This pretty close to the best answer I came up with. BUT. Woodchucks are rodents, not monkey-ancestor brachiators like us. So their shoulder and arm assembly is geared to grip & gather, not swing and bear weight. So the ‘calculated’ answer I came up with was 35grams. Given the moment arm and leverage etc. Plus claws get in the way - woodchucks don’t have fingers/thumb for gripping like us. No doubt this question will continue to bother me.
You make some fair points. Perhaps only a 75% reduction was far too generous in hindsight. i think 35g is a bit too light though.these woodchucks are quite capable diggers. If you imagine it scooping up the wood in a digging fashion, perhaps flung betwixt its legs, I feel it could get a bit of power that way.
True. The initial question does not specify if the chuck in question is forward directed or rear directed. Damn questions that miss out on the most important info.
This pretty close to the best answer I came up with. BUT. Woodchucks are rodents, not monkey-ancestor brachiators like us. So their shoulder and arm assembly is geared to grip & gather, not swing and bear weight. So the ‘calculated’ answer I came up with was 35grams. Given the moment arm and leverage etc. Plus claws get in the way - woodchucks don’t have fingers/thumb for gripping like us. No doubt this question will continue to bother me.
You make some fair points. Perhaps only a 75% reduction was far too generous in hindsight. i think 35g is a bit too light though.these woodchucks are quite capable diggers. If you imagine it scooping up the wood in a digging fashion, perhaps flung betwixt its legs, I feel it could get a bit of power that way.
True. The initial question does not specify if the chuck in question is forward directed or rear directed. Damn questions that miss out on the most important info.