Question of Comfort

[thecrumb]

Interesting thread. I ran into this a bit during my first hang - the ground was uneven and it was difficult to tell if things were level. I was thinking of packing a small string level next time that I could attach and verify things are level and then adjust one end higher and see the results.

[Youngblood]

Interesting thread. I ran into this a bit during my first hang - the ground was uneven and it was difficult to tell if things were level. I was thinking of packing a small string level next time that I could attach and verify things are level and then adjust one end higher and see the results.

Our minds have a tough time visualizing true horizon on slopes, at least mine does. I have about given up trying to 'fight it' and almost always set the head end of my hammock on the low side.

[Youngblood]

However, it appears to me that a structural ridgeline should somehow prevent this from happening, or reduce the effect.

I know from experience, by the experiences shared on line by other HH users, and just looking at the problem that a structural ridgeline does not prevent it from happening. I don't think that is even an issue. Now whether it reduces the effect, or even enhances it, is another question.

As far as the limits you mentioned go, sliding against a stop a ridgeline may make doesn't really change much as that is an unusable condition and a condition one wouldn't reasonably expect to have... I think that would be outside the boundary conditions of the problem?

If you compare the ridgeline versus non-ridgeline condition you have some decisions to make about the sag angle of the suspension line when the ridgeline is used.

[Schneiderlein]

I know from experience, by the experiences shared on line by other HH users, and just looking at the problem that a structural ridgeline does not prevent it from happening. I don't think that is even an issue. Now whether it reduces the effect, or even enhances it, is another question.

I have had the same experience, with and without structural ridgeline. I have always attributed this to a difference in stretch in the suspension webbing, resulting in a larger drop at the longer end.

As far as the limits you mentioned go, sliding against a stop a ridgeline may make doesn't really change much as that is an unusable condition and a condition one wouldn't reasonably expect to have... I think that would be outside the boundary conditions of the problem?

It is admittedly an unusable condition, but I think the thought experiment is helpful nonetheless. The solution to the problem is unlikely to completely change character as the structural ridgeline is shortened to an unusable length. If, at the limit, the structural ridgeline reduces (or eliminates) the sliding problem, I would it expect it to do so also at usable lengths.

If you compare the ridgeline versus non-ridgeline condition you have some decisions to make about the sag angle of the suspension line when the ridgeline is used.

That is true indeed. I normally shoot for somewhere around 30 degrees to avoid excessive forces on the suspension and trees, but I honestly couldn't tell you how close to that number I end up. I just eyeball it. The one difference I have noticed since installing the structural ridgeline is that I do not have to move the attachment points up or down on the tree if I have a problem with sliding down in the hammock, but can simply adjust by pulling the suspension a bit tighter on one end. Before the structural ridgeline, I recall moving the attachment point up on many occasions because I could not solve the sliding problem in the same manner.

[Youngblood]

I have had the same experience, with and without structural ridgeline. I have always attributed this to a difference in stretch in the suspension webbing, resulting in a larger drop at the longer end.

It is admittedly an unusable condition, but I think the thought experiment is helpful nonetheless. The solution to the problem is unlikely to completely change character as the structural ridgeline is shortened to an unusable length. If, at the limit, the structural ridgeline reduces (or eliminates) the sliding problem, I would it expect it to do so also at usable lengths.

That is true indeed. I normally shoot for somewhere around 30 degrees to avoid excessive forces on the suspension and trees, but I honestly couldn't tell you how close to that number I end up. I just eyeball it. The one difference I have noticed since installing the structural ridgeline is that I do not have to move the attachment points up or down on the tree if I have a problem with sliding down in the hammock, but can simply adjust by pulling the suspension a bit tighter on one end. Before the structural ridgeline, I recall moving the attachment point up on many occasions because I could not solve the sliding problem in the same manner.

You have your own ideas on how all this works. You also keep using "or eliminates" and the logic of that escapes me? I haven't figured out how you get to that. I agree that low stretch suspension lines are a very good thing and cut down on readjusting to keep the hammock above the ground and the sag angle from changing but I don't see how they change the centering problem significantly.

On another point, you have figured that a ridgeline can act like a stop. I can argue that the gathered ends can act like the same stop even without a ridgeline. But I still maintain that is outside the limits and is not a factor.

The last point, when you adjust by 'pulling the suspension a bit tighter on one end', you are adjusting the centering of the hammock by making the suspension system more equal on both sides of the hammock or offsetting it in the direction you desire. If you adjust the wrong end of the hammock by making it a bit tighter you would make the tilt problem you were trying to correct worse. (When you tighten one end you are shortening the suspension system on that end.) But when you 'pulled the suspension a bit tighter on one end' to adjust the hammock with a structural ridgeline you also raised how high the hammock rests above the ground by increasing the tension on the suspension lines. With the structural ridgeline the hammock sag angle stays the same when you tighten the suspension line. Without the structural ridgeline the hammock sag angle would change if you did that and that is why you use to raise how high you attached the hammock before-- to keep the sag angle where you wanted it. In the end, you can tight off lower with a structural ridgeline but you increase the tension on the suspension lines when you do and the lower you attach, the more you increase the tension to get the hammock the same distance above the ground. There are tradeoffs involved.

[warbonnetguy]

something that hasn't been mentioned yet i don't think, is that the "lowest point" isn't necessarily half way between the two trees. by raising one suspension point higher, you can move the "lowest point" left or right. i do this if there is an obstacle for instance.

[Schneiderlein]

You have your own ideas on how all this works. You also keep using "or eliminates" and the logic of that escapes me? I haven't figured out how you get to that.

I have some ideas, but I have been wrong before (so my wife says). I would really like to understand what is happening.

I will try to explain how I arrived at "eliminates" again. Without a structural ridgeline, the problem of loading the hammock is, as you pointed out, as simple as putting a mass on a piece of line and letting it settle at the low point. If the mass is placed off-center, it will slide towards the center.

When a structural ridgeline is added, the geometry changes. If both attachment points of the ridgeline are on the same side of the center of the suspension line, the mass can no longer slide to the center of the suspension lines. It can only slide left to right between the two ends of the ridgeline, which is what you refer to as stops I assume. If I now shorten the length of the ridgeline, the maximum travel that the mass can possibly slide gets smaller. At the limit, when the ridgeline length is zero, all lateral motion is completely eliminated.

From this consideration, my hypothesis is as follows. For an equal amount of off-centering, the point where a mass placed inside a hammock will be at equilibrium is closer to the center of the hammock if a hammock has a structural ridgeline than without a structural ridgeline. As you said, this is just my idea and it may well be wrong. If it is, I would like to know why.

I agree that low stretch suspension lines are a very good thing and cut down on readjusting to keep the hammock above the ground and the sag angle from changing but I don't see how they change the centering problem significantly.

I did not mean to imply that the stretch changes the centering problem. What I said is that I always attributed the sliding problem with an off-centered hammock to different amounts of stretch on either side of the hammock. If you imagine a hammock suspended with static line on one side and with shock cord on the other, one end of the hammock will obviously drop more than the other. Similarly, if one end of the hammock has a longer suspension, there should be more stretch on that side and the hammock should drop more. I am not sure if that is a factor, but looking for an explanation for the sliding I noticed, I thought it might have something to do with it.

On another point, you have figured that a ridgeline can act like a stop. I can argue that the gathered ends can act like the same stop even without a ridgeline. But I still maintain that is outside the limits and is not a factor.

I don't follow how the gathered ends could act as a stop in the same way a structural ridgeline can. You are correct that it is outside practical limits, but I still find it a helpful thought experiment.

The last point, when you adjust by 'pulling the suspension a bit tighter on one end', you are adjusting the centering of the hammock by making the suspension system more equal on both sides of the hammock or offsetting it in the direction you desire. If you adjust the wrong end of the hammock by making it a bit tighter you would make the tilt problem you were trying to correct worse. (When you tighten one end you are shortening the suspension system on that end.) But when you 'pulled the suspension a bit tighter on one end' to adjust the hammock with a structural ridgeline you also raised how high the hammock rests above the ground by increasing the tension on the suspension lines. With the structural ridgeline the hammock sag angle stays the same when you tighten the suspension line. Without the structural ridgeline the hammock sag angle would change if you did that and that is why you use to raise how high you attached the hammock before-- to keep the sag angle where you wanted it. In the end, you can tight off lower with a structural ridgeline but you increase the tension on the suspension lines when you do and the lower you attach, the more you increase the tension to get the hammock the same distance above the ground. There are tradeoffs involved.

I think it is key to start out with a high enough attachment point in order to fix the sliding problem by tightening one end. If the angle is high enough, the hammock is actually pulled up a bit as you point out. I doubt the small adjustments I make significantly impact the tension.

[TDunc]

Level for hammock:

Everyone already carries a level with them for those time when you are on a slope and want to find level.
Take that nalgen bottle and lay it on its side. Water will always go level. You can even hold it up and site along the water line (lengthwise) to see if a distant destination is higher or lower that where you are... Neat trick for kids to keep them busy also.

When I hang my hammock, I just hang it on the ridgeline and check the water level to the ridge line to get the hammock hang fairly level.

[Youngblood]

I don't follow how the gathered ends could act as a stop in the same way a structural ridgeline can. You are correct that it is outside practical limits, but I still find it a helpful thought experiment.

On the gathered ends hammocks I use (Speer style with shortened sides) you don't slide out the ends like an open sliding board, you stop at the gathered ends. When you are in the hammock, the fabric partially engulfs you and you get a shoulder squeeze that is proportional to how close you are to the hammock knot at the head end, you get a similar effect at the foot end. At some point that squeeze will stop you. Granted that if you kept increasing the slope you might eventually slide or tumble out the ends, but there is a stop.

What is it with a structural ridgeline that you think makes it act differently? The overhead structural ridgeline will not change that initial stop. Now if you keep increasing the slope it could be a factor for a bit, but at some point you would still fall out. The ridgeline itself does not act like a cage, you don't have to have a bugnet or a 'topside' with a structural ridgeline, you can use a structural ridgeline with an open top hammock.

[Youngblood]

Level for hammock:

Everyone already carries a level with them for those time when you are on a slope and want to find level.
Take that nalgen bottle and lay it on its side. Water will always go level. You can even hold it up and site along the water line (lengthwise) to see if a distant destination is higher or lower that where you are... Neat trick for kids to keep them busy also.

When I hang my hammock, I just hang it on the ridgeline and check the water level to the ridge line to get the hammock hang fairly level.

That's a neat idea, I'll have to give that a try.