"FatPad Bridge" with HangNout style net

**Les Rust** · 09-01-2011, 06:45

That's an intriguing set up. I love the marpat and the fact that it is so light. Let us know how it feels after more hang time.

**Jazilla** · 09-01-2011, 09:34

The bugnet I envision? I love the idea Hangnout had for 2sticks bridge and that Shug made but I don't like the bugnet hanging loose. What I was thinking is if the bugnet where longer to reach under the hammock then shock cord hemmed into the edge. This way it stays under the hammock and out of the way if I turn at night or move around. Just me thinking.

**dblhmmck** · 09-01-2011, 09:38

Originally Posted by BER

Victor, I am looking at your pictures some more this morning and note that from the top, the hammock has a much more square appearance than the typical hourglass shaped bridge. Does this shape hold up when the hammock is loaded?

Thanks for that good observation and question Ber. While the hammock is unoccupied, the rectangular pad holds the shape. Instead of maintaining the hourglass shape, the hammock sides dip down to only 1 1/2" or less above the pad (in the middle). Because this is a narrow footed bridge, the hourglass shape doesn't flare nearly as much at the bottom as a "regular" bridge that has top and bottom symmetry.

When the hammock is occupied, the stiffness of the fully inflated pad is not enough to push the hammock body beyond the spreader length. The foot end conforms to the 18" width with a broad "U" shaped bottom. It feels like my body deflects about 10" down when I recline in the hammock. I imagine the sides must be coming in as the volume of space increases from top to bottom. I haven't been able to observe just how much yet.

I will try to find a willing model or photographer.

Thank-you bhinson!

And Les Rust, I have been sleeping in narrow foot bridge hammocks for over two years and prefer them over other hammocks. However, I have never tested a rectangular pad previously, so yeah, I'll let you all know how it goes.

**Pipsissewa** · 09-01-2011, 09:42

I think Tenaya's TED bug net for a bridge hammock is completely removable.

See photos and description here.

P.S. Your set up looks AWES

ME, Dblhmmck!!!

**dblhmmck** · 09-01-2011, 09:59

Originally Posted by Pipsissewa

I think Tenaya's TED bug net for a bridge hammock is completely removable.

See photos and description here:

http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=35793

P.S. Your set up looks AWES

ME, Dblhmmck!!!

Thank-you for posting Pipsissewa!

I don't know how I forgot your name,

but I saw your video on the TED bugnet. It's great, you are the person that I was trying to remember in post #19 of this thread in answer to Jazzilla's bugnet comments.

I hadn't seen Tenaya's project, so thanks for providing a link to her removable bridge bugnet. And what a good clean solution Tenaya came up with. Cool!

**dblhmmck** · 09-01-2011, 14:40

What I was thinking is if the bugnet where longer to reach under the hammock then shock cord hemmed into the edge. This way it stays under the hammock and out of the way if I turn at night or move around.

This sounds like it could work, Jazzilla. But if you had an elasticized hem that tucks under the hammock, wouldn't it be easier to use that for your entry/exit.

The elastic cord adds a lot of weight to the design. For instance, I have heavy elastic cord hemmed into the top of the bug net. My heavy elastic ran from the apex of each suspension triangle. Replacing just the short section from the foot suspension triangle to the beginning of the net enclosure with light nylon cord (shoelace size) dropped .7 ounces from the hammock weight.

So, I would think that you may only want to use elastic cord at the top edge or the bottom edge of a net design, but probably not both. Otherwise, the convenience of the removable net comes with a weight penalty when it is in use.

**Jazilla** · 09-01-2011, 14:50

I was thinking some 1.75mm shock cord but i do see your point about the height. I could use mason line around the edge and just a 3' piece in the middle and it should give me the stretch I need to pull it up and enter the hammock.

**BillyBob58** · 09-01-2011, 16:53

So, Dblhammock, this pad/hammock combo looks interesting! Not counting center of gravity issues, how do you find the comfort of the hammock with pad vs hammock without pad?

I have always thought my JRB Bridge was hands down the best hammock I ever tried to use a pad in, but I never got around to actually sleeping all night with one. Though I have occasionally slipped a WM blue pad, torso length and 20" wide, into the pad pocket about 0400 or 0500, when it got a little too coolish even during warm months. But I have never tried an all night sleep with the pad.

**dblhmmck** · 09-01-2011, 19:52

Originally Posted by BillyBob58

So, Dblhammock, this pad/hammock combo looks interesting! Not counting center of gravity issues, how do you find the comfort of the hammock with pad vs hammock without pad?

I have always thought my JRB Bridge was hands down the best hammock I ever tried to use a pad in, but I never got around to actually sleeping all night with one. Though I have occasionally slipped a WM blue pad, torso length and 20" wide, into the pad pocket about 0400 or 0500, when it got a little too coolish even during warm months. But I have never tried an all night sleep with the pad.

Hi BillyBob,

It is interesting that your best pad experience was combined with a bridge hammock. I think I can see why. Placement of a pad is certainly easier in a bridge than in a GE hammock, even without a sleeve. But that is for a full length pad that fills the entire hammock, I would guess a 3/4 length would would probably require a sleeve to keep from sliding around.

I think it is a different kind of comfort that one gets with a pad vs quilt. I have been using the word "buoyant" for the pad, and it actually reminds me of my first impression of a waterbed. A quilt insulated hammock is supportive over a greater percentage of the occupants surface area and has more of a caccoon type of cozy comfort- if that makes sense. This may be the same attribute that can lead to CBS though, and as we know that gets UNcomfortable.

A closed cel pad will flatten and open a bridge hammock some, but an inflatable pad changes the entire geometry of the space. It fills more of the volume, lifting the occupant. The greatest increase of comfort is available to back sleepers on pads. I have not gotten a hint of CBS with inflatable pads. The shoulders are allowed to flatten on top of a pad, no shoulder squeeze at all. This is noticeably more comfortable after carrying a pack (I occasionally suffer from an old shoulder injury).

There is a better sensory awareness of your position on the side when NOT on a pad. The pad takes away contact with the side walls of the hammock. And while this is beneficial from a comfort point of view, it can be slightly disorienting at times. But I think it would really only be an issue if you are prone to having disorientation problems, or accidently get a little too drunk.

In short, I am thinking that sleeping with a pad such as the NeoAir may be slightly more comfortable than my quilt experience (and certainly slightly heavier as well). It also needs no weathershield and is impervious to the wind, so is more protective. Of course I have no intention of getting rid of my UQs. But because I plan many desert and canyon trips, I sometimes need the versatility of a pad. And I love to be comfortable.

**BillyBob58** · 09-01-2011, 20:20

Thanks dblh. I have a 25" wide real thick/heavy Thermarest I have played with in the JRB, and it is pretty much as you describe. The best part is widening the hammock for increased shoulder comfort, and I also think I can get more fetal. Plus it does seem tippier. When I have added my 20" wide torso length WM blue pad- seems like it has more or less stayed put, though I had wondered if it would. It's been a while since I have done that, so I'll have to try it again soon to be sure.