The first two installments were great, but the third installment was definitely weak. You can't lump narrow hammocks with short hammocks. The Nano-7 and the BIAS Weight Weenie Micro 52-inch wide don't belong in the same bucket. How do you stick an 11-ft., 52-inch wide hammock in the same bucket as a 9 ft. long, 4 ft. wide hammock?
?What?
Looked good to me. Some folks will want to split hairs on their favorite stuff.
It's not about splitting hairs on my favorite stuff. The article lumps together two hammock approaches that shouldn't be lumped together. Making a hammock that is narrow and short is one way to save weight without regard to comfort (Nano-7). Making a hammock that is long (11 ft.) and slightly narrower than most cottage vendor offerings is an entirely different approach.Originally Posted by SGT Rock
Many members of the HF community obviously value longer hammocks, judging by the success of hammock vendors like Warbonnet, Wilderness Logics, Dream Hammock, etc., who don't even sell hammocks shorter than 10 ft., unless it's custom.
I give credit where credit is due. While longer hammocks have been embraced by our cottage vendors, I'm not aware of any other vendor trying to shave off a little excess width to reduce weight without sacrificing comfort. BIAS is unique in that regard. Lumping a unique approach with a mass-produced Lilliputian hammock from a big-box vendor offering is not an apples-apples comparison.
The Nano-7 is 8% narrower, and 20% shorter. On top of all that, it weighs 7.4 oz, which is the same weight as the widest BIAS WWM (64 inches). A 52-inch WWM weighs 6 ounces. I'm just not seeing how two products so vastly different should be lumped together.
The article is an overview, not an in-depth study, so I understand how you can't get into such level of detail: sacrifices have to be made for the sake of brevity. I have studied, evaluated and compared products often in my career as a network engineer and have made the same sacrifices, so I understand. That still doesn't make mile-high evaluations exactly fair, informed, or complete.
Last edited by SilvrSurfr; 12-13-2012 at 00:08.
Whatever.
People that sleep in them and want even mo' bigger may think you are nuts because you think longer is more important than wider. Just because you think it is so, doesn't mean everyone else will. The author is speaking from his point of view and it is a valid one.
I personally think all those hammocks are overly large and trick you into thinking they are more comfortable just because a sweet spot on one is easier to hit - sort of like hitting the broad side of a barn. But that is my opinion.
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is best. It could be the flavor of the month, or year. It just is. Gear fads come and go. I've been around hammocks long enough to know that HF is the place to read about what the new and interesting thing is, the flavor of the month, but not always what is the best way to camp or hike with a hammock.
If you disagree with the author, write an article and see if he Skurka will publish it. Otherwise you are splitting hairs.
The definition of "splitting hairs" is making petty distinctions. Comparing a 52" WWM to a Nano-7 that is 8% narrower, 20% shorter and 20% heavier is not a petty distinction.
While I haven't been around hammocks as long as you, Sgt. Rock, I have plenty of experience in evaluating products and can do simple math.
Whatever.
My United States of Whatever.Whatever.
...whatever...
Gonna make a Hammy out of his scarf...whatever...
Enjoy and have fun with your family,
I've enjoyed Alan's writings on BPL...I recently joined here and this is the first writing of his here. I'm totally happy now.
The beauty of sunsets,
The wind in the pines,
The mountains give these and more...
Peace of mind.
I'll give myself a thumbs-up for searching "Skurka hammock book" before starting a new thread; and I 'm glad to have found this one.
A friend who has been a serious walker will soon have to be a serious hiker and UL camper, for a trip with a veteran in Mexico. So, he picked up Skurka's book on gear.
Well, the pluses and minuses that Skurka describes, as he sees them, made it into the National Geographic - published book. But, a darned important solution to one of the minuses is missing. We all know it is an important one:
In the book, Skurka seems to not know that underquilts (UQs) solve for all of us who use them the problem of cold from underneath.
""Using a sleeping pad is awkward, and placing a lightweight sleeping bag in an underside sleeve adds weight and expense." [Shelters, The Ultimate Hiker's Gear Guide}
I could go on to say that a hammock with UQ solves the problem of being bone tired on arriving at camp furnished with bunks in cold temps and spending the first hour shivering on the heavy mattress while your body tries to pump out enough heat through convulsive shivering to that cold, cold mass so your body can finally rest.
A shame, I repeat, that the UQ solution did not make the copy - edit for the book. Or from Skurka's language he may not even have hammocked when he wrote the book.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks