Interesting design if only for the use of curved rings. Cage is just SOOOOO narrow. They look to have taken a little time to round some corners also - which is somewhat surprising given the usual effort in the past.
http://m.dhgate.com/product/2015-latest ... ml#s1-13-1
another design
another design
It's not happy people that are thankful, it's thankful people that are happy.
Re: another design
Hi,
i ordered that unit a while ago,cage is very narrow inside diameter is 28mm and difficult to insert must be very soft to fit in, bought the unit just for the ring,i was able to fit on the chinese version of looker02,much more confortable.
i ordered that unit a while ago,cage is very narrow inside diameter is 28mm and difficult to insert must be very soft to fit in, bought the unit just for the ring,i was able to fit on the chinese version of looker02,much more confortable.
-
Tom Allen
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5662
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:27 pm
- Location: Southern New England, USA
- Last orgasm: April 1st, 2018
- Orgasms this year: 0
Re: another design
Hmm, I kinda like that. They even flattened out the bottom section that would fit against your testicles.
Tom Allen
The Edge of Vanilla
Denial Permanente
The Edge of Vanilla
Denial Permanente
-
Surrendered to Bec
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:25 pm
- Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Re: another design
I can't help but think that the way the base ring and cage curve away from each other, isn't going to create problems with balls slipping back through.
Bec says, I do.
Re: another design
Surrendered to Bec wrote:I can't help but think that the way the base ring and cage curve away from each other, isn't going to create problems with balls slipping back through.
You may be right, but I just ordered one.
I was close to going custom, possibly MCN, but wanted to try something on the small end of the spectrum first, to see how tight I may want to go.
They sell this with base rings at 36, 39 and 42mm. These are small rings compared to typical off the shelf options, which are usually 40, 45 and 50mm (approx. 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0 inches.). The small base rings probably keep the space between ring and cage to a minimum, at least I hope so.
The Chinese device I have now came with the three typical off the shelf rings, and I've worked down to the 1.5 inch. I ordered this with the 39mm, which is about 1.5 inches.
I hope this is actually stainless, my first Chinese device is rusty and not so trusty.
Re: another design
I received this today - my 1st order from DHgate and it came in an impressive 10 days with no problems.
http://www.dhgate.com/product/2015-late ... 4162486004
It does appear that both the ring and cage are stainless steel. A magnet will not stick to either part, unlike my rusty original Chinese device which will practically grab a magnet out of my hand.
I am pretty squished into the cage, but no more so than some of the folks that advocate the smallest cage you can make do with to minimize issues with night erection.
The ring design is unique, and not quite what is pictured.
The gap between the lower ring and the cage did look very suspect upon first look - too big. But, I've got it on and with 5 minutes of impression, so far so good.
The hole for the lock only fits the tiny Wolf Dog lock that came with it. Plenty of space to drill that out to upgrade to a Master lock.
Much lighter than my old steel device. This is my old device, it ain't stainless...
http://www.dhgate.com/product/male-chas ... 4162486004
I'll provide more review soon.
http://www.dhgate.com/product/2015-late ... 4162486004
It does appear that both the ring and cage are stainless steel. A magnet will not stick to either part, unlike my rusty original Chinese device which will practically grab a magnet out of my hand.
I am pretty squished into the cage, but no more so than some of the folks that advocate the smallest cage you can make do with to minimize issues with night erection.
The ring design is unique, and not quite what is pictured.
The gap between the lower ring and the cage did look very suspect upon first look - too big. But, I've got it on and with 5 minutes of impression, so far so good.
The hole for the lock only fits the tiny Wolf Dog lock that came with it. Plenty of space to drill that out to upgrade to a Master lock.
Much lighter than my old steel device. This is my old device, it ain't stainless...
http://www.dhgate.com/product/male-chas ... 4162486004
I'll provide more review soon.
Re: another design
Most likely, this design is fatally flawed.
The gap between the cage and the ring is huge.
I think it initially wore okay on me as I wear a relatively tight ring at about 39mm or about 1.5". The tight ring kept my balls out.
When my left ball finally slipped through, the opening was wide enough that it was painless and almost unnoticeable. If you've ever had your ball squeeze past a tight opening, you'd know that it is painful.
The cage and base ring are made of rings that are bent forward at a fairly sharp angle at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions, and then the rings gently bend backwards. The base ring is effectively installed the opposite direction of the cage rings. If it could be flipped around, the gap between the cage and base ring would be much more sensible (makes me wonder if they made it backward from the original plan). But, the base ring in reverse would seem a bit opposite of normal ergonomics in these things. There is also a lot of play in the cage to ring connection. The amount of welding material at the post to ring joint may also be a bit to minimal.
I may be able to modify it, but it's pretty far off.
Too bad, I really liked trying the small cage and it seems well made in some respects. Based on the magnet test, it appears to be stainless steel and it is smooth and free of any burrs or other problems.
The right materials with a good finish, but I'd have to say don't waste your money.
The gap between the cage and the ring is huge.
I think it initially wore okay on me as I wear a relatively tight ring at about 39mm or about 1.5". The tight ring kept my balls out.
When my left ball finally slipped through, the opening was wide enough that it was painless and almost unnoticeable. If you've ever had your ball squeeze past a tight opening, you'd know that it is painful.
The cage and base ring are made of rings that are bent forward at a fairly sharp angle at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions, and then the rings gently bend backwards. The base ring is effectively installed the opposite direction of the cage rings. If it could be flipped around, the gap between the cage and base ring would be much more sensible (makes me wonder if they made it backward from the original plan). But, the base ring in reverse would seem a bit opposite of normal ergonomics in these things. There is also a lot of play in the cage to ring connection. The amount of welding material at the post to ring joint may also be a bit to minimal.
I may be able to modify it, but it's pretty far off.
Too bad, I really liked trying the small cage and it seems well made in some respects. Based on the magnet test, it appears to be stainless steel and it is smooth and free of any burrs or other problems.
The right materials with a good finish, but I'd have to say don't waste your money.
Last edited by nebman on Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: another design
A bit more study and some thought.
The idea that the manufacturing process may have messed up the intended design seems a strong possibility.
The curvature in the base ring and the cage rings needs to be aligned to make this work. The base ring sits more ergonomically on the body as manufactured and shown. It's the rings in the cage that appear to have been assembled backwards. The backwards manufacturing also means that the cage really does not have any downwards curvature so the device sticks out from your body a bit too much.
This might have been a promising device if assembled as I am suggesting.
The idea that the manufacturing process may have messed up the intended design seems a strong possibility.
The curvature in the base ring and the cage rings needs to be aligned to make this work. The base ring sits more ergonomically on the body as manufactured and shown. It's the rings in the cage that appear to have been assembled backwards. The backwards manufacturing also means that the cage really does not have any downwards curvature so the device sticks out from your body a bit too much.
This might have been a promising device if assembled as I am suggesting.
Re: another design
I made an attempt to reduce the gap by flattening the base ring. That was partially successful. I then tried to reduce it further by bending the post down, that worked progressively until the post broke off.
I went back to ring that came with my original Chinese device. I had to grind the round post flat on the sides, and did so on a forward angle in relationship to the base ring. The new stainless cage fits on nicely, but has a lot of forward and back play that significantly impacts the gap between the cage ring and the base ring (opposite the post).
I'm wearing it now, and the maximum gap as described is considerably better than with the ring the stainless cage came with. But, it is much better as maximum gap has been significantly reduced.
I've looked into using JB Weld Steelstik to reduce the hole in the rectangular ring that goes on the post. I should be able to shape a block that will reduce or eliminate the play, and establish a permanent gap.
Another six bucks and tax and I may have a usable stainless cage.
I went back to ring that came with my original Chinese device. I had to grind the round post flat on the sides, and did so on a forward angle in relationship to the base ring. The new stainless cage fits on nicely, but has a lot of forward and back play that significantly impacts the gap between the cage ring and the base ring (opposite the post).
I'm wearing it now, and the maximum gap as described is considerably better than with the ring the stainless cage came with. But, it is much better as maximum gap has been significantly reduced.
I've looked into using JB Weld Steelstik to reduce the hole in the rectangular ring that goes on the post. I should be able to shape a block that will reduce or eliminate the play, and establish a permanent gap.
Another six bucks and tax and I may have a usable stainless cage.
Re: another design
My first effort to reduce the cage / ring play with JB Weld Steelstik failed quickly. I did try to use the cage after about 90 minutes of cure time (instructions say it will cure in 60 minutes) and most of it broke out easily.
I finally have had a chance at a second attempt, trying better surface prep and I will let it cure for a few days before messing with it.
If you have any experience with JB Weld Steelstik, your pointers are welcome.
I finally have had a chance at a second attempt, trying better surface prep and I will let it cure for a few days before messing with it.
If you have any experience with JB Weld Steelstik, your pointers are welcome.