Quad Rings? 2 on each end?

skygear

skygear

New member
Location
in a tree
Was messing around with some spare rings sitting around and thought, "I've seen doubles and triples, why not quads for the hell of it!" thoughts?

I know I could just do a triple and add a 4th with a prussic to make it remote retrievable/ settable. I'llseewhat the weathers like tomorrow and play with some.
 
Are you talking about ring to ring rigging slings? Or climbing line anchor point ?

Teufelbergers multi anchor can be set up as a retrievable, doubly isolated anchor point (2 separate redundant / isolated TIPs with 4 in-line rings, retrievable with 1 rope / cone)
 
X rigging
f7bbf997af3a6cfe177257cbd215d861.jpg
65e7a15b0d6033a71221af24cd329639.jpg
 
CanadianStan said:
What advantage are you hoping to achieve with 4 rings?
Click to expand...
skygear said:
None. Just the Novelty of it and splicing prowess...
Click to expand...
I think the idea of three came from the idea that when these first started being used in the industry it was recommended three be used for bend radius, specifically on stuff later than 1/2... What i recall was, typically a R&R & then an additional prusik xring or dead eye hitches on.. I remember seeing it suggested in one of the original X ring videos on Arbor X's YT channel (who started X-rigging ring iirc) as well as good ole' Tom Hofmans YT channel..

Idk about 4 though.. Is it possible to do so without having to do a reweaved brummel or a half assed brummel that isn't locked (called a Lock Stitch splice according to Teufelberger, not to be confused with actual lock stitching with whipping) I haven't really tried to picture the 4 in my head though yet, so maybe it is easily possible... easy being key word.
 
Last edited:
I’ve read from various sources that multiply rings don’t improve the bend radius, only increases the break strength. The rope going over the rings only makes contact with 45 degrees of the two end rings. Maybe if using three rings,with the middle one being shorter to take some of the load, it might improve the bend radius?
 
Brocky said:
I’ve read from various sources that multiply rings don’t improve the bend radius, only increases the break strength. The rope going over the rings only makes contact with 45 degrees of the two end rings. Maybe if using three rings,with the middle one being shorter to take some of the load, it might improve the bend radius?
Click to expand...
Unless, of course, you use the Bend Right ring.

https://www.bendrightrings.com/our-rings
 
Brocky said:
I’ve read from various sources that multiply rings don’t improve the bend radius, only increases the break strength. The rope going over the rings only makes contact with 45 degrees of the two end rings. Maybe if using three rings,with the middle one being shorter to take some of the load, it might improve the bend radius?
Click to expand...
Yeah I've heard that too but have never really looked into it that much.. I just remembered all the hooplah about bend radius using single rings & larger Cordage..

However.. higher breaking strengths & bend radius are going to be related, arent they?
 
Jimmycrackcorn said:
Yeah I've heard that too but have never really looked into it that much.. I just remembered all the hooplah about bend radius using single rings & larger Cordage..

However.. higher breaking strengths & bend radius are going to be related, arent they?
Click to expand...

It is not that three rings changes bend radius. As stated earlier, bend radius is established at either end. One ring is staright forward. Two rings will “equalize” and end up side by side. When you add three or more rings the middle ring(s) have to offset or disspace a bit and that changes the entry and/ exit angle just a touch, therefore altering load.

Think of a multi block system in a tree canopy where seperate blocks share the load with rope angles trending more obtuse than acute. That is the concept, just in a much smaller space.

Don’t go crazy. There are diminishing returns as you add rings and ultimately load must be transfered and the first law of thermodynamics appliies to all rigging in this universe. As for splicing prowness? I say game on!

The original reccommendation of three rings over one or two is quite simple. In the original “extream” breaking tests (as in lifting lagre pieces and dropping them till failure on purpose ((described to me years ago by David)) two or less rings parted the rope the riggning point. Three rings and the rope parted at the piece. Pick your poison.

Tony
 
Tony said:
It is not that three rings changes bend radius. As stated earlier, bend radius is established at either end. One ring is staright forward. Two rings will “equalize” and end up side by side. When you add three or more rings the middle ring(s) have to offset or disspace a bit and that changes the entry and/ exit angle just a touch, therefore altering load.

Think of a multi block system in a tree canopy where seperate blocks share the load with rope angles trending more obtuse than acute. That is the concept, just in a much smaller space.

Don’t go crazy. There are diminishing returns as you add rings and ultimately load must be transfered and the first law of thermodynamics appliies to all rigging in this universe. As for splicing prowness? I say game on!

The original reccommendation of three rings over one or two is quite simple. In the original “extream” breaking tests (as in lifting lagre pieces and dropping them till failure on purpose ((described to me years ago by David)) two or less rings parted the rope the riggning point. Three rings and the rope parted at the piece. Pick your poison.

Tony
Click to expand...
I think i remember that video.. It was pretty wild.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom