Why do some '5 ring ' natos have a second ring on the end of the short strap?
I have straps with both one, and two rings, but can't see the point of the second one.
Am I missing something here, or just being a bit thick?
^^ That link is to a 3 ring NATO, so kinda pointless.
I guess it's so that the design evens out on both sides, other than that, I can't see a valid reason to have 2 rings on the shorter section of strap.
Thanks for the reply, I hadn't thought about the balancing out of the look of the strap, but I guess that must be it, unless anyone else has any other theories.^ That link is to a 3 ring NATO, so kinda pointless.
I guess it's so that the design evens out on both sides, other than that, I can't see a valid reason to have 2 rings on the shorter section of strap.
Even I wouldn't put 2 rings on for added security :shock:
Originally Posted by europa
Neither can I. I always cut one off.
Me too now, I've just taken the bolt cutters to one of mine.Neither can I. I always cut one off.
Hope no-one comes up with a reason to keep both.
Personally, I don't like the way the strap sits with the buckle way over to the side, so I usually cut off the short dangly bit and wear it like a zulu. Much more comfortable and better looking IMHO.
Looks great with a leather one, and I can't always find leather zulus.
According to that
http://www.natozulu.com/content/12-zulu ... structions
There is no use for it... :?:
Pet peeve of mine...
The 'correct' way to wear a 5 ring strap is like this:
NOT like this:
There are loads of places on the internet offering instructions on fitting a 5 ring strap, yet they all suggest the bottom method. Does nobody doing this stop to think that having 2 rings together at the end of the shorter strap is completely pointless? Or get annoyed by them rattling together?
If you do it as in the top picture, the 2 rings provide a benefit in that they secure the end of the shorter part of the strap, stopping it moving about and because that end is secured against the main strap, any tension in the main strap will be tranfsfered through the shorter one, rather than the section going through the spring bars, relieving any stress/pressure on them and reducing the likelyhood of failure.
Pet peeve of mine...
The 'correct' way to wear a 5 ring strap is like this:
NOT like this:
There are loads of places on the internet offering instructions on fitting a 5 ring strap, yet they all suggest the bottom method. Does nobody doing this stop to think that having 2 rings together at the end of the shorter strap is completely pointless? Or get annoyed by them rattling together?
If you do it as in the top picture, the 2 rings provide a benefit in that they secure the end of the shorter part of the strap, stopping it moving about and because that end is secured against the main strap, any tension in the main strap will be tranfsfered through the shorter one, rather than the section going through the spring bars, relieving any stress/pressure on them and reducing the likelyhood of failure.
:toothy7: and there lies the answer , puzzled me until now
Now the second ring makes sense, but isn't that quite uncomfortable?
It's how I wear mine and I've never had a problem with comfort...can't tell any difference between the two methods, but I guess it depends on how sensitive you are and maybe the shape and boniness of your wrist.
The opposite would be "fat"? :D
"Parrot",
It's not a matter of balance, nor of "good-looking", neither or comfort.
As Uriel put it in a short, but most clear way, it is a matter of security - those straps are supposed to be used on VERY extreme conditions, y compris every possible pulling is transferred over whole the strap, not only over the spring area, thus you are guaranteed the watch will remain on your wrist even if one spring-bar is extorted or broken. The pulley principle - simple physics
i use it as in the bottom picture and push one forward and one back
its stiff enough that it does not move and looks neater,i am not that active though. :lol:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
