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.
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:
.
