OutandBack - you guessed right, the 83% goes hand and hand with the 30° hang. It results in an almost 1 to 1 ratio of body weight in the hammock to stress on the system. 200lbs in the hammock puts 200lbs on the suspension, stitching, fabric.
If you are one of those companies that sells a 6 ft hammock at Big5 for $10, you don’t care how the customer hangs it. If it tears, the cutomer is probably not going to go through the trouble of asking for a $10 refund (sending the torn unit back, etc.). And there’s probably language on the box about assumption of risk.
If you are one of our fine cottage industry folk, you want to put a limit/condition on your product. Sort of, “… use it the right way and it will work for you.” So when they say a hammock holds 200lbs. They don’t mean 200 lbs. with a 10° hang angle - which would result in about 575 lbs force on the system. A 30° hang of the same 200 lbs. in the hammock - an 83% length reduction for sag - gives you about the same 200 lbs. force on the system.
Now all these numbers are “ish’s” and “abouts” because there can be tiny contributing factors. And though the hang calculator says it uses an 83% reduction , it might be a little bit glitchy. When I play with different numbers, sometimes it seems to say a 10 ft hammock reduced 83% is 8.6 ft (reduced 86%) feet long (maybe a field/value isn’t clearing properly between calculations).
Which points to the exact number not being the target. It’s a range; it’s a ballpark; it’s an “around …”; near; close to; approximately; there abouts …
The reason you see it in HF is … We Care (about our gear and brother/sister hangers).
Last edited by cougarmeat; 03-30-2022 at 17:10.
In order to see what few have seen, you must go where few have gone. And DO what few have done.
Shortening it would seem — intuitively... I haven't actually tested — to put more stress on the zippers/seams in the center of the hammock.
With my DH Dariens, the asym nets have a very specific cut with no excess material, so there's no way I'd play around with those! And anyway, with a proper diagonal lay there's no calf ridge.
I thought I'd seen some comment by PapaSmurf on this but of course I can't find it.
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
Nothing wrong with a SRL less than 83% (~5/6 of hammock length) if that extra sag is what it takes to be comfy. BUT, if it is significantly less, that means, if you want to stay close to the 30° hang angle (to keep the forces on the suspension reasonable), the straps need to be higher on the trees. Something to consider.
If on the other hand, if you don't go higher, the hang angle decreases SOME and both the straps and the SRL are subject to additional stress. This may or may not be a big deal. It all depends on the amount of deviation.
Botton line: Having a SRL that isn't radically less than 83% isn't really going to make much difference.
Last edited by TominMN; 03-31-2022 at 17:29.
Cosine of 34° is 82.9%
Cosine of 45° is 70.7%
Pretty comfy. I’m measuring the angle while seated with my legs dangling off one side. I bet additional sag beyond some hang angle doesn’t add much to comfort, but I’ll push the envelope a bit more. I’ll have to backpedal before a hang angle of 90°, or my feet/head will lack support. 😎
For me, a little more sag allows me a flatter lay when lying diagonally. This also eliminates any calf ridge pressure on my inside leg.
I've never measured but I would guess my tree strap angles would be 35-36 degrees. I don't shorten the RL it just sags a little bit.
Outandback,
That is a classic picture.
I recognize some of that gear.
Bookmarks