X Rigging Rings, thoughts

The article seemed to have been written by someone who doesn't quite understand rigging or physics, even though they thought it was impressive that they could quote the basic force equation. They dead ended the line, which is a worst case scenario that needs to be addressed (for strength ratings), but doesn't actually do anyone any good because that's not proper usage of any rigging device. Adding friction in the tree is nice because it lowers the force on the trees structure, but by doing so it also loads a section of rope more severely than if a block was used because less rope is taking the load because some of the friction is in the tree.

So we are back, as the article stated, to damaging the rope more. How much more is open to research (my bet would be not enough to care about if you retire gear as needed), but taking massive pieces because you can now control it does stress the rope more than if blocks were used. While I agree that more research could be done, the fact is that the article missed what it should have done because the author was clueless about rigging, rope wear, and physics. And history. With the exception of the rope wrench, everything covered is ancient technology.

The 3 hole rigging thing is basically a rappel rack, the serial friction brake is literally just wraps on a bar, but the square thing is a good idea, which is why ships used square timbers for Samson posts, to decrease bending radius to allow for more friction. Rigging rings were called deadeyes (3 hole ones were common for tightening standing rigging, and looked like a skull) for as long as the English language has existed, and were used to be cheaper alternatives to blocks. Making them rope stropped isn't new either, because everything used to be made that way. Making them with al is new tho, but using them for trees isn't, Jerrys thimble is an example.

These and other devices that can be used for partial friction will damage rope more than a block, but how much is the question that should have been asked. No mention of bending radius, no mention of abrasion, no mention of heat build up (well they mentioned that in passing, but didn't research it). Basically they just tested braking strength, which tells is nothing.
 
Last edited:
Nice post, interesting sailing references and background.
 
I mangled a section of true-blue getting a tree down quickly. Easy saved the rope expense. Buy a new one, or don't natural crotch 350-500 pound logs. I knew what I was doing, and the consequences.

AFB's are not build to be levered against the trunk for negative blocking, not are carabineers. Just don't use them that way.

Also, they left lots of slack with the AFB and RnW, yet pretensioned the POW, at least a bit.
 
Will x ring come out with a monster ring like the Not available Fiori ring?
 
Here's a few of my observations about the article:
-two of the 8 or 9 pictures in the article show a Safebloc with an improper sling (some kind of tubular webbing sling, not the 3/4" t-rex sling that was described as being used in the article), one of which shows a failure in the sling. This picture showing a broken sling automatically makes the product itself look bad to the casual or uninformed observer. Its also not clear if the pictures are from the author's testing or someone else's testing.
-If you look at the Safebloc on the Sherrill website, it clearly shows a WLL of 2,700 lbs. on the Safebloc itself. Seems to reveal a pretty lackluster effort to do background research.
-I might be wrong, but the author seemed to describe that the test did not involve any type of movement in the rigging line, that the logs were essentially dropped into the system and therefore shock loaded the products. How does this testing method really apply to the goal of the test? Put differently, how does this test the efficacy of the different products to utilize friction to reduce forces at the rigging point? To me, it doesn't, it only stress tests the products. To observe friction would require the rigging rope to move through the products, right?
-At the end of the day, is a test like this inherently bad or malicious? I don't think necessarily so. However, the author fully admits its a kind of preliminary round of testing and not conclusive at all. If thats the case, why publicize it in a well read magazine, possibly to the detriment of the products and product developers?
-Knowing the amount of effort David Driver has put into the rings and Safebloc, it must be extremely frustrating to see a publicized test that really didn't seem to include much background knowledge or show much initiative to understand how these tools ought to be used. It also would not surprise me at all if this were some sort of underhanded way of discrediting any of the products that were tested. The article itself wasn't terrible, I'm just not sure why it was published so early in the testing. Maybe TCIA just wanted to address this topic and was short on time?
Also, I doubt it will affect sales of the Safebloc much.
 
My BMS Belay Spool rolls in the truck, for sure.




I don't understand how someone reviews tools that they don't know how to use.




Sam/ Grendel,

In case it was not clear...the several lines was meant to read as two different thoughts.


Different strokes for different folks about using the Belay Spool.




The authors shouldn't review tools that they don't know how to use.
 
Oh no worries Sean, I'm by no mean experienced enough with the belay spool to rule it out entirely. I should have worded my original post more carefully. It's not for ME treework. haha

In static lowering and control situations, I can see the merit. I think it's a cool friction break, just not for dynamic loading or real heavy stuff. Also found it difficult to feed line through after the event, and ended up moving up to the rigging point repeatedly to help it along. I suppose it's like Mick said, I just kind of lost interest.

Digging the Safebloc though. . . even if most of my rigging consists of catching stuff with slings so I can hand drop it. It's a neat tool with a redirect and a rope guy.

Cheers.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I9OpaWDNOzU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

this vid predated the rings by 5 or more years... love the rings, but there is something about a tool under $10 that can be o useful that will always have a place in my heart
 
Yup. Steel biners and clevises get a lot of work done.
 
Will x ring come out with a monster ring like the Not available Fiori ring?

I can't speak for David Frans but I really doubt it given the response I gathered from him when that big ring was first shown. Also if you were on the ground when David or Lawrence load up a single line or double line rigging set with log I don't think you would see the need for any more capacity.

Lawrence was putting down 2000 lbs of wood at a wack for me on one cypress job. It was pretty much maxing out my Avant 528 for lifts. I think we are the weak link, not the XRR's or the Safbloc.

That article....:).
 
Have you seen that giant ring?

It's not a matter of strength,it just has so many more uses than the 'beast' size xring/largest antal ring...
 
Yes, strengh is important, but that big ring can be attached to the sling/ load line in ways the smaller ones cannot
 
Does the ring do something a big shackle wouldn't? A bit of weld on the pin?

I remember seeing and old rigging shackle that Riggs had, IIRC, that had weld built up all over the pin for bend radius/ wear surface, I think. It was in an early article about rigging rings.
 
I've wondered about that! I can see the steel shackle being a heat sink and holding onto the heat, especially on long runs, but where does the heat go on a ring... Laws of physics don't change... friction will turn to heat ... where does it go???? most likely a simple answer... can someone clue me in on the physics of heat dissipation...
thanks
 
Murphy I'm no expert but I would guess it's because the aluminum dissipates the heat so well ie the whole ring becomes the same temp so you have a larger surface area dissipating heat. The steel doesn't transfer it's heat so well so you have a condensed area of really hot material so less surface area but higher temps. Hence melted ropes..,.
 
Back
Top