cannot exceed the tensile by definition. So while if you have two bars that are pretty close in tensile like 190k vs 200k, then yeah you can't really determine which would have a higher yield from that...but you just won't see for example a 200k bar with a lower yield strength than a 130k bar, there isn't that much variation between the two numbers.

Obviously in an ideal world the manufacturers would just publish the yield strength, but until that happens I think the tensile can serve as an adequate proxy. Sorry for being so wordy about this, but this has been bugging me for some time. We should just start petitioning the big barbell companies to publish yield strength so that you don't need a mechanical engineering degree to choose a barbell!

If one goes up, for steel, usually the other goes up also, yes. But there is no exact "ratio" when you start working with alloys and/or hardening. If you're talking mild steel, sure, it's pretty linear. But no barbells are made from mild steel.
Also, tensile strength is tested by pulling the piece apart. Different materials, with same tensile strength, can have different shear strengths, for example. It's not clear cut and simple, which is why there's a whole branch of enginerring devoted to materials.

[Synthetickiller]

Those bushings and end caps.

Sorry! I entirely misread that. I thought you were asking, "why do we need a review?" LOL.
I like the old school york end, but things change, unfortunatley.