Wow, Dave, this sounds like a pretty fair argument against using the
structural ridge line, despite it's other benefits, mainly related to
convenience and speed of set up. Though if, like me, you hang with a
lot of sag, you can end up attaching pretty high in the trees if the
trees( or stand or post) are not the minimum distance apart. Some
times too far to reach.
So then, if I hang my HH ( or Speer with added structural rl) and pull
the ridge line tight, I double ( or more?) the likelihood of damaging
the tree bark, breaking or pulling down a marginally sized tree, or
breaking my suspension line? That is sort of scary.
What if you don't pull the RL very tight? Does that matter? And if it
does, would that just defeat the purpose of the structural RL anyway?
I'm thinking of if you just pulled the RL enough to straighten it
enough to get the right sag, as opposed to really tightening it as
many folks do routinely. Would this be of any advantage with the
potential problems you mentioned above?
This is definitely something to think about.
> With a structural ridgeline you typically hang the hammock lower from
> the tree, maybe by a foot or more depending on the distance between
> the trees AND HOW MUCH EXTRA FORCE YOU APPLY TO THE SUSPENSION LINES
> AND THE TREES. You don't get something for nothing with this
> arrangement... in terms of the forces and tensions generated it is a
> brute force approach at achieving something you can do without the
> additional forces. There is not a fixed amount or ratio of how much
> extra force or tension you generate to set the sag angle with a
> structural ridgeline but it can easily approach multiplying the forces
> by a factor of 2 or more. A structural ridgeline is without any
> doubt, less friendly to the trees you attach to because you are
> generating more forces than necessary to hang your hammock. They also
> put more forces than necessary on the hammock suspension lines
> Dave Womble
> aka Youngblood AT2000
> designer of the Speer Segmented Pad Extender, SnugFit Underquilt, and