Fixed length line

**gunn parker** · 09-24-2007, 02:23

Hi All
We all seem to use adjustable lines on each end of the hammock but is there a reason why I could not have a fixed line running from the foot end to a tree hugger, then on the head end use an adjustable plate or buckles?

Then I could attach the huggers at the foot end, clip a binner on and attach the line to the hammock then attach the head end and pull tight.

Gunn

**GrizzlyAdams** · 09-24-2007, 03:04

Originally Posted by gunn parker

Hi All
We all seem to use adjustable lines on each end of the hammock but is there a reason why I could not have a fixed line running from the foot end to a tree hugger, then on the head end use an adjustable plate or buckles?

Then I could attach the huggers at the foot end, clip a binner on and attach the line to the hammock then attach the head end and pull tight.

Gunn

I assume by "fixed line" you mean "line with no fancy gadgets on it", so at that end you tie a knot to the huggers as was done in ancient times.

It's then mostly just a matter of centering the hammock at the time you tie that knot. You make your (minor) tensioning adjustments on the end with the gizmo. That will take you off-center, or towards-center, depending, but the kind of tensioning I've done doesn't amount to so much that I'm concerned about the centering. Having said that, when I do tension up I do it at both ends.

But as a means of cutting the carried weight of gizmos in half, I like your idea. 6 grams here, 6 grams there .... after a while you're talking about perceptable weight differences

Grizz

**dblhmmck** · 09-24-2007, 03:48

is there a reason why I could not have a fixed line running from the foot end to a tree hugger, then on the head end use an adjustable plate or buckles?

I think it is a good way to go, in the case where one end of the ridgeline attaches to the tree hugger (fixed), and the other end attaches to a higher or lower point on the opposite tree (adjustable).

A variation on that idea involves two sepparate ridgeline segments, one of which is fixed. In my example, I was trying a fixed length at the ridge line foot end. I think the idea has potential. One possible problem that it introduces, is that the area of stretch betweeen hammock and ridgeline when you get in, may then be isolated to one end of the ridgeline. In my case the two lengthe were not equal, and this required that more accomodating strech be built in to the foot section's ridge line. Here's a photo.

**wamyteipen** · 09-24-2007, 22:17

It sounds like you don't plan on re-tying or adjusting the "fixed" end. If that is so, it would seem to me that your tree selection would be somewhat limited to get a good hang. The farther apart the trees the harder it would be to keep the fixed end from hanging way higher than the adjustable end. Typically, you want the hammock to hang somewhat in the center of your two hanging anchors (trees) to get the best hang. I'm just thinking out loud. Perhaps some of the more experienced hangers will chime in.

**gunn parker** · 09-24-2007, 22:26

Hi
Yes the foot end would have a fixed length of say 3 foot and the head end would be adjustable, so you would have to pick trees that are always the same distance apart.

So is it very important to set up in the centre of the two trees?

**wamyteipen** · 09-24-2007, 22:52

In my limited experience, the closer you are to centered the better the hang. It seems, however, that you could adjust the height of the suspension ropes to keep the adjustable end from sagging to far below the fixed end to some extent. The further the trees are apart; the harder it will be to adjust the hang just right.

**gunn parker** · 09-24-2007, 23:07

Thanks, sounds like it was not a good idea and not worth looking further into

**GrizzlyAdams** · 09-25-2007, 01:32

Originally Posted by gunn parker

Thanks, sounds like it was not a good idea and not worth looking further into

but hang on (pun intended, sorry)....

Deciding once and for all that one end will be a fixed n feet from the tree (where n=3 or 4) is not a good idea. The only way that comes to mind of doing that without tieing a knot is a bit awkward anyway.

But deciding to use a knot on one side and do any adjustment on the other is not a bad idea. The point that has been raised is one of centering the hammock. You do that (well, I do anyway) before tightening things up. You can (I imagine) center it hanging even, if at the "to be tied" end the knot you use first is a tautline...easy to tie and untie, and easy change the length on that side as you center things up. Once the hammock is centered, then transform the tautline into a more permanent wrap, tighten up on the ring/buckle/gizmo/plate/drilled-nickle/anchor/dog-bone/fairy-dust side. If you get the centering right in the first place, changes due to tensioning won't affect it very much.

Grizz

**wamyteipen** · 09-25-2007, 01:40

True, but what would be the point of doing it this way? Weight savings? If so I can see shaving a few oz that way by eliminating the hardware on one side but it wouldn't be that significant.

**GrizzlyAdams** · 09-25-2007, 02:20

Originally Posted by wamyteipen

True, but what would be the point of doing it this way? Weight savings? If so I can see shaving a few oz that way by eliminating the hardware on one side but it wouldn't be that significant.

I assume the motivation is weight savings. Gunn Parker contributes to the thread that is seeking minimal weight suspension devices (not so minimum weight as to just use knots though). 6 grams here, 6 grams there....wait, is there an echo in here?

Grizz