Suspension replacement question:

[6 feet over]

Question: When replacing stock Claytor webbing for a strap/buckle system, has anyone just sewn the buckles in the same loop of strap that goes thru the hammock’s channel?

Is there a reason for NOT doing it this way? Or is it just too much of a pain trying to sew it with the hammock (or buckles) in the way?

6

[Mule]

I just sew a loop on both ends of a short piece of 1 inch polyester webbing and then use a biner to the cinch buckle strap, then a long strap to the tree or tree hugger.

[Mule]

BTW, I have gone to just shortening the Claytor straps, I go through twice and then tie an overhand knot to make a short loop. That way it is so short it doesn't stretch noticably. Mule

[Splat]

Question: When replacing stock Claytor webbing for a strap/buckle system, has anyone just sewn the buckles in the same loop of strap that goes thru the hammock’s channel?

If I'm understanding your question rightly, I would think some weight/stress would be applied to the sewing if you didn't set the straps up correctly... IOW, the same length/height as when you had it set and sewed the buckles in. I wouldn't want to really on the strength of the sewing job or thread.

[6 feet over]

If I'm understanding your question rightly, I would think some weight/stress would be applied to the sewing if you didn't set the straps up correctly... IOW, the same length/height as when you had it set and sewed the buckles in. I wouldn't want to really on the strength of the sewing job or thread.

I don’t think I made myself clear. When the Claytor webbing is removed from the hammock’s channel, it is often replaced with rope or strap, which often has two loops on the end. To connect to these loops, people seem to use a short section of strap: One end has the cinch buckle, and the other has a sewn loop with a biner. They use the biner to connect to the two loops from the new ‘channel’ rope/strap.

My question is, why not just make the strap that goes though the channel be DIRECTLY connected to the cinch buckle. It would remove the need for another two biners, and the buckles could never be lost.

Is there a reason to NOT do it this way?

6

[Mule]

BTW, I have gone to just shortening the Claytor straps, I go through twice and then tie an overhand knot to make a short loop. That way it is so short it doesn't stretch noticably. Mule

I replaced the stock ones today with short polyester straps, however.

[Mule]

I don’t think I made myself clear. When the Claytor webbing is removed from the hammock’s channel, it is often replaced with rope or strap, which often has two loops on the end. To connect to these loops, people seem to use a short section of strap: One end has the cinch buckle, and the other has a sewn loop with a biner. They use the biner to connect to the two loops from the new ‘channel’ rope/strap.

My question is, why not just make the strap that goes though the channel be DIRECTLY connected to the cinch buckle. It would remove the need for another two biners, and the buckles could never be lost.

Is there a reason to NOT do it this way?

6

Thats a good Idea. When I was experimenting with a Speer this week I did it that way. Problem was, all my other hammock hang from biners, so I ended up converting the Speer to the same type setup. You could save some weight though, but you would be able to have shorter straps on the tree but would need longer ones on the hammock. That means, if you have several hammock you would need quite a bit more stapping overall. It's a tossup.

[6 feet over]

With my idea, with the buckles incorporated in the same ‘loop’ of strap that goes through the hammock’s channel, they would be fairly close to the hammock. The main strap from the tree would be longer than some guys seem to have, but I planned to have a long strap anyway. I’m willing to pay the weight penalty until I get more experience.

Later, I’ll adjust the length to what I feel I can get away with. I could also just bring an extra strap with loops on both ends to compensate for a large circumference’d tree, or longer distance between trees. I still don’t have much real world hanging experience.

6

[BillyBob58]

I don’t think I made myself clear. When the Claytor webbing is removed from the hammock’s channel, it is often replaced with rope or strap, which often has two loops on the end. To connect to these loops, people seem to use a short section of strap: One end has the cinch buckle, and the other has a sewn loop with a biner. They use the biner to connect to the two loops from the new ‘channel’ rope/strap.

My question is, why not just make the strap that goes though the channel be DIRECTLY connected to the cinch buckle. It would remove the need for another two biners, and the buckles could never be lost.

Is there a reason to NOT do it this way?

6

That is how I do it, except with rope. Rope thru the channel on the hammock, whatever knot or lashing, rope a very short distance to the cinch buckle. No problems so far. I might skip all of this and just run the rope to some tree huggers. If I decide i'll save enough weight to justify giving up the convenience of the webbing/CB. Maybe, maybe not.

[BillyBob58]

With my idea, with the buckles incorporated in the same ‘loop’ of strap that goes through the hammock’s channel, they would be fairly close to the hammock. The main strap from the tree would be longer than some guys seem to have, but I planned to have a long strap anyway. I’m willing to pay the weight penalty until I get more experience.

Later, I’ll adjust the length to what I feel I can get away with. I could also just bring an extra strap with loops on both ends to compensate for a large circumference’d tree, or longer distance between trees. I still don’t have much real world hanging experience.

6

Here is mine. But I have recently shortened the distance between the hammock and the CB by about half, to maybe 4" or so. This pic was just the quick git er done first step.