Hammock Suspension Idea

**beep** · 05-19-2010, 16:11

I have a WBBB with Whoopie Slings, Descender Rings and Paul's "Chain Links" connecting the whipping to the rings.

In this baseline configuration, the ridgeline runs from one gathered end to the other gathered end. Pitching the hammock with the "right" amount of sag (30 degrees from horizontal for the suspension) is made easier by noting the tension on the ridgeline (sorta loose with no load in the hammock and less than "guitar string" tight when in the hammock).

I've been thinking about a variation on that theme. The following illustrates this variation.

What's different is that the ridgeline has been moved to the descender rings and would be 7/64" Amsteel. The "angle of the dangle" would always be correct for the hammock since the ridgeline would always be pitched taut between the rings.

As I see this, I realize that the WBBB ridgeline also supports the bugnet, so it wouldn't really work for the Blackbird as a replacement for the existing ridgeline but would be fine for the Traveler or other DIY hammocks.

The essence of the variation is that the hammock would always have the right amount of sag if the ridgeline was taut.

Whaddaya think? Opie?

**Redoleary** · 05-19-2010, 16:29

That is exactly how I have been doing mine, except from the ring out I use straps, but I have the same setup "between the rings" as it were. What you don't want to do is cinch it up tight so there's not much sag it the whole set-up. Because even though the hammock it technically hanging from the rings, and its sag is set by the ridge line, its been my experience that its more comfortable when you have a decent angle from the rings out (as you have drawn)? I don't know why that is, it just is?
http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery...-11_692348.jpg Check out this pic. most of those straps are now amsteel but the one going to the tree is still a strap. The ring and tent peg make a good drip thingy.

**Cranky Bear** · 05-19-2010, 16:34

With your proposed new suspension wouldn't you not have to worry about the degree of hang (ie.. 30*) as the suspension would be able to take the stress of a lower angle hang? As well since you are using 7/64 amsteel for the structural ridgeline then the forces would be evenly distributed across the entire set-up! Or no? As the sag would be set by the length of the ridgeline.

**hangnout** · 05-19-2010, 16:34

I have a Claytor set up just like that. You could eliminate the rings and larks head the whoopie to the ridgeline and hammock cord. On the Claytor this holds up the bugnet also

**oldgringo** · 05-19-2010, 17:03

Originally Posted by Redoleary

What you don't want to do is cinch it up tight so there's not much sag it the whole set-up. Because even though the hammock it technically hanging from the rings, and its sag is set by the ridge line, its been my experience that its more comfortable when you have a decent angle from the rings out (as you have drawn)? I don't know why that is, it just is?

I agree...I've observed this, too.

**Mustardman** · 05-19-2010, 17:08

Originally Posted by beep

The essence of the variation is that the hammock would always have the right amount of sag if the ridgeline was taut.

This has me confused - how is this mechanically different from the Warbonnet or Hennessey setups with integrated ridgelines? I'm failing to see how moving the connection point for the ridgeline a few inches up from the place it connects now is going to change the physics of the hammock sag.

**Boris Losdindawoods** · 05-19-2010, 17:14

Originally Posted by Mustardman

This has me confused - how is this mechanically different from the Warbonnet or Hennessey setups with integrated ridgelines? I'm failing to see how moving the connection point for the ridgeline a few inches up from the place it connects now is going to change the physics of the hammock sag.

yeah... what he said...

**hangnout** · 05-19-2010, 17:18

As I see this, I realize that the WBBB ridgeline also supports the bugnet, so it wouldn't really work for the Blackbird as a replacement for the existing ridgeline but would be fine for the Traveler or other DIY hammocks.

I think he was talking about hammocks other than the BB or HH. This works really well on Clarks, Claytors, etc.

**beep** · 05-19-2010, 17:38

Originally Posted by Mustardman

This has me confused - how is this mechanically different from the Warbonnet or Hennessey setups with integrated ridgelines? I'm failing to see how moving the connection point for the ridgeline a few inches up from the place it connects now is going to change the physics of the hammock sag.

Hmmm...bear with me as I'm not sufficiently grounded in the physics of all this.

The Warbonnet BB ridgeline isn't really load bearing though it comes under tension. At the right suspension angle (around 30 degrees) the sag in the hammock allows for a comfortable "lay". The ridgeline in that configuration can be somewhat easily deflected with one's hand.

In the variation I've put forth for exploration/discussion, the sag in the hammock is determined by the short lengths from the hammock end whipping to the rings in combination with a taut ridgeline (one without significant stretch!!). In this "new" configuration, the angle from the rings to the trees could be much less than 30 degrees and shouldn't affect the actual sag between the rings. I understand a couple of posters think this isn't so, but that's one of the questions on the table.

In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't tried this rigging arrangement yet, so I'm speculating about how it would work. Cranky Bear seems to have the same sense of it as I do.

**Mustardman** · 05-19-2010, 17:44

If you crank the warbonnet suspension super tight, it will be just as load bearing as this arrangement. The warbonnet ridgeline is connected to the suspension lines, so it's the same thing as this, just moved to the point where the suspension connects to the whipping. I'm still not seeing a difference.