7/64 or 1/8 opinions for Whoopies

[Apollo2112]

Youll gain a 50% weight savings between a 6' pair of AB slings and a 6' pair of dynaglide slings.

Yes, its only .5 ounce weight savings, but put into percentage, its 50%. Cut 50% out of your backpack weight and youd giggle like a little girl. Its all about context and perspective.

Yes that is exactly what I meant.

[DemostiX]

this is one of my whoopies after only 2 uses!! anyone with more experience have any ideas?

Thanks for introducing this. It isn't off-topic.

**** happens. It is hard to tell from the photo, but it doesn't appear that all the strands are severely abraded or weakened.

For the most part, the strength of the cord is proportional to quantity. If there were 8 strands in the rope and 2 were very much weakened, you'd be left with about 6/8 or 75% of the breaking strength. Not exactly; but that's a good estimate.

Start with a rope with more strands or more fiber in the strands -- heavier rope -- and you're more robust to catastrophic failure.

Dunno how damaged those strands are, btw. Manufacturers say that UHMWPE fibers DO fuzz up, normally. Rope experts look at the live stuff and assess remaining strength and life. On cost-benefit analysis, serious rope gets spliced, and mfg ratings reflect this, often being explicitly for spliced rope.

[DemostiX]

Youll gain a 50% weight savings between a 6' pair of AB slings and a 6' pair of dynaglide slings.

Yes, its only .5 ounce weight savings, but put into percentage, its 50%. Cut 50% out of your backpack weight and youd giggle like a little girl. Its all about context and perspective.

In risk analysis it isn't the relative risks that matter in the end, even if, Zeno -like, they can be analyzed, increased, and reduced in a proportional manner. 50% of nothing is nothing. And 50% of an infinitesimal is still something. Neither make me giggle.

Most of the weight reduction possible in line weight has already taken place. Nobody is packing sisal or manila. There's just not much more to be achieved; and certainly not much more to be recommended to someone who is seeking advice, and who has presented himself as concerned with risk.

If I am setting out to bicycle mid-summer across a 70 mile stretch without roadside water, I will burden myself and bike -- which I may have already lightened, drillium style, an affectation -- with five quart bottles of water. Thats the space I have. I consume about a quart per 10 miles, gaining no weight, and having no need to pee; so I believe I am not over-hydrating. In carrying that much / little water, I am already taking on some risk, missing a sixth bottle, and expecting water at the end of the ride. Maybe I should have a camelback (tm).

But, I would not giggle to ditch half the bottles of water, saving half the weight. I don't think I will die or cramp up unrecoverably, if I'm down 2 quarts at the finish.
And I would not recommend less water to someone else for a similar ride, even though I suspect my water needs are higher than others.

I would wager that 100 hangers weighing under 250lb could all complete a weekend gathering hammocked with un-doubled 200 lb test Dyneema fishing line suspensions, all splices and behavior under your supervision; and none would drop. Maybe there's a Guiness record in that. It still is not to be recommended to a stranger.

Earlier in this thread, I gave a critical context for evaluation of the 1/2 oz of weight to be saved by going to lighter and lower-strength cord: The saving of just a tablespoon eats into what is already a minimal range of safe operation as estimated by experts on safety.

I am not the only one here who understands that. It has been given better expression in an earlier thread by someone enjoying greater esteem which and whom, respectively, you are familiar with.

[opie]

In risk analysis it isn't the relative risks that matter in the end, even if, Zeno -like, they can be analyzed, increased, and reduced in a proportional manner. 50% of nothing is nothing. And 50% of an infinitesimal is still something. Neither make me giggle.

Most of the weight reduction possible in line weight has already taken place. Nobody is packing sisal or manila. There's just not much more to be achieved; and certainly not much more to be recommended to someone who is seeking advice, and who has presented himself as concerned with risk.

If I am setting out to bicycle mid-summer across a 70 mile stretch without roadside water, I will burden myself and bike -- which I may have already lightened, drillium style, an affectation -- with five quart bottles of water. Thats the space I have. I consume about a quart per 10 miles, gaining no weight, and having no need to pee; so I believe I am not over-hydrating. In carrying that much / little water, I am already taking on some risk, missing a sixth bottle, and expecting water at the end of the ride. Maybe I should have a camelback (tm).

But, I would not giggle to ditch half the bottles of water, saving half the weight. I don't think I will die or cramp up unrecoverably, if I'm down 2 quarts at the finish.
And I would not recommend less water to someone else for a similar ride, even though I suspect my water needs are higher than others.

I would wager that 100 hangers weighing under 250lb could all complete a weekend gathering hammocked with un-doubled 200 lb test Dyneema fishing line suspensions, all splices and behavior under your supervision; and none would drop. Maybe there's a Guiness record in that. It still is not to be recommended to a stranger.

Earlier in this thread, I gave a critical context for evaluation of the 1/2 oz of weight to be saved by going to lighter and lower-strength cord: The saving of just a tablespoon eats into what is already a minimal range of safe operation as estimated by experts on safety.

I am not the only one here who understands that. It has been given better expression in an earlier thread by someone enjoying greater esteem which and whom, respectively, you are familiar with.

At what point are you willing to accept more risk by pushing design limitations to their limit?

You keep beating this horse about the risk outweighing the gain using DG over AB. That is perfectly acceptable. But others wish to push that envelope of risk and ask for advice in the proper procedure to correctly use the materials they are asking about. But its not your place to police anyone asking these questions because you are uncomfortable with the risk to gain proportions. I am pretty sure HF knows you dont like DG. You could save yourself some time by just putting a tag line in your sig.

Others are willing to use it and it can, has been, and is currently being used safely, without fail.

To be honest, Im surprised you settle for 7/64 slings. Even they dont have a good safety margin for someone like yourself seeking perfection in a product you have never laid hands on. I would suggest to you to go with a diameter line that affords you a solid 10:1 margin. If you refuse, then YOU are accepting the risk of a lower margin, just as others are willing to do with DG.

Your water bottle analogy does not make sense. Our bodies are made up of 70% water, we can not survive without it. To attempt to make some correlation to dropping 50% of your water, and 50% of the weight in your hammock suspension cord is a stretch, at best.

Please accept that everyone will not always agree with you. We are all different with different personalities. Just because someone else is willing to accept more risk does not make what they are doing wrong. I would wager a months pay on the fact you enjoy "things" in your life that would not be if another did not push the limits of a previous product/design. Its called progress, its why computers dont occupy entire floors in buildings anymore.

[angrysparrow]

Guys...I think I can comfortably state that the entire forum has had enough of both of you going back and forth arguing about Dynaglide in various threads. This is now the 3rd thread that has devolved into it...and this thread isn't even about DG.

We've had enough, full stop. Either take it to PM's or drop it.