Results 1 to 10 of 10

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Senior Member DemostiX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Like Lewis & Clark: Wintrin' o/t Columbia again: PDX
    Hammock
    Clark w 2QZQ mod,Tropical, NX;Nano
    Tarp
    Clark micro
    Insulation
    Major down
    Suspension
    7/64 SK75 +strap
    Posts
    2,325
    Images
    13

    Minimizing weight by balancing loads on 2 legs

    Under influence of Sgt Rock's recent thread on pushing the limits:

    Is a loopie* sling the minimum-weight constrictor? It would seem so because the there is no cordage wasted on a bury for an eye.

    There are always two legs always carrying the load, so the cord strength can be halved*, and only enough tail is required to keep the loop from coming apart at full length, or, if desired, to form a half-hitch.

    What is wrong with this analysis?

    ***Another citation to come.

    *In a loopie, the bury is inserted from the other direction.

    **In a whoopie sling, most of the time the load is being carried on two legs. In some destructive tests the weak point has been in the length of cord between splice-and-bury for the eye and bury / sleeve. In other words that length we try to minimize where where just one cord carries the load.

    ***Another HF member has recently put forward this suggestion in another context. No, they would be two: Turnerminator , who appears here later, and gd___ both of whom led me here to wonder afresh about alternatives to current standard practice.
    Last edited by DemostiX; 03-29-2012 at 14:25. Reason: clarification of buries --credit to Turnerminator and gd___

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •