Lol. Great trip. No regrets!
Lol. Great trip. No regrets!
Even without the bugnet I find that loop to not exert much pulling pressure on the head end spreader bar. I use a 4-piece aluminum spreader bar with one joint falling right in the middle of the bar. I'm cautiously aware of that and the bar seems solid.Originally Posted by Gravitythief76
I also weigh 170.
But if I ever let anyone else try my RR I need to make sure to remind them not to ever touch/tug the spreader bar while in the hammock.
Short answer- not enough data. I am 230 pounds and have used a three piece carbon fiber head pole in my Luxury bridge for roughly 30 nights. Until I put 60-90 nights on them I will not send a set to a tester.
I have a few testers in the 200lb range... and as SGT. Rock chides 'yer gunna die!'. But applying his sarcastically sage advice for myself... is much different than applying it for you.
So no change, my general number of 180lbs remains a rough guideline.
Long Answer-
I'm testing for my bridges, not ridgerunners. That's not coming from a 'vendor' promoting an individual product, but from a fellow hanger with a decent understanding of bridge design.
I recently bought a RR to check out, but have yet to unbox it. But there are a few structural differences that have come up in regards to this topic even before I had a horse in the race.
The Ridgerunner is an endbar bridge, so the loading of the pole is slightly different period. My bridges are recessed bars. So I can comment and share as a fellow hanger looking to further this discussion...but can't yet give anyone any definitive answers.
Two very important things to consider....
1-Dogbone length is a critical number in pole stress... and in the 'quest to lighten up' it's come up before that people have modified the RR dog bones.
I have shared before that at minimum you should stick with 100% of bar length. Shaving a foot or two of amsteel is nowhere near as 'cost efffective' from a weight saving standpoint as swapping the poles.
More importantly that choice may directly cause the bar to fail. I often see these two items linked in discussion on how to lighten up the RR... they are two variables not to be altered lightly.
So... if you choose to modify your bridge by introducing CF poles- DO NOT shorten the dog bones. If anything you need to extend them.
Yes- Grizz and others have introduced the magic formula of .8 times the bar length as a minimum length for dogbone. But that is generally for 36" or smaller bars for hangers around 200lbs or less. And generally for folks designing their own gear.
I got started and inspired by Grizz's counting grams video. So despite not wanting to argue too deeply with my favorite Professor; in one regard I've gone one further than Grizz. My Micro Bridge uses .490 poles, by far the lightest poles anyone has used to build a bridge with a 200lb load limit. I have even since found a way to two piece that pole.
BUT... the bridge itself was designed to make that happen. Including dogbone to pole ratios far in excess of 100%. The geometry of the bridge body and suspension used all contribute.
2- The ridgerunner uses metal hardware. I use spliced amsteel or dynaglide. It was brought up here and discussed that the metal hardware may introduce some uneven loading due to the angle of the plate as it heads from bridge to APEX. Some folks noted that the pole didn't sit fully or squarely. An issue that was further magnified when dogbone length was reduced.
Removal of the metal hardware and directly attaching the dog bone to the webbing suspension may be a better solution... it may even be required when pushing the poles further.
My bridges interface with the pole much differently than the RR. As a recessed bar bridge with spliced eyes, they load the poles differently period. So some anecdotal success in one model doesn't transfer to another.
With a ridgerunner- it is entirely possible that CF pole failure is a direct result of shortened dogbones (or incorrect length) and the metal hardware.
I can't say off hand...but I would suspect it.
In fairness to Brendan:
He did not design these bridges to work with CF poles.
So please don't take anything said as implying otherwise, or even suggesting my design is better. They are simply different, and I think the differences are important relevant to CF pole use specifically.
In fairness to Josh at Rota Locura:
He doesn't even hang, and is simply trying to help out. I have had a chance to work with him more directly, but I (and all of us) are simply asking him to fabricate something.
It remains our responsibility to use that item safely. Bumping up a pole diameter is sound advice. And I can tell you that Josh has done some solid work as far as evaluating how to assemble these properly overall.
But it would be very unfair of us to assume he can do much more than recommend and do his best. He's taking a good bit of risk on for no good reason and I'd hate to see him get burned for it.
Scares the crap out of me to hear a CF pole fail.
As a vendor I'd hate to ever see Brandon or Josh in a spot where their business could be affected.
As a customer and user- I'd hate to see the opportunity to continue to push things end.
So PLEASE!
Pretty Please... don't take these CF pole choices lightly.
Yes, we are as a community making some progress but as much as I am a huge fan of Sgt. Rock's philosophy this is a bit beyond hanging higher than you are willing to fall or having your $30's worth of MYOG fabric fail.
Busting your tail bone or fracturing an elbow are much different than taking CF pole shards to the face or worse.
More importantly; as a designer of bridges you are potentially tinkering with things you might not understand very well.
Choosing to try 1.0 fabric over 1.2 or 1.6 is a pretty straight risk proposition.
Modifying a bridge hammock with poles not designed for this use is a bit different. I don't even fully understand the risk proposed or all the forces at work. Not even sure Professor Hammock could run the math.
We are not talking 5 or 10 to one safety factors... we are talking between 1.1 or 2 to 1 on the high end.
I hate to say it, but unlike Rock's tongue in cheek warnings- it's not entirely out of line to suggest that with just the right pole snap that yes indeed- you could die.
Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt, especially over a few ounces.
If you're not sure what you are doing; don't do it. One of the most fundamentally important aspects of UL is personal responsibility.
Accurately accessing risk, and taking on a reasonable amount of it for a reasonable return.
If that risk reward calculation doesn't make sense or you can't run it yourself then don't play this particular game.
PS-
That little 'rant' wasn't directed at anyone.
If anything it was selected to take some personal responsibility for this overall.
I come from a super ultra light backpacking background, and I'm happy to bring some of that to hammocks and reduce gear weight.
I have built and sold .67 ounce membrane 10 hammocks, gear for FKT (fastest known time) trips, and occasionally what most would consider 'disposable gear'
That is gear that is just strong enough to finish the trip. If you have a 60 day speed hike for a record breaking trip then if I can build something that falls apart on day 59.5.... I'd call that perfectly designed.
I'm a big fan of pushing things, and it was my efforts to that end with the Micro Bridge that contributed the knowledge to build my Big Guy bridges.
But I've been doing this since I was a kid... a good 30 years overall.
I remember when my boots weighed more than the pack I now carry... and a backpack more than my entire hammock system.
I remember having a perfectly good time doing it.
Gear is monumentally lighter and stronger. And better made.
It's pushing on all ends that makes that happen, even if you are not an Ultra light gram weenie you benefit from the innovation.
So keep pushing if that's what you're into.
But even I happily concede that there is such a thing as 'light enough.'
Especially when it comes to safety.
Despite my best efforts, for the most part a bridge hammock is simply heavier than a gathered end.
Nature of the beast so to speak. If the perceived benefits outweigh the penalty on the scale... then sling up that bridge.
I don't 'sell' my micro bridge or publish any info on it for a reason. It has a very narrow window of opportunity for a very narrow type of user looking for something very specific.
I'm mildly concerned that as we make some progress with carbon poles that we are ignoring that these fall under the same category.
I'm also mildly concerned that in helping to push... that I don't push too far.
Professor Hammock agrees with everything his star student JustBill has said. Particularly
Modifying a bridge hammock with poles not designed for this use is a bit different. I don't even fully understand the risk proposed or all the forces at work. Not even sure Professor Hammock could run the math.
Grizz
(alias ProfessorHammock on youtube)
Very well stated and you couldn’t want a better endorsement..
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke
A few points I can add to the discussion...
The only poles we ever had fail were the smaller diameter .6 size Aluminum head poles (40") (same diameter as the current foot poles .6 or .625 If I recall). This was probably 4 years ago. After closer inspection we were noticing some flex in the pole under normal loading, it turned out the location of the center hole in the corner buckle was effecting this, we adjusted the location of that hole by maybe 1/4" and that seemed to keep the pole in more of a pure compression, made a big difference really. I do feel that shortening the dogbones would throw this balance off though and introduce flex. We also went up to the .75 diameter for the head pole at the time the buckle hole location was adjusted. Since those changes were made we have not had any pole failures and we do continue to sell the .625 head pole for people under 160 just to be conservative. We did some makeshift testing of the .75 head pole suspended from it's ends (actually suspended a couple inches in from each end), a person about 150lbs can do a pull up on it without it breaking, same person doing some moderate bouncing and it breaks. Keep in mind that is not compression at all but pure lateral flex.
The loop of shockcord the pole has the option of going through...this should not apply any sideways tension to the pole, if it applies any sideways force to the pole I would expect it to be extremely little force (an ounce or two), I would not expect this to have any real world effect on the pole
Great info. Thanks for sharing.
I'm particular fond of the word particularly and of the fella who said it in particular.
Still feel like the little kid who got an A on his paper rushing home to tell his parents when I get a kind word from my favorite professor!
Between Grizz and WV I have a strong inclination to name a bridge 'David' when I can come up with one worthy.
Can't thank those two gentleman enough for all they've contributed to the community and to myself in particular.
Thanks for chiming in Brandon.
I too have had some failures with .625 poles at the head end.
Much like this recent incident it involved a person who was lighter and allowed a person heavier to use the gear. A little horsing around (bit of bounce) and the .625 aluminum went poof.
In a 36" bar- 225lbs or even 250 seems reasonable at that diameter, but much beyond that and things seem to get tenuous quickly.
It leads me to conclude that .625" bars shouldn't be used beyond 36".
I am discontinuing that option in my stuff after the failure of that set I just mentioned.
Being a gram weenie I figured I'd give it a shot... but in real life the difference in weight between .625 and .75 Aluminum poles isn't even enough grams to get me excited enough to take the risks.
Even in the large Luxury pole sets we are barely talking half an ounce difference in a pole set.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks