Ring Buckle Supports

[blackbishop351]

Okay, I am sold on replacing my HH spectra cord and tree huggers with the ring/biner/webbing combination. I have ordered the items to do this, but before starting, I have a couple of questions (actually, I will have a lot of questions since this forum is enticing me to try other DIY projects, but I will address those in a different thread).

Regarding the knot tying the rings together; I have seen several interesting proposals offered here and am thinking of using the Anchor Hitch, but am curious whether anyone has done further tests and what their conclusions are. Also, I am wondering if having just one loop of cord through the rings and finishing with a Bow Line hitch would solve the problem of the rings being pulled out of alignment since there would only be one loop putting equal pressure on the rings. Comments from the engineering gallery?

Secondly, when I ordered the rings and biners, I was only anticipating changing the HH, but have since decided to also make a homemade Speer type hammock. To prevent having to order an additional set of rings, I am thinking of cutting the spectra close to the end of the HH and tying a loop in it. Then I would use an additional cord from the cut off (~ 12" long) to tie to the rings ala Just Jeff instructions and attach that to the loop with a larks head. Thoughts on the strength of this attachment and the likelihood that I would be able to disconnect it to use on the homemade hammock?

I use buckles instead of rings, but the same principles apply - without slippage.

As far as the HH Spectra, go for it. I would suggest just tying the rings directly into the Spectra without cutting first. That way you can test the ring system a few times to see if you like it, without sacrificing the Spectra. Just in case you want to go back to the stock system. Once you're happy with the rings, though, feel free to cut off the excess and use it for your homemade hammock. That's exactly what I've done.

[lvleph]

I use the anchor hitch. It still slips, but seems a little less likely to do so. Like I posted earlier a 3/4" ring on a 1" webbing seems like it would work best. I have two sets of ring buckles and 5 hammocks (I have been busy), and I just use the bite around the hammock end. This makes it easy to switch the rings from one hammock to the other.

Even after having Chantelle and myself both in a hammock at the same time, I think I could still untie the anchor hitch. It is most definitely tighter, but I believe it can be untied.

Yesterday, I cut my webbing down from 12' to 9'. I can seen this may cause some problems, but I figure there are lots of trees on the trail and I can hike a little further, if need be.

EDIT: You know I just realized that the descending rings I have are actually 1.5" which means the size of the ring should match the size of the webbing. I think a 3/4" descending wouldn't hurt any, but 1" would probably be easier to find.

[Just Jeff]

I still haven't noticed any slippage in mine. 1.5" rings with 1" webbing. Makes me wonder what's causing it for other folks. I'm guessing it's either the type of webbing or the rings and webbing being misaligned.

But then, I never get slippage with the larkshead on the hammock and other folks have said their larkshead slipped up to put pressure on the whipping. Right now, my double hammocks have about 12" between the larkshead and the zip-ties...the larkshead by itself is enough to keep it in place on the hammock fabric with no slippage.

I think a 3/4" ring would round out the edges of the webbing, causing more stress along the areas. Dunno if it would be enough to cause the webbing to fail or just stretch along the edges. I wouldn't use anything smaller than the webbing itself.

[lvleph]

I'm guessing it's either the type of webbing or the rings and webbing being misaligned.

This is absolutely the problem. Using a smaller ring would allow one to be less diligent in alignment.

[FanaticFringer]

Anyone know of a good place to buy 1" aluminum rings?

[lvleph]

I couldn't find one, but I am sure they exist somewhere.

[blackbishop351]

I'm not convinced on that...I did a LOT of research into rings when this system was first posted on the Yahoo group. The two styles/brands sold by REI are the only ones I could find with a rating.

[Just Jeff]

Yep - I poked around for a while and didn't see any 1" rings that were strength tested and weren't welded.

[TeeDee]

I use 1" polyester webbing. I first used the 1.5" descending rings because they were the only strength rated rings I could find and I was NOT willing to use unrated rings - I'm a died in the wool coward - too much experience otherwise.

There are no "descending" rings smaller, AL or otherwise. The SMC descending rings are the only descending rings made as far as I could determine. There are rappelling rings in stainless steel, ss, but they are HEAVY, very HEAVY.

I have since found strength rated ss rings. I have tested the 1" webbing with both 1.25" and 1" ss rings. Both the 1" and 1.25" rings are rated at 1430 lbs. I have ordered 0.75" rings rated at 690 lbs to test with the 1" webbing.

With both the 1.25" and the 1" rings I have detected no difference in slipping. It all depended on the knot I used and how careful I was in threading the buckle.

Will try the 0.75" rings when they arrive, probably tomorrow night. I don't really expect any difference.

I have found that I always go back to the 1.5" descending rings for one simple reason (since I don't find any difference in slippage due to ID): The smaller the ring ID, the harder the rings are to thread the webbing and use. 1" webbing with the 1.5" ID rings makes threading and use so very easy.

I just have to be careful and pay attention on setup, then no problem. Will let you know about my experience with the 0.75" ss rings with 1" webbing.

A 1.25" ss ring weighs about 0.16 oz more than the SMC descending ring, the 1" ss ring weighs the same and the 0.75" ring weighs about half as much.

In case someone wants to order their own ss rated rings, they are sold here:

http://www.apsltd.com/Tree/d3000/e814.asp

The cost for the ss rings listed is very reasonable and low.

[FanaticFringer]

I use 1" polyester webbing. I first used the 1.5" descending rings because they were the only strength rated rings I could find and I was NOT willing to use unrated rings - I'm a died in the wool coward - too much experience otherwise.

There are no "descending" rings smaller, AL or otherwise. The SMC descending rings are the only descending rings made as far as I could determine. There are rappelling rings in stainless steel, ss, but they are HEAVY, very HEAVY.

I have since found strength rated ss rings. I have tested the 1" webbing with both 1.25" and 1" ss rings. Both the 1" and 1.25" rings are rated at 1430 lbs. I have ordered 0.75" rings rated at 690 lbs to test with the 1" webbing.

With both the 1.25" and the 1" rings I have detected no difference in slipping. It all depended on the knot I used and how careful I was in threading the buckle.

Will try the 0.75" rings when they arrive, probably tomorrow night. I don't really expect any difference.

I have found that I always go back to the 1.5" descending rings for one simple reason (since I don't find any difference in slippage due to ID): The smaller the ring ID, the harder the rings are to thread the webbing and use. 1" webbing with the 1.5" ID rings makes threading and use so very easy.

I just have to be careful and pay attention on setup, then no problem. Will let you know about my experience with the 0.75" ss rings with 1" webbing.

A 1.25" ss ring weighs about 0.16 oz more than the SMC descending ring, the 1" ss ring weighs the same and the 0.75" ring weighs about half as much.

In case someone wants to order their own ss rated rings, they are sold here:

http://www.apsltd.com/Tree/d3000/e814.asp

The cost for the ss rings listed is very reasonable and low.

Nice post. I think I'll just stick to the SMC rings. They work well for me.