Clark 'Feature' Claims

[angrysparrow]

So, we've tried to start this discussion several times now but it keeps going off the rails. See the DM thread entitled 'Really' for background. Let's see if we can't talk about this clearly and calmly, please.

Clark recently updated their 'Features' page to include a couple of lines about 1.1 and 1.7 oz fabrics and their durability.

Clark's mosquito-proof bed fabric is more durable and safe than fabric you can find on other brands. Clark hammocks always have a bed fabric that is higher than 2 oz. per yard. If your hammock bed is made of 1.7 oz or 1.1 oz fabric, it is not intended to last nearly as long as a Clark hammock will. Even worse, 1.7 oz and 1.1 oz fabrics will stretch much more than quality Clark bed fabrics. Stretchy bed fabrics turn you into a banana, forcing you to angle yourself in the hammock to overcome the cheap bed. Why not buy a hammock with a quality bed so you can sleep flatter?

That's an interesting set of claims at the end, mostly because so very many members here have had great DIY results, and superb durability from quality 1.1 and 1.7 fabrics. There are even a couple of other manufacturers that use those fabrics in their products with great success. Some think the claims are just a jab at those vendors, which is fine since it's Clark's marketing statements on their own site. But the fabric part of it bears some discussion.

So HF'ers, what do you say? Heavier fabric will indeed stretch less than lighter fabric, but is there a need for heavier fabrics than 1.7 to get durability? If so, at what occupant weight is it needed? Is a single heavier layer more durable than two lighter layers? Have HF'ers made narrower hammocks from heavier fabric in order to get a flat lay without a diagonal position? What were your results?

Let's keep this one on topic please. And Clark owners - this isn't a jab at Clark. The claims raise some interesting questions that are relevant.

[Dutch]

I am sure that thicker the material you use you will get less stretch and it will be more durable. However at 200 pounds I think the 1.7 is a great trade off. I don't hear to many people falling through their hammocks unless something compromised it already. I would think that anything that is safe for you to handle your weight will not have ill effects for stretch.

I have a cuben gathered end and it doesn't stretch at all. It is also as hard as the ground to sleep in so let's not look at stretch as only a negative.

[Riverpirate]

Well are these claims true?

Is 1.1 indeed just a durable and less stretchy than 1.7?

If so, would the 2.0 fabric from Clarks be less stretchy and more durable than 1.7?

I do not have ANY proof that 1.1 is as durable and less stretchy than 1.7 except for the flatness chart on the WB site that seems to indicte that.

It would seem that if a single layer of 1.1 is just a strong and durable as any of the other heavier fabrics there would be no need to use anything else?

I have no idea what product ENO or Grand Trunk uses but they seem a lot thinner and more stretchy and lighter (weight) than the Clark bottom.

I have all of these ENOS, Grand Trunk, WB (dl) and Clark. Just from a laymens view (which I am) the Clark bottom does in fact feel tougher, less stretchy and heavier than the others but I have no proff of that.

[Ramblinrev]

Do I understand that the Clark is a hammock that is most comfortable with the tight hang? In that case you would need heavier fabric with less stretch to maintain any level of comfort. But to say the diagonal lie is a result of a cheap hammock bed is a patently misleading statement in my opinion. It is result of a different geometry. My HH Explorer uses 210D fabric if I remember correctly which is substantially heavier than 1.1 or 1.7 and it requires a diagonal lie because of how it is made and the geometry involved, not the weight or quality of the fabric.

If the statement about "intent" were not there I would not have a problem with the claim. But that changes the tone of the statement.

[angrysparrow]

...Heavier fabric will indeed stretch less than lighter fabric...

Well are these claims true?

Is 1.1 indeed just a durable and less stretchy than 1.7?

I'm not saying Clark is representing anything wrong. But we can talk about the details surely...

Like I posted above, we are all aware that lighter fabrics do indeed stretch more. But I think occupant weight will have some bearing on the amount of stretch and the durability. And using multiple thinner layers for a fabric bed can be cumulatively strong and durable, it seems.

And I think RamblinRev is right that the geometry of a Clark hammock does have some bearing on the need for a heavier fabric.

[Riverpirate]

I'm not saying Clark is representing anything wrong. But we can talk about the details surely...

You aren't but others have. I have no problems discussing the pros and cons of any hammock. They all have them.
FWIW, I sleep on the diagonal in my Clarks. I personally think you get a flatter lay with ANY material that way. I am still waiting on a manufaturer to make a camping hammock that I can lay 90 deg in.

[stefprez]

I think the only reliably true statement in that quote is that heavier fabrics are more durable (talking same fabric, different fabric weights). That's just common sense, isn't it? Otherwise, there are too many variables to determine what is, and who will get, a flat lay. (Tree distance, hammock geometry, person's height and weight, ridge line length, etc.) I'm 5' 9" and 140 lbs. Do I need 2.0+ fabric? Probably not.

Also, I think there is something to be said about the difference in durability of a fabric vs. weight. On one end of the spectrum, we have hikers who take anything and everything, and all their gear is bombproof. Usually they are carrying quite a considerable load due to this. Then on the other end of the spectrum, there are hikers who have sub-10 and even sub-5 pound base weights. Most of their gear is much more fragile and requires more care to be taken in order to not mistreat the gear. Will it still work? Of course. Can they neglect their gear in the same ways that the first hiker could and expect it to last as long? No. They are well aware of that, and find that trade off worth the reduced pack weight. In that aspect, HYOH.

[ScratchyBadger]

Are durability of fabric and weight are mutually exclusive measurements? 1.0 fabric _may_ be half the weight of 2.0 but is it really half as durable? Surely quality of weave plays a part? Does two layers of 1.0 equal the durability of 2.0 because it now weights the same or is it superior in that you now have a level of redundancy should one layer be compromized by getting caught on something?

It all seems very subjective to me.

[BillyBob58]

What about what the fabric is vs the weight? For instance, the GrizzBridge I have been trying is single layer seems like an UL, but it also seems to have very little stretch, less than most hammocks I have used. I have no idea what my Claytor No Net is, a dbl layer, but it seems to have no stretch. I am basing stretch perception on how much closer to the ground I end up after I get in. Some hammocks it is hard to stay off the ground, others you seem to head south very little.

[Mustardman]

There are way too many variables at work to make definitive claims about the superiority of one fabric over another. Weave, layers, calendaring, etc will all make a difference.

Unless they have rigorously tested their fabric directly against the exact same fabric used in competitors' hammocks, my opinion as a scientist is that Clark has absolutely no grounds for their claims. And if they HAVE carried out those tests, they ought to publish them for all of us to see. Marketing claims have to be backed up by more than intuition, and whether it intuitively makes sense that a Clark is more durable or mosquito-proof than a 1.1 single or double layer fabric is irrelevant - without data to back up that claim, Clark shouldn't have put it on their website.

Just my Not So Humble Opinion, as a scientist whose life pretty much revolves around making claims, testing said claims, and then publishing data in peer-reviewed journals to back up said claims.