Under influence of Sgt Rock's recent thread on pushing the limits:
Is a loopie* sling the minimum-weight constrictor? It would seem so because the there is no cordage wasted on a bury for an eye.
There are always two legs always carrying the load, so the cord strength can be halved*, and only enough tail is required to keep the loop from coming apart at full length, or, if desired, to form a half-hitch.
What is wrong with this analysis?
***Another citation to come.
*In a loopie, the bury is inserted from the other direction.
**In a whoopie sling, most of the time the load is being carried on two legs. In some destructive tests the weak point has been in the length of cord between splice-and-bury for the eye and bury / sleeve. In other words that length we try to minimize where where just one cord carries the load.
***Another HF member has recently put forward this suggestion in another context. No, they would be two: Turnerminator , who appears here later, and gd___ both of whom led me here to wonder afresh about alternatives to current standard practice.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks