https://www.bend-rightrings.com/ Anyone try these?
- Thread starter SeanKroll
- Start date
- Replies 37
- Views 4K
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
I have, but it was a minor load.
THAT'S the part I've always had a problem with.
THAT'S the part I've always had a problem with.
my point was about heavier rigging.
Raj
TreeHouser
Sorry. I typed it wrong.
Has there been a failure on a rigging ring due to bend radius?
Has there been a failure on a rigging ring due to bend radius?
Benjo75
Treehouser
I may be looking at it wrong but if the middle ring is a little higher than the outer rings it does decrease the bend. It does take a few more seconds to get the perfect height. Taking into consideration that the middle ring will have more than 1/3 of the load. Which will cause it to be pulled down more than the outer rings. But in a perfect setup, if it is higher it will decrease the bend just like the top of the pulley is higher than the sides. If a pulley had a flat spot on top it would have a decreased bend. Realistically this wouldn't ever matter as I don't usually push my rigging that hard. A ring would be slightly harder on the rope than a pulley. But not near as rough as natural crotch rigging. I've been using a Safebloc for about a year. I rarely use anything else anymore unless it's negative rigging huge blocks. The Safebloc has a tighter bend than I like but it's spread out over 3 or 4 different bends depending on how many holes I use. The only downside so far is it's starting to groove out. I've already had to turn it upside down.
Bounce
TreeHouser
I have some serious doubts about these rings for heavy rigging applications. As I understand it, the most important single factor in rigging systems with a dynamic load is the length of the rope between the load and the belay point. Rock climbers use the term “fall factor” to describe the severity of a fall, which is the ratio of the fall distance to the length of rope in the system available to absorb the fall. Wouldn’t these rings dramatically shorten the amount of rope in the system? Isn’t this exactly why we’ve always used pulleys instead of a much simpler/lighter/less expensive shackle or biner? And that’s just if you’re only concerned about fall factor. But if bend radius is what really gets you going, then isn’t that yet another thing that pulleys do better than rings? And then there’s the temperature issue. Obviously the rings have got to be made out of aluminum or else such a small piece of metal would quickly get so hot it might damage the rope. But anybody who has ever had to remove the rope from a hot figure 8 after a long rappel will know that even aluminum can get hot enough to damage rope. Again, isn’t that just another reason to use a pulley instead of a ring? I’m having trouble seeing the benefit here.
Tim_B.
TreeHouser
I might be getting this wrong, but I thought the idea of the rings was to add in some friction to the system in the same way that natural crotch rigging does, with the benefit being that it makes it easier for a ground man to handle the situation at the Port-a-Wrap, or other base mounted lowering device. With less chance of damaging the rope than natural crotch rigging, also.
Tim
Tim
SeanKroll
Treehouser
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #35
Tighter bends, more wear.
Easy, light, remote retrieval/ installable, inexpensive, adds a bit more friction than blocks, spinnable for wear/ longevity, smooth edges (cheek plates are often not very round-edged).
I put some Rig and Rings and a Husky 1/2" to the test today, flying some logs to a remote spar rigging point. Worst bend radius is probably at the half-hitch or running bowline if no HH was used.
Easy, light, remote retrieval/ installable, inexpensive, adds a bit more friction than blocks, spinnable for wear/ longevity, smooth edges (cheek plates are often not very round-edged).
I put some Rig and Rings and a Husky 1/2" to the test today, flying some logs to a remote spar rigging point. Worst bend radius is probably at the half-hitch or running bowline if no HH was used.
Marc-Antoine
TreeHouser
The bent radius thing is a data given by the rope manufacturers, either steel or textile rope. It doesn't say that you will drop your load with a tight radius, but that the load allowed on a rope decreases as the radius is smaller. So the WLL is reduced by a certain amount. The recommended radius is the value with an acceptable reduction. Going farer than that is possible but at the cost of a substantial loss of both rigging capacity and durability. You could very well never see the difference, because it's hidden in the safety margin, at least if you don't push the thing too far. But your safety margin is no longer 7 as it should be but more like 5 or less. That lives less room for the other hazards affecting the rope.
It isn't a matter of load, length, size, or even angle, but just curvature.
Just look at it closely, not the wide view of all the device, but follow bit by bit the path of the rope.
On a pulley, the rope first comes straight, then bends and takes the shape of the pulley, rides all over the pulley with the same bend (constant radius of the groove), then lives the pulley and straightens back.
On the three stacked rings, the rope first comes straight, then bends and takes the shape of the first ring (way smaller radius than the pulley). After a bit of riding on the ring, the rope lives it and straightens for one inch or so, then the rope finds the second ring, bends again on it to take its shape and slides to the other side.
Here, the rope lives the second ring and straightens for the second time, taking a small travel in the air. The rope finds the third ring, bends again to take its shape as previously, slides on it for a bit, finally lives it and straightens for the third time.
You can see that the rope only took the shape of the rings individually and was never close to the shape of the first case with the pulley, even if the overall size of the stack can match the size of the pulley.
Now, for the flattened pulley, the rope actually sees two tight bend radius on the edges of the flat spot.
I'm afraid you do.
It isn't a matter of load, length, size, or even angle, but just curvature.
Just look at it closely, not the wide view of all the device, but follow bit by bit the path of the rope.
On a pulley, the rope first comes straight, then bends and takes the shape of the pulley, rides all over the pulley with the same bend (constant radius of the groove), then lives the pulley and straightens back.
On the three stacked rings, the rope first comes straight, then bends and takes the shape of the first ring (way smaller radius than the pulley). After a bit of riding on the ring, the rope lives it and straightens for one inch or so, then the rope finds the second ring, bends again on it to take its shape and slides to the other side.
Here, the rope lives the second ring and straightens for the second time, taking a small travel in the air. The rope finds the third ring, bends again to take its shape as previously, slides on it for a bit, finally lives it and straightens for the third time.
You can see that the rope only took the shape of the rings individually and was never close to the shape of the first case with the pulley, even if the overall size of the stack can match the size of the pulley.
Now, for the flattened pulley, the rope actually sees two tight bend radius on the edges of the flat spot.
Benjo75
Treehouser
I do agree that 3 rings would have a different and definitely tighter bend than a pulley. But it seems that you can situate 3 rings to lessen the bend as opposed to 2 rings. Although slightly. I started out natural crotching. Got tired of ruining my ropes prematurely. Went to a shackle. Way too tight of a bend. Then to pulleys. They're perfect except for nearly doubling the force at the rigging point. Then to a Safebloc. Now experimenting with rings. Even after all of that I still use all of the above except for the shackle. Probably 90% Safebloc, 5% pulley. Only when lifting will be involved and 5% natural crotch. This discussion does have me looking at things and studying about it more. Thanks all.
Similar threads
