I see a lot of interest in the becket rig and other hangs that have eliminated much of the metal hardware.
My question: compared to nylon, is Dyneema (or UHDPE, generally) immune from rope-on-rope interaction and less prone to damage?
Back in the day, when I caved and climbed a bit, direct, rope-on-rope interaction was a major, No No. It could chafe or even melt the rope so one ALWAYS used hardware between ropes (other than knots.)
From the Petzl website:
97A68170-5D50-4FD1-9635-72ABB401E6DE.jpeg
(Obviously, you don’t want sharp rope bends with a piton, metal hanger, etc.)
Granted, comparing a climbing rope, with dynamic, potentially life saving (ending) loading is a bit different compared to a relatively static, hammock hang three feet off the ground, but no rope on rope rubbing was a fundamental lesson one learned.
Are the basic characteristics of Dyneema such that it is relatively immune from chafing and abrasion or are we assuming that a hang is a non life threatening application (assuming a knot’s position moves around from hang to hang, and a user will inspect and replace a soft shackle or webbing before they go thump) gives hangers license to just ignore that old rule?
On a side note, I’ve been hanging for probably fifteen + years and hadn’t visited the forum in several years. It’s interesting to see how the rigging systems keep evolving. I started with a Hennessy, evolved to a Blackbird, got a bridge (which I really didnt like) and tried a number of rigging methods - ring buckles, webbing, whoopies, etc. finally settling on a Dutch Buckle, clip and webbing.
I’m considering giving the becket a try for the fun of it, though my current suspension works well.
Cheers
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks