Smallest Practical Size for Sleeping?

[kitsapcowboy]

I was thinking of a finished length of 8'8", or slightly less. I'm definitely not going to leave a raw edge, and yes, triple stitching the end channels is what I have done in the past and what I will continue to do. What am I missing? Where am I cutting corners? Fabric selection? Or is your concern more that I won't be comfortable?

The only other place I can see this might be cutting corners is I was thinking of using channels narrower than the usual 3", but if that puts more stress on the stitching or creates another problem, I will amend my plan.

With luck, you're not missing anything, as long as you're happy with the accounting of the "real estate" on the ends of the hammock body that are used in conventional assembly on your ultralight downsized hammock.

When I make a single-layer gathered-end hammock with a 132" finished length, I start with a full 4-yard (144") run of fabric. The ends are folded in twice to give me four layers of fabric at the end for strength and longevity, while allowing me to hide the sealed raw edge. (From what I've seen on 1.0 to 1.2 oz fabrics, multiple layers in the sewn channel helps to lessen the effect of the "bite" of the stitch rows on the fabric under repeated load over the long term.) Then I triple-stitch the channels with nearly 1/2" in between adjacent rows, so on both ends that's a total 2" lost just to the stitching of the channels. (For the record I'm 6'2" and 175 lbs, and while I have overnighted in a 9'4" hammock in a pinch, I usually choose -- and much prefer -- an 11-foot standard-width one.)

If you're triple-stitching, that means you're using twice the space you would use if you're forming end channels with just two rows, not sewing three rows of stitches closely in the space where you'd normally sew two, as that would neither be as effective nor as prudent.

My channels are wide enough to pass the thick end of a continuous loop through easily, but if you're willing to splice a CL or fixed eye through them (semi-)permanently, you might be able to get by making your leftover channel width just over half the circumference of your Amsteel with a bury in it. (That would be too impractical for me, personally, but if it works for you that's a good way to push the envelope of minimalist design...) Your measuring and sewing precision will need to be spot on the closer to the bone you cut your channel construction, or you'll be cursing yourself when you go to rig your hammock.

My biggest gap in understanding is logistical in nature. Deleting one inch of length on a hammock body made from 1oz fabric 60" wide saves you about 1.3 grams -- that's it. If that one inch of length can make every aspect of that hammock markedly better -- from construction to deployment to durability -- why delete it?

There is more than one way to accomplish virtually any goal you set, so doing what you propose certainly can't be considered wrong in any way, and it will either work as expected or it will not. All I was suggesting is that you consider carefully if the result your plan will achieve is actually the result you want.

I can't assess that for you and no one else can either. Your relative priorities and goals are your own (and still somewhat unclear to me, I'm afraid...).

So please carry forth and let us know how it all works out. Regardless of the outcome, we all stand to learn something.

[4evrplan]

With luck, you're not missing anything, as long as you're happy with the accounting of the "real estate" on the ends of the hammock body that are used in conventional assembly on your ultralight downsized hammock.

When I make a single-layer gathered-end hammock with a 132" finished length, I start with a full 4-yard (144") run of fabric. The ends are folded in twice to give me four layers of fabric at the end for strength and longevity, while allowing me to hide the sealed raw edge. (From what I've seen on 1.0 to 1.2 oz fabrics, multiple layers in the sewn channel helps to lessen the effect of the "bite" of the stitch rows on the fabric under repeated load over the long term.) Then I triple-stitch the channels with nearly 1/2" in between adjacent rows, so on both ends that's a total 2" lost just to the stitching of the channels. (For the record I'm 6'2" and 175 lbs, and while I have overnighted in a 9'4" hammock in a pinch, I usually choose -- and much prefer -- an 11-foot standard-width one.)

If you're triple-stitching, that means you're using twice the space you would use if you're forming end channels with just two rows, not sewing three rows of stitches closely in the space where you'd normally sew two, as that would neither be as effective nor as prudent.

My channels are wide enough to pass the thick end of a continuous loop through easily, but if you're willing to splice a CL or fixed eye through them (semi-)permanently, you might be able to get by making your leftover channel width just over half the circumference of your Amsteel with a bury in it. (That would be too impractical for me, personally, but if it works for you that's a good way to push the envelope of minimalist design...) Your measuring and sewing precision will need to be spot on the closer to the bone you cut your channel construction, or you'll be cursing yourself when you go to rig your hammock.

Cowboy, your input has prompted me to research previous threads to see how others are doing their end channels. I'd never considered double-folding (4 layers), but it seems to be a common practice, so I guess it's prudent for me to do it too. With that in mind, I've illustrated the new plan below. This is as short and close on all the allowances as I'm comfortable going.
end_channel.png

1) Start with a nice flat and straight piece of fabric with the long edges already hemmed.
2) Fold the raw edge over 1/4 inch. Either I can run a seam or simply iron a crease into it (carefully on low heat).
3) Fold over again 2 1/4 inches.
4) Fold a final time 1 1/8 inches (half of the previous fold). Sew 1/8 from the inner edge of the fold, 1/4 inch out from that, and 1/4 inch again out from that one.

That leaves a 1/2 inch channel. I'm going to use a soft shackle made of Dynaglide, double looped through the channel to gather the end. Dynaglide is 1.8mm wide, so even accounting for the extra bulk of the built up soft shackle and passing it through twice, 1/2 inch should be plenty. However, that takes 3 5/8 inches off the length on one side, 7 1/4 inches total. That only leaves a total remaining length of 8 feet 4 3/4 inches, so yeah, that's something for me to think about. I'm not sure I really want to go that short.

Not to mention, it would be nice to have enough fabric for an attached stuff sack.

My biggest gap in understanding is logistical in nature. Deleting one inch of length on a hammock body made from 1oz fabric 60" wide saves you about 1.3 grams -- that's it. If that one inch of length can make every aspect of that hammock markedly better -- from construction to deployment to durability -- why delete it?

The plan to make such short channels wasn't really about saving grams per se, it was about trying to use only 3 yards of fabric and still have a finished length of at least 104". Having said that, if I could make shorter channels and still have a reasonable level of confidence that it would be durable, I would, even if it did only save a gram or two. You've convinced me that's not realistic. Or, maybe not probable is a better way to say it.

There is more than one way to accomplish virtually any goal you set, so doing what you propose certainly can't be considered wrong in any way, and it will either work as expected or it will not. All I was suggesting is that you consider carefully if the result your plan will achieve is actually the result you want.

I can't assess that for you and no one else can either. Your relative priorities and goals are your own (and still somewhat unclear to me, I'm afraid...).

So please carry forth and let us know how it all works out. Regardless of the outcome, we all stand to learn something.

I understand that, and I wasn't trying to criticize your um... critique. I was merely trying to understand the risks and best practices so I could decide what to change. I appreciate your advice.

[kitsapcowboy]

...I understand that, and I wasn't trying to criticize your um... critique. I was merely trying to understand the risks and best practices so I could decide what to change. I appreciate your advice.

It sounds to me like you've now carefully reviewed your best options and have a sound plan that works for you. That was exactly what I was hoping for, and I don't think anyone could ask any more of you as you move forward. Good luck with it.

[geneaut]

I'm 6' and can sleep OK in a hammock as short as 8.5' if it's full width. That said those hammocks are fussier with my pads and quilts. Stuff tends to start trying to exit out the foot end of my hammock, including my feet. The experience isn't as nice as my full length hammock particularly in colder weather so I tend to use my shorter hammocks only in warm weather when I don't need a pad.

[jadekayak]

I know your the gung ho diy person whose stuf is amazing but you do not need 3 rows of stitching on a ge channel.

IF you make a small channel stitched with standard thread and gather with standard STRING or simillar week line AND run your suspension UNDERNEATH the knot you have no problems of structural failure because the channel and gathering string are not taking any load.

The last ge nylon taffeta hammock was made in this fashion(without the edges seemed too) and that was 1 1/2 years ago.

Ive spent approx 20 days/nights in it and no concerns yet.
The last hammock i made was an upholstery cotton with only an overhand knot at each end with suspension UNDER the knor.

Ive spent nearly every day since late november in it down the beach over summer.
Edges not seamed either.

Its a bit bulky and heavy but its a lounging hammock not a camping hammock and as such its o ly ever carried 500m or less.

[kitsapcowboy]

I know your the gung ho diy person whose stuf is amazing but you do not need 3 rows of stitching on a ge channel.

IF you make a small channel stitched with standard thread and gather with standard STRING or simillar week line AND run your suspension UNDERNEATH the knot you have no problems of structural failure because the channel and gathering string are not taking any load.

The last ge nylon taffeta hammock was made in this fashion(without the edges seemed too) and that was 1 1/2 years ago.

Ive spent approx 20 days/nights in it and no concerns yet.
The last hammock i made was an upholstery cotton with only an overhand knot at each end with suspension UNDER the knor.

Ive spent nearly every day since late november in it down the beach over summer. Edges not seamed either. Its a bit bulky and heavy but its a lounging hammock not a camping hammock and as such its o ly ever carried 500m or less.

Good to know. I see you have documented your techniques here so others can learn about them.

https://www.hammockforums.net/forum/...light-hammocks

If your construction method works as well as you describe with light 1 oz fabrics without risk of knot collapse/inversion or slackening when unloaded, then perhaps it will catch on with the ultralight crowd, plus they can save the weight of the thread with unhemmed edges, which has got to make some gram weenies happy. It sounds like so far, so good.

I'm also impressed that you used a piece of fabric (88" x 43") that at 6'2" I would might chosen as a top quilt shell (if it were wide enough) and made yourself a hammock.

Regardless, I think your methods may be more in line with the initial thinking and desires of the OP, who now has the benefit of advice and your example.

Gung ho or not, as I said above, there's ultimately no wrong way to do it if it works for you. HYOH and keep pushing the envelope.

[Just Bill]

Two thoughts....

one you have found along the way; develop the smallest size you can accept, develop the end method you prefer... then add those together for your blank.
The inches are not worth niggling over too much if the hammock is uncomfortable or blows out.
I've found that roughly 1.5" per side is the smallest I can go. But 4" per side is more reasonable with SUL fabrics.
One inch of 60" fabric is 1.319g in one ounce per yard fabric.... nearly a gram on the dot in 48" wide so it's not quite the critical spec you might think it is.

Keep in mind with a non-load bearing channel and whip method... you are still 'loosing' some length. Depending on how you want to discuss it...
A sewn channel hammock suspends on the very end of the channel and begins to expand immediately. It also may form more of a donut rather than a pinpoint if that makes sense.
A whip and girth hitch suspension... the girth hitched loop reduces the length in the obvious way as it attaches below the whipped ball. It further reduces the effective length because you have completely compressed the fabric to a zero point which it needs to expand from.

So again... no definitive answer I'm willing to give... but if you picture the end as a cone- the zero point (tip) of the sewn channel hammock is a few inches beyond the actual end of the hammock. Basically... A 9' whip will feel shorter than a 9' sewn channel in real life.

Thought two...
There is a balance between length and width, depending on your preference and design goals you might want to play with the two more.
Two extremes:
60"x 108" blank- 6480 sqin
6480 divided by 48" wide= 135" long... yielding a roughly 10'9" hammock.

In my experience-
You can increase width (and increase lay angle) to reduce length.
You can increase length (and decrease lay angle) to decrease width.
Trying to go short and narrow is a poor combo unless of course you don't mind or even prefer sleeping in a fetal position.

You should also examine your total package whenever thinking truly SUL.
Your choices will affect tarp size.
Insulation? Will you consider a pad, which could provide insulation and structure?

Here is a double layer I made for a customer...
48" wide by 9' finished in Membrane 10 fabric. By having a double layer to slip in a pad the shortcomings (pun intended) of the design could be corrected by the integration of the right pad. The pad was a minor penalty vs a minimal UQ... but allowed reduction in the hammock weight AND increased the options for ground or air attack. It also created a shape that allowed a poncho tarp to be used reasonably well (eliminating rain gear from the kit). So... sometimes ADDING some grams is the lightest overall solution.

One piece at a time... but remember a truly good SUL piece of gear fits into system.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!Apygyt54yYPwg7U6L4zkZDcmDkm0Ug

Here's a few of the M10 hammocks.... 208g tree to tree for the double layer. 7.3 ounces tree to tree for a DL is pretty good in my opinion. You also have some SUL redundency in that if one layer does blow on you, you can toss your pad inside and deal with it. If two layers blow on you... you still have your pad. If your pad blows on you... you can shove some duff in between the double layers.

Not for everyone... but still fun.