Bit complicated...Not really any pros or cons so much as trade-offs and technicalities.
I don't have the exact numbers but what yer saying is a bit misleading, but understandable as it's not that relevant to a user.
As I value my pattern I try not to get too detailed about others patterns but speaking generally.
There is a difference between the bridge BODY and the bridge SPREADER BARS being different sizes.
Most, if not all the other bridges I have seen made by others are symmetrical bodies, as in you could fold the pattern in half and it would match (technically into quarters too).
I believe this is true of all other commercially available bridges.
WV's peoples bridge is an exception, the Ariel is (usually) a symmetrical pattern. My 'Happy Medium' is a symmetrical pattern, the Big Guy/Luxury is not.
From there... you can shove any size spreader bar appropriate for the bridge body in and get one of two results:
Equal size bars- a fully symmetrical bridge (no head or foot end)
Unequal size bars- a distinct head or foot end.
Without gettin any more compicated:
Shove a wider bar into a bridge and you get a flatter, wider section of bridge hammock. You also greatly diminish the stability as the width of the bar approaches the width of the fabric. A spreader bar hammock in a backyard is not a bridge but has spreader bar equal to the fabric which is why those hammocks are so tippy... push a bridge hammock too far and you run into the same problem.
To attempt to balance that problem you can put a shorter bar in the other side... increasing the depth and increasing the stability.
Since your shoulders are much wider than your heels... this balanced solution is fairly common.
Again the BODY is not any narrower, but the spreader bars are different sizes.
The downside or tradeoff is that your bridge is no longer 'flat'... though you can play with this a bit by altering your suspension height if you hang the bridge level you'll notice.
Basically as you shorten the bar the bridge gets deeper... lengthen the bar the bridge gets shallower.
This can make side sleeping more difficult and belly sleeping functionally impossible. There is always that one guy who will chime and say he can belly sleep in a RR much the same way there is always someone who is an exception to every rule the second you try to write one down. But most folks find in this type of bridge back and semi-side sleeping are really the only options due to the shallower head end so for the most part you're in a similar position as you would be in a gathered end... but your calf ridge issue is usually resolved.
Not sure exactly if it was Grizz playing around with cutting some weight who first realized the added benefit of trimming one bar or if'n Brandon or another who first went that route, but it was altering the bar size, not the pattern that led to it. In theory... the opposite discovery could have been made first but it doesn't work quite the same if you simply alter the pattern. It's much easier to make up a set of wood spreader bars in say one inch increments and play around until you are happy than it is to sew 40 bridges to test it.
The first bridge (BMBH) from Jacks was and still is an equal bar bridge with a truly flat lay in that each end is of roughly the same depth as the center when occupied.
I have yet to see the UL version in person but it appears to be a shallower version of the original... which would IMO be an improvement.
The RR from Warbonnet is an unequal bar bridge. While this cuts out the shoulder squeeze complaints and severe depth of the BMBH... it's like shoving a wedge pillow into the BMBH to pry it open a bit and elevate the shoulders. This makes the bridge tippier, more exposed to wind, and requires more tree to tree distance.
Not suggesting there is a good or bad- just a trade.
I could make a very educated speculation on Dutch's bridge design... but haven't seen one so it would just be a guess. Offhand: Looks like the double ridgeline and chameleon type system/accessories are the innovation rather than any dramatic change in the bridge body itself. Again- just an educated guess so no offense to Dutch if there is some magic hidden in the pattern I can't eyeball from my desk.
That's what WV was suggesting as the advantage of an end bar vs a recessed bar bridge... when building an END BAR bridge for yourself you can build a basic bridge body and then tune it to fit your body by playing with spreader bar lengths.
More or less... most of the bridges you can buy are more or less the exact same bridge with some minor variations on this theme.
Recessing the bars from the ends and working with asymmetrical patterns is a different subject... and changes in bar size of much more than an inch generally means a new pattern is required. Unlike other projects where a seam ripper and elbow grease might let you save it... a busted bridge design goes in the garbage or collects dust on the shelf. If you're feeling thrifty maybe it gets cut into some stuff sacks.
But basically the goal is the same: build the best bridge you can for what priorities you deem to be the best.
Have a problem and you can solve it. If you don't have a problem there is nothing to solve.
If you're designing one... it is a highly technical art.
If you're laying in one... art is always subjective.
You'll know what you like when you like it and don't need to worry overmuch about why it is exactly you like it.
Bookmarks