Ruta Locura carbon fiber spreader bars for WB Ridgerunner

[Papatechie]

I've been thinking of rigging up something similar once I move.

I believe that the weighted portion though should be a single piece. In your sketch you are loading them in 'ideal' conditions.
If you turned those two cables into a single loop- then attached a small basket (like a milk crate) I think that would better simulate the single point loads that a bridge has to deal with.

Basically- one of the hardest things on a bridge is simply getting into it. Your full body weight is sitting down onto a roughly 2'x2' area and concentrating that load onto the fabric before transferring it back to the suspension.

When you sit down on one edge, nearly your whole weight is on that side... so in theory you are cross loading the pole, and as you rock your bodyweight into the bridge that load rolls across to the far side before reaching a balance.

So the sketch you have... might be enough for a static test if the failure load produced was very high.
Much like rope or suspension you loaded up 1000lbs before failure that would produce a 5:1 for a 200lb occupant and be quite encouraging.

To that point as well- I think it would be important to use the actual suspension components too (rather than cable).
For the RR... that would mean the webbing and buckle (or at least the hardware so we don't are not testing the stitching)
For mine... that would mean the spliced amsteel.

I would be very interested in consulting Grizz and a few others here about how best to establish a test and would be willing to put some money where my mouth is in regards to testing.

Might be time to start a new thread?

I do really like the engine hoist idea!
I've been debating where and how I could test safely considering that a failed CF pole could shoot splinters and any pole could really cause some issues.
Anybody who has ever used a recessed bar bridge and had a pole shoot through the body knows that they shoot with considerable force.

I don't have access to anything like that and it's either hang the rig off the steel in the basement or a tree in the backyard. The issue with both is adding weight safely. I figured I could rig some type of system to hoist the load with climbing gear... but hiding behind a sheet of plywood while you pump the engine hoist lever seems safer for sure.

To give you an idea... here's a video I made to demonstrate bridge loading.
I was thinking that adding the load in same condition I am using the piece of webbing I sit on would best test the poles.

I've been thinking of rigging up something similar once I move.

I believe that the weighted portion though should be a single piece. In your sketch you are loading them in 'ideal' conditions.
If you turned those two cables into a single loop- then attached a small basket (like a milk crate) I think that would better simulate the single point loads that a bridge has to deal with.

Basically- one of the hardest things on a bridge is simply getting into it. Your full body weight is sitting down onto a roughly 2'x2' area and concentrating that load onto the fabric before transferring it back to the suspension.

When you sit down on one edge, nearly your whole weight is on that side... so in theory you are cross loading the pole, and as you rock your bodyweight into the bridge that load rolls across to the far side before reaching a balance.

So the sketch you have... might be enough for a static test if the failure load produced was very high.
Much like rope or suspension you loaded up 1000lbs before failure that would produce a 5:1 for a 200lb occupant and be quite encouraging.

To that point as well- I think it would be important to use the actual suspension components too (rather than cable).
For the RR... that would mean the webbing and buckle (or at least the hardware so we don't are not testing the stitching)
For mine... that would mean the spliced amsteel.

I would be very interested in consulting Grizz and a few others here about how best to establish a test and would be willing to put some money where my mouth is in regards to testing.

Might be time to start a new thread?

I do really like the engine hoist idea!
I've been debating where and how I could test safely considering that a failed CF pole could shoot splinters and any pole could really cause some issues.
Anybody who has ever used a recessed bar bridge and had a pole shoot through the body knows that they shoot with considerable force.

I don't have access to anything like that and it's either hang the rig off the steel in the basement or a tree in the backyard. The issue with both is adding weight safely. I figured I could rig some type of system to hoist the load with climbing gear... but hiding behind a sheet of plywood while you pump the engine hoist lever seems safer for sure.

To give you an idea... here's a video I made to demonstrate bridge loading.
I was thinking that adding the load in same condition I am using the piece of webbing I sit on would best test the poles.

Yep I was gonna hide behind a board of Plywood! Valid points and very interesting video...thanks for that! Nice to see how the ridgeline reacts to the load and tension on the bridge.

Now I'm thinking perhaps I need to revisit the load test but maybe still use the Engine hoist. Instead of pulling the load it might make more sense to lower the load. I'll need to rig up a mock suspension using amsteel and what not; but the idea would be to lower a load of sand inside an army duffel bag simulating a portly dummy dude. 300 lbs would be a success rate in my mind since the RR is only rated for 250 lbs. It is also possible that I could add sand bags 1 by 1 in the hammock instead of using the engine hoist. With that said I could add some disturbance in the force by prodding and poking the suspension with a long pole simulating wind and a bad nights sleep.


See 2 version chicken scratch below:
BarTestVer2and3.JPG

[Just Bill]

Your sketches are excellent, lol.

I'm a carpenter... so I tend to muddle 'engineer' when speaking but my rough understanding:

You're going to get more value (if testing poles) going back to a version of sketch one. That isolates the poles and would also allow you to use a lower weight overall.
In theory- if you were to load a single pole to say 300lbs... we could roughly guess that a bridge with those poles could safely support that weight when in use.

Keep in mind- it's the head bar we care about. While some could likely argue or show the math on why the load on each end is the same at the anchor.
I'm 95% certain that the load is higher at the head pole for two reasons:
Most of us are 'torso heavy' so we don't present an even load (like your sandbag duffel) would. (this is more magnified in a recessed bar bridge vs an endbar to be fair to the RR).
The head poles on all the bridges up for discussion are all longer than the foot poles. In my case 36" foot/43" head. I don't recall off hand but RR is 32/40 or something like that?

Either way... I think if you failure tested the head pole and divided by .75 you'd get a decent safety rating when used in combination.

With Sketch two... you are failure testing the whole bridge. Definitely has some value but since the bridge in question (the ridgerunner) is only rated to 250lbs I'm not sure what value you would have with that. I would think you would pop stitches or damage fabric before you hurt the poles basically. It would achieve a failure rating for the bridge as a whole... but not answer the CF versus AL question very well.

If nothing else... My bridges already show that the aluminum poles can hold up to 400 pounds of occupant with .75" poles at 43" and a single joint.
.625" Aluminum poles can fail (or at least get scary) around 225 pounds in the head pole of my bigger bridges.

Anecdotally you could assume that if I can do 225lbs in my Luxury bridge with a three piece head pole... you could probably safely assume the RR can at least match that in a shorter 2 piece.

But the hard thing with bridges is there are a lot of forces in multiple directions. As well as factors such as the dogbone length and how close the load is applied to the pole itself.
The point of the video I posted above was to show how one could mitigate even some extreme versions of those forces. (such as all your load being concentrated off-axis directly under the head pole)
Here is an example of extreme loading:




I am not familiar enough with the RR to comment specifically on how it works or what would be a good test. I know that Brandon did some testing at some point. We might have to wait until he gets back from OR show to get his input.

Unlike my bridge... with the poles on the end you can't point load it the same way someone in my bridge might. Though I suppose you could stand in the end of a RR too... that's pretty silly as there is no realistic scenario in which you would sleep that way. The sketch one test is actually probably a pretty fair test for the poles for use in a RR bridge as I think on it more... but doesn't answer the question for recessed bar bridges.

Anywho... maybe I will start a new thread to get some feedback. There are folks like Grizz and others (including Brandon) who may have a solid test that could help.

I'd like to see Josh at Ruta Locura get more buisiness from us... and I think the CF poles are a good investment for those who like bridges and would like to take them backpacking more often so it's a win for everyone to work this out in a manner that makes sense. I think more folks would be willing to jump on board if some solid feedback and standards were set.

I don't see them going past 250... but that is the realistic upper limit for the RR, Ariel, and my Single layer bridge anyway. So that's about as far as they need to get 'pushed'.

[Just Bill]

So if we wanted to order exactly what you have shown what would we ask for?

To help out others....

If you want the absolute lightest set and weigh 180 or less-
You can ask for a 600 set with single joints (two piece poles). I have heard as light as 5 ounces.

If you are under 180lbs (or a risk taker) you can go for a three piece headpole nesting set.
These have the small/short section in the center, and the two halves of the footpole nest inside. They will weigh slightly more and have two different diameter poles (700/600 I think)

Since I am currently using my three piece sets up to 225lbs in my bigger bridges... you are probably okay pushing further at your own risk.
There are a few brave folks on my end using these in real life conditions, I am the heaviest at 230lbs... the rest are closer to 200.

My three piece pole sets weigh 7 ounces... a RR three piece should be a hair less.

But as mentioned before... a two piece pole is a safer bet as you approach or pass 200lbs.

SO... if you are 200 pounds get at minimum a 700 head pole and 600 foot pole.

Much past that... and more testing is needed.


If it makes it easier...
I believe Josh is familiar with the following terms...

Ask for Ridge runner bridge poles, even better, give him the finished length of the poles.
Tell him you want a two piece set. 600 for 180 or less. 700 head, 600 foot for heavier folks.

Tell him you want 'spikes' if he asks. These are his word for pole tips. (as opposed to a rounded or plugged end) If you are have a bridge that uses a webbing pocket of some sort you don't want 'spikes'

If you are feeling like it... ask him for a three piece headpole with a nesting foot pole.
This weighs slightly more... but packs smaller overall and I feel is probably worth the ounce or so penalty.

You can only get a nesting set in a three piece head pole... folks ask. It doesn't work in a two piece because of the ferrules. The center pole of the three piece has both ferrules, allowing the foot pole to slip into the head pole.

Roughly-
My medium pole set (2 pairs of 36" single joint (two piece) .600 poles with spikes) weighs 5 ounces. I believe some of the RR sets in that size are similiar.
My Luxury Set in a three piece nesting style weighs 7 ounces.

So no matter how you go it's a very light rig either way.

If it helps...
Here is my pole video. This shows the three piece nesting set in CF and compares them to AL poles. I think the weights are 'close enough' or a hair lighter in the RR sets.

[Carbon]

I think it's safe to assume that, in general, the larger the pole diameter, the more sections you can have, thus more nesting options.

[Papatechie]

Bill you are a "Wild Man!" getting up in that bridge like that! The bar placement of your hammock kind of reminds me of the eureka chrysalis bridge hammock now made by Helsdon Outdoors. I think that there are some valid points both you and Carbon make about more weight then opt for less sections and bigger tubes. I also agree that the forces on the head end are more as I'm willing to temporarily shorten my foot suspension with a tie but never the head end.

I think my goal here really is some backyard testing to see what these carbon poles can handle with my configuration of 700 and 610. Maybe I'll do all three sketch tests to a certain weight and see how it does lets say 350 lbs since the head end will never absorb that entirely anyways. If it survives all 3 tests it would be at least a good weekend gear review junkie starting point. I'll leave all the big numbers to the engineers as that is above my pay grade LOL!!

[Just Bill]

I think your first sketch is a pretty simple and safe test.
If nothing else it would provide an opportunity to eliminate a potentially lower bar than we might think. I have a feeling the pole would do pretty well (700).

If you got test one to a 300lb or even 400lb "lift" that would be a pretty solid back of napkin test with lots of practical value.

Some quasi engineering... If say the 600 pole made it to 300, and the 700 to 400 with no issues I'd feel very comfy for myself calling that set capable of a cautious 350lb limit.
A vendor has to be more careful than an end user... so while I might not sell something at that rating per say...

If you tested each pole to those limits and cut them at half... you'd have 150lbs at the foot and 200lbs at the head. Not up to snuff for engineering math but decent practical math I'd say.

That exceeds the safe load of the Ridgerunner you are testing for as is and would leave me feeling very confident in them.

That single test alone (if passed) would probably be enough to settle most doubts.
As you say... from there it's more complicated to try to determine limits and max capacity. Also probably not really needed for most.



It might not pass a bounce test or some yahoo standing on one foot under it but that's not a practical test.

[Just Bill]

I think it's safe to assume that, in general, the larger the pole diameter, the more sections you can have, thus more nesting options.

I think the credit goes to Brandon on the original three section design if I'm not mistaken.

Not knowing the engineering language or math to express it-
There is some value in placing those joints very near the center I believe.
That's based on my understanding of the 1/3 rules I am familiar with as a carpenter regarding floor joists and extra loads placed (or holes drilled, etc.).

So I wouldn't say placing them just anywhere would work and the specific combo/design is important.

Also... In fairness to Josh at Ruta Locura. This is a very small and experimental part of his overall business. His tube diameters and selection are limited.
We are pushing the smaller tubes in the trekking pole sets for bridges, but I believe 700 is pretty 'heavy duty' in his SUL world of CF products. So 700/600 is about his upper limit at the moment.

I ran into the same thing with my stuff as a .75" is the largest Easton pole available to me so that set up the limiting factor on my designs.

[MinnetonkaBoater]

To help out others....

If you want the absolute lightest set and weigh 180 or less-
You can ask for a 600 set with single joints (two piece poles). I have heard as light as 5 ounces.

If you are under 180lbs (or a risk taker) you can go for a three piece headpole nesting set.
These have the small/short section in the center, and the two halves of the footpole nest inside. They will weigh slightly more and have two different diameter poles (700/600 I think)

Since I am currently using my three piece sets up to 225lbs in my bigger bridges... you are probably okay pushing further at your own risk.
There are a few brave folks on my end using these in real life conditions, I am the heaviest at 230lbs... the rest are closer to 200.

My three piece pole sets weigh 7 ounces... a RR three piece should be a hair less.

But as mentioned before... a two piece pole is a safer bet as you approach or pass 200lbs.

SO... if you are 200 pounds get at minimum a 700 head pole and 600 foot pole.

Much past that... and more testing is needed.


If it makes it easier...
I believe Josh is familiar with the following terms...

Ask for Ridge runner bridge poles, even better, give him the finished length of the poles.
Tell him you want a two piece set. 600 for 180 or less. 700 head, 600 foot for heavier folks.

Tell him you want 'spikes' if he asks. These are his word for pole tips. (as opposed to a rounded or plugged end) If you are have a bridge that uses a webbing pocket of some sort you don't want 'spikes'

If you are feeling like it... ask him for a three piece headpole with a nesting foot pole.
This weighs slightly more... but packs smaller overall and I feel is probably worth the ounce or so penalty.

You can only get a nesting set in a three piece head pole... folks ask. It doesn't work in a two piece because of the ferrules. The center pole of the three piece has both ferrules, allowing the foot pole to slip into the head pole.

Roughly-
My medium pole set (2 pairs of 36" single joint (two piece) .600 poles with spikes) weighs 5 ounces. I believe some of the RR sets in that size are similiar.
My Luxury Set in a three piece nesting style weighs 7 ounces.

So no matter how you go it's a very light rig either way.

If it helps...
Here is my pole video. This shows the three piece nesting set in CF and compares them to AL poles. I think the weights are 'close enough' or a hair lighter in the RR sets.

Hi Bill,

It's been a while for max weight discussion on the cf spreader bars. At one time 3 piece sets were only for under 180. Is that still holding true? I hope to be at 230 this summer and wondered if you have heard how they are holding up for a heavyweight like me.

[Gravitythief76]

Just returned from a trip ended early by the catastrophic failure of my headpole. It exploded at the ferrules in 2 places when my hiking partner 210lbs was laying in my rr. No bueno

[TrailSlug]

Just returned from a trip ended early by the catastrophic failure of my headpole. It exploded at the ferrules in 2 places when my hiking partner 210lbs was laying in my rr. No bueno

This is exactly why I haven't pulled the trigger on a set of these. I was setting up camp last night thinking I'm not sure I could make it back to the truck if my hammock failed. I thought to myself it's better to carry a bit more weight than risk a failure. Sorry this happened to you. Hopefully you were miles out and dead tired.