Originally Posted by DemostiX
In no way is this review an echo. It is one of the better reviews to appear here, quite comprehensive. You liked it a lot, and are very clear about just what there is to like, or which others might take advantage of.
Would you say in reply and amend your review on whether there is a structural ridge line and what about it. That is unclear to me; and the review would stand better on its own without need to refer to the maker's own description.
You at your size vs. 1.9 single layer is interesting. Likely in no way your hammock, Clarks are also of a heavy single layer that doesn't stretch much, at least under lighter occupants.
there is, in fact, no structural ridge line. the design of the hammock doesn't really permit it, unless you wanted to put a hole in the netting, as it's stitched into the channel. tttg does include accessory loops of cord at the head and foot end, also stitched into the channel, but those have been deemed not structural, and a ridge line should not be anchored to them. last i read on old thread about the switchback, the notion had been posed, but the thread died. it was my experience that the hammock, as reported, doesn't require the consistent sag a ridgeline affords.
*an additional note, to be added to the review also... is that the internal, non structural ridgeline attached at the netting tieout points, is adjustable via slipped loop knots, stock. advanced users have yet more control over how the netting is set up, though dale communicated to me adjustment of this line doesn't afford much difference.
at this point, i have very little to complain about. at the end of the day, as xuprising said, hammocks are essentially big pieces of fabric with ropes on both ends. it did take me a full calender year and 4 seasons of backpacking to develop a valid critique of the wbbb, enough that i sought other options. time will tell on the switchback.