After much experimentation I have found (and I'm sure most of you know) that the cage gap is very important. The smaller the ring, the bigger cage gap you need (at least I do). So I am now in the Vice Mini with a medium ring, the "C" gap spacer and the smallest anti-pullout. It feels like it's a part of me now.
Hello and if I may ask why a bigger gap? I have a the large ring on and the smallest spacer and pin. Thank you
A problem of definition and understanding occurs because the "gap" quoted is the perpendicular distance between the rings, BUT while the distance between the rings at the top is the gap, at the bottom where it is more significant, the distance between the rings is actually bigger than the gap. The geometry of having two different diameter rings means that for the same "gap", if you decrease the base ring size, then the separation between the rings becomes smaller. We can use Pythagoras theorem to calculate the extra gap required when decreasing the base ring size. "the square of the hypotenuse (C) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides (A, B)." The right angled triangle to calculate has sides A = the gap B = the difference in diameters of the two rings C = the separation between the rings. In practice, it's probably simpler and easier to just measure the right dimension, the separation distance, rather than the misleading "gap". Then when you change base ring sizes, measure that same place to adjust the fit correctly. Another problem created by the two rings being different diameters is that the separation changes as you traverse around the ring, from the "gap" at the top, to the "separation" at the bottom. When the device rotates this can cause pinching. A better design would be to have two rings on the cage, the normal smaller one to contain the penis, and another one the same size as the base ring, so providing a uniform gap all the way around.
Absolutely this! telling me the cage to ring spacing is not terribly A while ago, I wrote some software for my devices so that every ring in my shop has a listed "gap" to the cage, which is the direct distance between the inside of the base ring tot he outside of the cage ring right in the center. It was particularly challenging because of the curved ring shape, but I love a good challenge! Even if that's not a perfect way of measuring, it gives consistency across the line and you can compare rings of different shapes and sizes while maintaining a gap that's in the right ballpark. I do need to make some diagrams on the products showing this, but there's only so many hours in the day!
Another problem caused by having the two different ring sizes of base ring and cage ring is that it can be possible to have a device that's tight enough at the gap to pinch and abrade the scrotum causing pain, while at the same time the separation at the bottom allows enough room for a testicle to slip out. It can be quite difficult to diagnose correct sizing of the rings because of the contradictory outcomes, and the fact that the testicles normally lie side by side, one each side of the largest separation which is at bottom centre, but below the smaller gap which is at the sides and top of the device. It's when the ring rotates or the scrotum gets pulled and twisted inside your clothing during normal everyday movements that it pinches or a testicle squeezes out, but it's only a small movement that's needed in either case. The perfect device would have two base rings of identical size, one in front and one behind the scrotum, so ensuring that the gap is a consistent size all the way around the circumference of the rings. That design would make it much easier to find the most comfortable and secure fit, and would also avoid many of the problems once that correct fit is found. It would also be much more comparable between different devices. Oval rings are an attempt to correct for the ring size discrepancy, ergonomic rings go a long way towards the "same size gap" ideal, but identical parallel rings has to be the simplest uncomplicated solution.