Hey guys i have a pair of elitle wooden rings from www.ringtraining.com. I have them strapped on a really sturdy place. However, the safety tips warn agaisnt performing swinging elements on them. Anyone know why is that so? I dont think they're gonna snap or anything
Swinging Elements on Elite Rings
Started by Kai.L, August 6, 2013 · 23 Replies · 7,760 Views
Because either the rings or the straps may fail. Conditioning rings are NOT designed for this usage.
Swinging elements should only be performed on competitive gymnastics equipment specifically designed to handle these skills safely.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
check my test video here in equipment section.. i have tested rings made of wood. 400kg no problem. maybe next time i will do some more advance test for you..(swinging) dont be scared 
rings made by myself from veeners. so i am sure..they are ok 
do it yourself
Even if the rings themselves do not fail in a sudden swing do you really want to chance the straps. They are most certainly not made for that. To test them is dangerous and irresponsible.
I will repeat this once again for those who seem to have missed it all of the other times; do not perform swinging elements on conditioning rings. Ever.
400kg is a drop in the bucket. Many of the higher level swinging elements generate 7x-10x bodyweight thru the bottom of the swing.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
Coach Sommer said:I will repeat this once again for those who seem to have missed it all of the other times; do not perform swinging elements on conditioning rings. Ever.
400kg is a drop in the bucket. Many of the higher level swinging elements generate 7x-10x bodyweight thru the bottom of the swing.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
On the topic of force generated, is it true that some of the static holds on the rings require the gymnast to support 10x his own bodyweight?
SuperBru said:On the topic of force generated, is it true that some of the static holds on the rings require the gymnast to support 10x his own bodyweight?
No. Physically impossible.
Daniel Burnham said:No. Physically impossible.
Nonsense. Do it in a centrifuge!
Wouldn't that be [sunglasses] close to impossible? [/sunglasses]Joshua Slocum said:Nonsense. Do it in a centrifuge!
Torque, or inch pounds, is determined by multiplying the applied force by the distance from the pivot point to the point where the force is applied. For an iron cross, in plain english that means half the bodyweight times the length of the arm from the shoulder down to the wrist times two.
Given the angles involved between the upper arms and the torso the general equation for an iron cross is relatively straight forward;
(sleeve length x half bodyweight) x 2 (you have two arms after all) = Inch pounds for an iron cross. Obviously different people will have slightly different attachment points, but for a rough overall estimate of the forces involved the equation as is works fine.
The specific examples below should help you to clearly understand why the great ring men of the world have shorter arms; note that the 180lb gymnast with 21" sleeves needs to generate more than 1,000 additional in.lbs during an iron cross compared to the 150lb gymnast with 18" sleeves!
It also provides a clear illustration as to why ring strength builds such incredible physiques; even though it appears that the gymnasts are "only" manipulating their bodyweight.
For a 150lb gymnast with 18" sleeves:
(18" x 75lbs) x 2 = 2,700 in.lbs
For a 150lb gymnast with 21" sleeves:
(21" x 75lbs) x 2 = 3,150 in.lbs
For a 180lb gymnast with 18" sleeves:
(18" x 90lbs) x 2 = 3,240 in.lbs
For a 180lb gymnast with 21" sleeves:
(21" x 90lbs) x 2 = 3,780 in.lbs
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
Will more advanced static holds be safe to perform on conditioning rings?
Coach Sommer said:the 180lb gymnast with 21" sleeves needs to generate more than 1,000 additional in/lbs during an iron cross compared to the 150lb gymnast with 18" sleeves!
Aadil Siddiqi said:Will more advanced static holds be safe to perform on conditioning rings?
Yes. The danger is that instantaneous loads for swing skills can easily exceed 10x bodyweight. Whereas the load on the rings for static holds is always precisely 1x bodyweight.
Coach Sommer said:(...) the great ring men of the world have shorter arms; note that the 180lb gymnast with 21" sleeves needs to generate more than 1,000 additional in/lbs during an iron cross compared to the 150lb gymnast with 18" sleeves! (...)
For a 150lb gymnast with 18" sleeves:
(18" x 75lbs) x 2 = 2,700 in/lbs (...)
LOL... I will have to generate 26x100x2 = 5,200 in.lbs 
That's nearly twice the torque of the 150lbs Trex example!
Note: That's inch pounds (in.lbs) not inch per pound (in/lbs)
Thanks for the replies! I probaby wont try swings for now, although the elite rings are supposedly tested for a tonne
41200 for me. I cannot shorten my arms, so I had better start losing weight!
Coach Sommer said:Torque, or inch pounds, is determined by multiplying the applied force by the distance from the pivot point to the point where the force is applied. For an iron cross, in plain english that means half the bodyweight times the length of the arm from the shoulder down to the wrist.
Given the angles involved between the upper arms and the torso the general equation for an iron cross is relatively straight forward;
(sleeve length x half bodyweight) x 2 (you have two arms after all) = Inch pounds for an iron cross. Obviously different people will have slightly different attachment points, but for a rough overall estimate of the forces involved the equation as is works fine.
The specific examples below should help you to clearly understand why the great ring men of the world have shorter arms; note that the 180lb gymnast with 21" sleeves needs to generate more than 1,000 additional in.lbs during an iron cross compared to the 150lb gymnast with 18" sleeves!
It also provides a clear illustration as to why ring strength builds such incredible physiques; even though it appears that the gymnasts are "only" manipulating their bodyweight.
For a 150lb gymnast with 18" sleeves:
(18" x 75lbs) x 2 = 2,700 in.lbs
For a 150lb gymnast with 21" sleeves:
(21" x 75lbs) x 2 = 3,150 in.lbs
For a 180lb gymnast with 18" sleeves:
(18" x 90lbs) x 2 = 3,240 in.lbs
For a 180lb gymnast with 21" sleeves:
(21" x 90lbs) x 2 = 3,780 in.lbs
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
Thanks for the helpful post Coach, it was a very interesting read.
Mark Collins said:41200 for me. I cannot shorten my arms, so I had better start losing weight!
If you maintain your current weight you will gain more strength if you know what I mean?
SuperBru said:If you maintain your current weight you will gain more strength if you know what I mean?
Just looking for a short cut!
Mark Collins said:Just looking for a short cut!
Aren't we all;) However, as the saying goes, "Slow and steady wins the race."
The above review of the forces involved also helps to illustrate why if you have not previously mastered rope climbs prior to beginning focused ring strength training, your ring strength progress is going to very quickly come to a screeching and sudden stop.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
Coach Sommer said:The above review of the forces involved also helps to illustrate why if you have not previously mastered rope climbs prior to beginning focused ring strength training, your ring strength progress is going to very quickly come to a screeching and sudden stop.
Yours in Fitness,
Coach Sommer
I expect that is why most people don't get much further than a muscle up.
Mark Collins said:I expect that is why most people don't get much further than a muscle up.
Quite a few people got their levers by sensibly applying the principles introduced in BtGB, but that is besides the point.
can be those type of cirque routine be used to attach the rings for swing elements?