what's in your rigging bags?! Show em up !

This is a post from the rigging whoopie thread I found that pushes for some good conversation in my opinion on the three ring theory something I've been pondering though it was better than one or two and feel like this helps me believe myself
From 10 /12
I don't know how bring the post over here all fancy like. So I copy pasted it.

morayMember

I'm wondering if this is true. In the drawing below. the 3 rings with a taut rope are shown above, and a single ring, S, with taut rope is shown below.
3Rings019Small.jpg


Wherever a rope is in contact with a ring it follows the surface of the ring and therefore has a bend radius equal to the section radius of the ring. These curved sections of rope are exactly the same for the 3-ring configuration and for the single ring. So the arc from B to C in the upper diagram is exactly the same as the arc from b to c in the lower diagram, and one would expect the weakening effect on the rope to be the same in both cases.

Now in the upper diagram the rope from A to B is perfectly straight because it is not contacting any ring. There is no bend radius and no weakening of the rope. To believe that the 3 rings are somehow better than one, one has to argue that the straight section A to B and the other one to the left are somehow helping to cancel or reduce the weakening that occurs in the arcs, such as B to C. If so, why not move the rings much further apart, say a foot between each ring, and get an "effective pulley radius" of two feet? I doubt if anyone believes that works. If lengthening the straight sections doesn't help, then reducing them shouldn't hurt, and we can reduce them to 0, ending up with the single ring, S. The rope, in other words, doesn't know the difference between 3 rings and one.

If ropes were perfect mathematical objects, this would seem like a pretty solid argument. But they aren't. Maybe there is some benefit to the rope in having a 180-degree bend subdivided into 3 bite-size chunks rather than a single uninterrupted arc, as in the lower diagram. Does anyone have any actual evidence, or a good argument, that this is true?
 
By the way, I'm a real addict with a serious problem ...and got an ABR monster sling. I mean with a tag line like it will change your life. Cmon... So far I've just used it to play like its an anaconda with my kids. Looking to gin pole some large dead oaks coming up on n combo with the stein . I'm living the dream I think
 
JontreeHI said:
I think it's also about the friction of multiple rings more so. Have you tried to rig decent weights on a single ring? Very jerky. Friction of three (or two) stabilizes this
Click to expand...
No ,I don't. I have always rigged on multiple ring setups. At least two ar a time. Other than redirects at pretty wide angles, occasionally.
 
Treetopflyer said:
This is a post from the rigging whoopie thread I found that pushes for some good conversation in my opinion on the three ring theory something I've been pondering though it was better than one or two and feel like this helps me believe myself
From 10 /12
I don't know how bring the post over here all fancy like. So I copy pasted it.

morayMember

I'm wondering if this is true. In the drawing below. the 3 rings with a taut rope are shown above, and a single ring, S, with taut rope is shown below.
3Rings019Small.jpg


Wherever a rope is in contact with a ring it follows the surface of the ring and therefore has a bend radius equal to the section radius of the ring. These curved sections of rope are exactly the same for the 3-ring configuration and for the single ring. So the arc from B to C in the upper diagram is exactly the same as the arc from b to c in the lower diagram, and one would expect the weakening effect on the rope to be the same in both cases.

Now in the upper diagram the rope from A to B is perfectly straight because it is not contacting any ring. There is no bend radius and no weakening of the rope. To believe that the 3 rings are somehow better than one, one has to argue that the straight section A to B and the other one to the left are somehow helping to cancel or reduce the weakening that occurs in the arcs, such as B to C. If so, why not move the rings much further apart, say a foot between each ring, and get an "effective pulley radius" of two feet? I doubt if anyone believes that works. If lengthening the straight sections doesn't help, then reducing them shouldn't hurt, and we can reduce them to 0, ending up with the single ring, S. The rope, in other words, doesn't know the difference between 3 rings and one.

If ropes were perfect mathematical objects, this would seem like a pretty solid argument. But they aren't. Maybe there is some benefit to the rope in having a 180-degree bend subdivided into 3 bite-size chunks rather than a single uninterrupted arc, as in the lower diagram. Does anyone have any actual evidence, or a good argument, that this is true?
Click to expand...
I think this has to do with the outside of the rope, when bending a radius, has to stretch while the inside (pulley or ring side ) has to travel less distance than the outside of the rope so it wants to bunch up. This creates internal friction in the rope. On a single ring (say 1 inch diameter) the outside of the rope had to stretch enough to make a 180 degree bend. With 3 rings, this now allows 3 inches for the outside of the rope to stretch for making the 180 degree bend (creating less internal friction internally in the rope.) This is how it has been explained to me. I'm just passing along info I obtained and would like to see if this makes sense to everyone else. Hope it helps
 
Thst
N.e.Tree said:
I think this has to do with the outside of the rope, when bending a radius, has to stretch while the inside (pulley or ring side ) has to travel less distance than the outside of the rope so it wants to bunch up. This creates internal friction in the rope. On a single ring (say 1 inch diameter) the outside of the rope had to stretch enough to make a 180 degree bend. With 3 rings, this now allows 3 inches for the outside of the rope to stretch for making the 180 degree bend (creating less internal friction internally in the rope.) This is how it has been explained to me. I'm just passing along info I obtained and would like to see if this makes sense to everyone else. Hope it helps
Click to expand...
that sounds like it makes sense
 
I feel like rope bend radius is one of the least understood and most overrated things we talk about. For the average arborist, who knows the equipment and it's limits, doing average tree work it should be much of an issue. I've seen guys (myself included) rig decent chunks onto biners, pinto pulleys, and single rings. Most of the knots we use contribute to a higher strength loss than the bend radius at the rigging point.

image.webp

If I'm totally wrong someone please set me straight.
 
With the biner you're looking at some major strength loss ,as we all know,trip when I think back on all the stuff got away with on a karab.had ropes fail from it a few times also...[emoji16]
 
I always think of these things like poking holes in your veins... little hole here, 5% blood loss, big hole over here, 30% blood loss... maybe none of them would be immediately fatal on their own, but it's cumulative... (not a great analogy, as the damage to the ropes over time is what is cumulative, not the lessening of break strength at various places along the rope, but it serves to keep me thinking about how these things affect the rope's lifespan).

I have a friend who gave a scathing review of a 5/8" rigging rope because it broke while he was using it to pull over trees using a hillbilly technique that involved poorly tied knots (if you can even call them knots), the rope being subjected to some horrid bend radius conditions, and using a truck bumper for a friction device. The poor rope was probably down to 10% of its strength when he stomped on the gas.

I know I'm anal about that stuff, but I love dogs and ropes and don't believe in abusing either of them.
 
Last edited:
paul phalloides said:
Here is most of my rigging stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks for revibing this one paul.. Ever get into the rig N rings ? .. I feel it's tool every rigger ought to know. You'll find it indispensable once your setting (retreivable maybe novel in some instances but proves useful when you want it ) rigging points that can hold a shit ton.. Sometimes I'll just go up to make the cut after setting all rigging and Ropes from the ground. Means alot to some ,not much to others .. I get paid for Tree assinations being fast and accurate.. the rigging rings , As well as some other tools that help deploy them quickly and get Trees flying where we want make that money just a bit easier..:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom