All of the versions except the Gamma UL appear to be 50% off. I like the look of their tarp as well, but it's pricey since it's only available in Cuben.Originally Posted by hang-loose
All of the versions except the Gamma UL appear to be 50% off. I like the look of their tarp as well, but it's pricey since it's only available in Cuben.
I will disagree somewhat with Raven below, i.e. they are not necessarily all valid points, but they very well may be a valid opinion for Hutzelbein. I have both a WBRR and a 90*. Personally, I like the lay in the 90* over the WBRR. However, it is much easier to dismount a WBRR than a 90* by simply grabbing both sides, and poof, you are out. I do like my WBRR too.
Point 1. Regarding pads and UQs, I have experimented and written about those trials in the thread linked (guaranteed to put you to sleep with my verbosity): https://hammockforums.net/forum/show...e-Hammock-Tent ; Although a pad may be very convenient to toss in the pad pocket (same with the WBRR) it is not necessarily the optimum choice for me. I actually prefer a UQ (Arrowhead Ridgecreek or Costco throw) used together with a 3/4 length Thermarest prolite for summer-fall use. I am currently using a thin full length CCF yoga pad from Goodwill in conjunction with a DIY down UQ. Tonight it will be the yoga pad used with the Costco throw. Both of these are stuffed into the pad pocket...not really that difficult at all. I go into my reasoning why a full length pad is less desirable in that thread.
Point 2: Addressed above and in aforementioned thread. I have found several ways to utilize a UQ (Costco throw and a down DIY from an inexpensive quality down sleeping bag off ebay, inside the pad pocket. And believe me, I'm confident that a few of the talented folks around here will come up with even more elegant solutions than this hack.
Point 3: If interested read the linked thread above regarding pads, UQ, and comfort. For me, the true attraction of the 90* is that I have found it to be more comfortable than other hammocks I've used. I will agree some pads work better than others, e.g. a sea to sea comfort lite is nasty and I understand the inflatable pads that have the tubes cross wise, versus length wise do not work as well.
Point 4: The length limitation of around 6' is real, but it is more a function of current perpendicular hammock design and not the pad. That is because the current design curves up at the ends and limits the useful length.
Point 5: Simply not correct. There are a number of tarp options, just like with any other hammock design. For a tarp custom fit to the 90* you can purchase the zpack tarp from hammocktent. Very expensive CF tarp, but so are other CF tarps. The tarp made for the Exped Ergo or the Amock hammock work as designed for the 90*. There are several small vendors who custom make silnylon or polynylon tarps for the 90*. I have one in silpoly in Marpat pattern from Mountain Wilderness, called the Amok, that was similarly priced as my Cloudburst specifically tailored for the WBRR. I have also used a plain Jane silnylon 9'x12' tarp that I have had for years and was actually amazed how well it pitched over the 90* using my hiking poles in the center grommets at the long axis.
Regarding the sway. Yes it does sway from head to toe versus side to side. Personally, I do not find this objectionable at all. Secondly, it stops in a very short time. So short that I find my self trying to make it rock some more for the enjoyment. Notwithstanding, just what direction did your momma swing you?
Lastly, regarding the curve. I have not used an Exped Ergo or Amok, so my experience is solely with the 90*. I have not used a end gather hammock, largely do to the banana 'C' curve or having to lie diagonal and having to deal with calf/heel discomfort. I use a WBRR bridge hammock which are noted for their flat lay, absence of shoulder pinch, and for being great for side sleepers. I have found the 90* to be equally, if not more, comfortable than the WBRR in lack of shoulder pinch and side sleeping.
In my assessment the 90* has a flat lay EXCEPT at the ends for this 6 footer. The head end curve is fine because it aids in giving a pillow effect. Since I am 6 foot I am at the upper height for using the current 90* design. Although my body lies flat when on my back, I found my heels being in the end up-sweep section caused what I call knee hyper-extension as in the thread above. So, being the naturally curious sort, I set out to see if I could address the problem. Frankly, the overall 90* experience was superb enough that instead of moving on to something else I thought, hmmm, if I can fix this I will truly have a remarkable hammock experience.
That is when I started experimenting with shortening the string lengths under my knees into what I call the lazy S (those of you not from the west, think a "lazy" brand means a sideways S). Currently, I am using a combination of a few acrylic beads and nylon spacers to achieve what to me is an incredible improvement (aka mod). My 90* hammock has morphed into an excellent sleeping experience both for side and back sleeping. I know from the forum there are others who have experimented with other techniques. Perhaps someday the perpendicular hammock vendors, with their teams of bespectacled engineers sporting pocket protectors and white lab coats will catch the wave, aka the lazy S, too.
How to hang it at home? In the thread above I have some pictures using ebay military aluminum netting poles to set up both my 90* and the WBRR (the WBRR takes one more ridge pole). Easy, peasy, and just one example of how a hack like me can solve this conundrum. In fact in one more hour I will be swinging out in the dog trot from the aluminum pole frame as I continue to experiment on how I can further tweak my hammock experience.
Not trying to flame anyone or start an argument, but I thought it might be helpful to add my two cents.
Boilerplate caveat:This forum is not responsible for the views and/or comments of the posters contained herein, neither should this be regarded as product advocacy for any particular product.
As if I hadn't said enough ready, eh? One more thing. It seems to me that many hammockers are tinkerers. The old pitch a high tech tent, blow up the inflatable pad, fluff the 900 down bag, and so forth had taken some of the luster off the whole grappling with the elements adventure. Along came hammocking, and everybody, well a good many folks lurking about these parts have become enthralled once again with the unique challenges of how to tweak their hanging experience. I know there are some who simply want the canned experience, but I an thoroughly convinced there are many tweakers (no, I didn't say twerkers) Jonsing for the opportunity to experiment with "the perfect hang". Or is it just me?
Anyone knows how the gamma and delta are different with regard to using it as a ground bugnet? What's the delta lacking? Just a couple of loops?
Thanks!
Has anyone swapped out the suspension on one of these? I haven't had the pleasure of taking it down on a freezing morning, but I can tell how painful it would be!
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
I swapped it out for Dutch cinch bugs with dynemma / poly straps. I didn't like the rings either. I like being able to remove the suspension from the hammock as well.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
I like the size and weight of the stock suspension, I just don't like using it as intended. Seems like you could just use a Dutch stinger? Clip it to the 2 descender rings and tie it off???
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
It looks like the rings are on a continuous loop. Though I haven't tried to remove them. I have developed a strong hatred for descender rings. Maybe its just because they're so small.
But for the grace of God, there, I go...
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. A Dutch stinger is not intended to hold the weight of a person so I wouldn't use that as part of a suspension.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk
Dutch cinch bugs here
DSC03512.jpg by Rickard Andersson, on Flickr
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65072883@N04/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks