Originally Posted by the_cameron_family
This is deftinely part of what I love about it, no 2 hangs are ever exactly the same.
This is deftinely part of what I love about it, no 2 hangs are ever exactly the same.
"Getting around" the hang angle by relying on the SRL with a shallow suspension angle puts an incredible amount of stress on things. Sure, you can "cheat" some with little worry. At some point though, something WILL fail with truly ugly results. But, as you allude to: HYOH!
Last edited by TominMN; 09-18-2021 at 18:25.
True this. With marginally rated suspension webbing and/or slightly suspect trees, especially birch and a couple of other species.
And I totally agree it's HYOH and most people probably already know these things. But I've been at this rather intensely a few years and darned if I don't still find myself learning new stuff!
Five Basic Principles of Going Lighter (not me... the great Cam Honan of OZ)
“If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking.” ~ Gen. George S Patton
Nanok, I agree that the sit height changes things, but 30 inches is about double my usual height (18 inches). As you said, a special case. I was just going by the default setting on the calculator (sit height) and used 12 ft because of the common 11 ft tarp, plus a little extra on each end for tree connection.
I was thinking the tarp was intended to stay with the hammock to simplify setup - just one connection takes care of the hammock and tarp. But I see the tarp could be separate and, in its turn, connected to the strap instead of the tree. Comme ci comme ça, My tarps usually connect to the tree lower than the hammock.
the_cameron_family, yes, there is no right way but sometimes if we see/read something, it might warrant a word of caution because we care about our fellow hammockers. For example, it is true that a structural ridgeline reduces the need to achieve the usual 30 degrees hang angle. BUT, if you flatten that angle out, relying on the SRL to keep the sag, you can very quickly impart forces on the material beyond its rated limit. 200 lbs in the hammock, hung at 20 degrees, can apply almost 300 lbs to the hammock stitching/material (see the hang calculator). If the hammock is rated at 250 lbs., As Gary Larson would say ... "Trouble Brew'n".
In order to see what few have seen, you must go where few have gone. And DO what few have done.
understood, it's just one way to handle a corner case, there are others. but i generally don't design my gear to work best for corner cases, i design it to work well in a broad range of cases, and allow for corner cases when needed, this way i have best performance in the conditions i usually use the gear, and i can still get by fine (maybe with some improvisation skills) in corner cases.
sit height is a matter of preference, and tbh i don't setup my hammock to sleep overnight based on sit height: i want it to be a bit higher off the ground if possible, i feel better. i'm going to sleep in it most of the night, i'm not going to be in and out of it every 5min, so for that purpose i prefer to hang it a bit higher, as long as i can still get in it without having to climb
yeah, you know we talked about it before: it would be kind of nice maybe, but in the end tarp and hammock cannot sleep together, this is the cruel way of the world, and it becomes clear with first rain.I was thinking the tarp was intended to stay with the hammock to simplify setup - just one connection takes care of the hammock and tarp. But I see the tarp could be separate and, in its turn, connected to the strap instead of the tree. Comme ci comme ça, My tarps usually connect to the tree lower than the hammock.
it seems the common consensus and instructions and pics everywhere show the same thing: tarp attached below the hammock straps. when i first described the "levitating tarp" a year or so ago (same concept we're discussing here), i was immediately challenged that the tarp will be too high for storm mode, and had to explain why that's not a problem at all, now it turns out the tarp is too low for walking under (and i have to admit, it's a valid concern with very close trees, unlike the storm mode concern). the point is: it's clear most people hang the tarp under the hammock straps, all i'm saying is use the hammock straps, instead of going around the tree, in 99.99% of the cases, it will make your life better, put a smile on your face, and protect the tree from damage. there's corner cases where it might not work so well, but it will still be better than attaching the tarp directly to the tree, under the tree straps.
i dream of a time when hammocks will come with a cheap device you can put on your suspension to measure the load. it would have to be when technology is affordable enough that you could have good quality sensors, combined with a miniature mass produced computer for not so much money, like...uh...hold my beer. (seriously, why don't we have this already?)the_cameron_family, yes, there is no right way but sometimes if we see/read something, it might warrant a word of caution because we care about our fellow hammockers. For example, it is true that a structural ridgeline reduces the need to achieve the usual 30 degrees hang angle. BUT, if you flatten that angle out, relying on the SRL to keep the sag, you can very quickly impart forces on the material beyond its rated limit. 200 lbs in the hammock, hung at 20 degrees, can apply almost 300 lbs to the hammock stitching/material (see the hang calculator). If the hammock is rated at 250 lbs., As Gary Larson would say ... "Trouble Brew'n".
one thing i like on this forum is that there's really a lot of people who are aware of safety and will give good reasonable advice. i think the_cameron got the picture with so many people chiming in, so i won't add to the pile
just one note: if the ridgeline is installed "correctly", then the additional load will be taken only by the ridgeline, not by any part of the hammock fabric. ideally, the hammock with a structural ridgeline in use should be hanging under the SRL, always at the angle which you set with the SRL, so the load on the hammock itself will always depend on the load placed in the hammock, and not on other factors, like hang angle. this is the magic of the SRL, and why i think it is a safety component, and every hammock should come with it.
_however_, as mentioned above, trees, suspension components like straps, cheap "good enough for hammocks" carabinners etc, will take the full overload of a flat hang angle. your hammock might not fail, but if the tree you hang from fails, the hammock fabric remaining intact might not be of much consolation :/. and we do often underestimate the multiplication factors, with dyneema suspension and structural ridgeline, if one is "cheeky", a factor of 10:1 is very easily achieved, that is to say for a 100kg monkey in the hammock, one metric ton(!) of load on each tree.
having said all this, i still don't understand how the SRL would help with the challenge that "yeah, but you can't walk under it". with a flatter hang angle, your treestraps will be lower on the tree, not higher. and the SRL doesn't help with hang angles which are too steep, unless you make the SRL out of rebar or such. am i missing something?
nanok, I see your point on the SRL; thank you for pointing that out. I started out using the hammock ridgeline as primarily a measuring device (loooong yardstick) with only secondary concern about load-bearing. But I can see that with attention to the attachment to the rest of the suspension, all the force/pull is taken by the trees, hammock suspension, and SRL - not to any part of the hammock at all.
In order to see what few have seen, you must go where few have gone. And DO what few have done.
Please, what are “corner cases”
Interesting thread, thanks
An example of people separated by a common language...
Methinks nanok might be an engineer! Not a term you hear in everyday speech, especially on this side of the pond.
ooh, i'm so sorry. see, my command of the english language is extremely...negociable. i am not formally trained in speaking it (as if you couldn't tell), so all my knowledge is mixed and probably doesn't match properly the peculiarities or patterns of any of the multiple sides of this particular pond.
i am so used to this particular expression i thought it was common place. it basically means "special cases" which are bound by some conditions which are not statistically likely, but they are still within the range which one cannot ignore (well, sometimes you might chose to, and cut the corners as it were). for instance, the trees being so close together that they are "at the limit" of fitting the hammock is such case, for me (i don't often encounter it, and i tend to prefer strangely long hangs rather than strangely short -- just more options), but for osmebody else this might be the rule of the day, and if i was in that position i would probably design some solution so my setup works perfectly under the most constrained conditions, and then my long hangs, although not corner cases as such, perhaps, become much less important. (though hard to imagine a place where trees are always close together and at the same time such aligned that you cannot "skip" them to make for a longer hang, but i've seen stranger things, so why not)
how would you say this on your side of the pond (without writing a story, or using my strange geeky slang)?
Unusual or or exception(al) come to mind. Non-typical (?) Or, even abnormal, but that seems a bit extreme.
I think your use of the language is rather exceptional and quite exacting.
Last edited by TominMN; 09-20-2021 at 12:30.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks