By Brett Gottdener on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 07:54 pm: Edit

Someone posted this info earlier.

http://www.gromax-usa.com/supplies/ring/hoistring.htm

Looks like really nice stuff, but expensive. I know the $G bumper comes with 5,000 lb. This seems way to weak, and I would want something like 7K or 8K. Any opinions, as they get quite expensive. I guess you could always go with Dixon Bates

Brett Gottdener

By Kyle on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 08:33 pm: Edit

Yeah , the swivel rings are more for looks then function. The hoop size if like 3/5 on those from $G but the little pin holding it all together is tiny. The ones with the rating like you need are huge...


Kyle

By p m on Friday, October 26, 2001 - 08:41 pm: Edit

Kyle,

has anyone ever used eye-bolts or nuts?

peter

By Moe on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 01:50 am: Edit

That cross pin does look small. Any record of these hoist rings failing?

By John on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 10:04 am: Edit

FYI-Manufacturers built in safety factor listed as 5:1 on the D-Rings. A black oxide finish isnt rust proof, cad plated is the way to go there, but more expensive. The 4140 matls are heat treated properly for strenght without brittleness.4140 or 4142 are the better load bearing matl with proper R/C rating. Anyone ever broke one? Maybe overbuilt/over priced for the purpose we use them for, but a good product IMO. The comparable 3/4" alloy eye bolt is rated at 6400 lbs, but side pulls on a rigid eye bolt is more prone to failure than a swivel ring. Obviosly with Dixon-Bates the bumper/mounting is the weakest link,lol. Anyone know the Nato ring ratings?

By Kyle on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 10:42 am: Edit

Yes , and we all know how ratings go. Those pins there are freaking tiny. I dont even thing the tolerances of the other parts and their acosiation with each other is even such that we can draw from a shear rating on that little pin. The gap is fairly wide there and the pin will start to bend before it shears. They are on the slinky bumper and I have used them a few times but I dont trust em....

Kyle

By John on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 11:26 am: Edit

I agree, the pins are the smallest parts, which is where the ratings have to apply the most. Of course I think the pins are the same dia. as a nato ring dia(3/8")? which is the basic oval, but I havent seen one of the Nato's break or stretch as well. I hear what you say, I just havent seen a swivel d-ring, or a nato ring break. School is still out I suppose. I would love to hear someone report on a breakage of any type ring as that helps us all. I think the real concern is how we attach any ring, swivel or eye to a bumper so the bumper doesnt twist, bend or shear. The ARB's(1/8") have the thinnest metal at the un-supported attachment holes, SG next(3/16"), both with just thru holes. The threaded backing plate with enough sq. inches is definately needed and recommended to spread the load on any bumper.

By Kyle on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 12:36 pm: Edit

Yes , the norm for attachment points is a joke at best. It makes me wonder what the hell was going through their heads when they did it. It seems that most things were designed for looks with not much thought put into it actually being used/abused in real situations. It seems the ideas for recovery come from past ideas in the 4x4 market. I think thats a mistake. Recovery ideas should be taken from the industrial recovery market. I know you got a buddy (Boggs) that knows this all too well. If you look at most industrial recovery aplications you wont find rings like that in use. What you find is a standard plate with a hole for a shackle. Thats everything from back Hoes to fire trucks.. I think the military is still using this system as well. Its simple and effective. The thing you broungt up earlier about off center pulls is valid. It probably reduces the strength of the ring and the mount by 50% when you pull anything but dead on using it. Thats why I think they are mounted in the wrong position. They should be rotated 90 degrees...

Kyle

By cartner on Saturday, October 27, 2001 - 10:10 pm: Edit

Thats a rule in Climbing, don't pull off center. IT will reduce the strength of a carabiner/ring by about 40% (I think that's the rule) and after you have done it, your SUPPOSED to dispose of said 'biner. Don't know if that applies to a D-ring, but likely does as it is similar in design to a carabineer.

By Moe on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 10:22 am: Edit

A 5:1 safety factor is impressive. So the pin wont sheer until it is spiked to 25k lbs for the 5k rated ring. Sounds like one of the cases were sexy is also functional.

By Kyle on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 10:54 am: Edit

LOL , yes , and a 9K planetary superwinch is has a stall rating of 11.9K. By the way , I have a nice bridge in brooklyn I am thinking of selling..

Kyle

By Brett Gottdener on Sunday, October 28, 2001 - 11:44 pm: Edit

So would you guys recommend the 7K or 8K pound swivel rings. I really like the fact that you can pull in so many directions with them. It's nice to know and understand the safety ratio as well.

By Moe on Monday, October 29, 2001 - 12:18 pm: Edit

Hmmm, a Brooklyn Bridge? I'll buy depending on the saftey factor rating and if it looks sexy enough I will strap it to the Disco

Brett, why the 8K ring? I would think the mounting system would fail well before the the 5K ring would shear. Also the 8k ring is 1" thick!