So what's the "tension member" if not a pole?

Fred Klingener wrote:
"steveJ" wrote in message
...

and embed some kind of a tension
member in them,

See..thats the whole problem..I just want something that doesnt require
any poles because I almost always camp where there are trees and the
poles add a lot of weight.


Don't need no steenking poles. Unless you have hiking poles or your canoe
pole breaks down.

Nuthin' in my rant that said anythin' 'bout poles. I use mine poleless
whenever I can.


Not so much of a problem in the boat but I
also like to use my equipment for hiking.
I think a simple square of fabric supported across the diagonal between
two trees and stretched across all four corners corners, two to the
trees and two to the ground, works almost as well and is much simpler to
fabricate.


'Almost.' Which is the whole point. The square, rigged as you describe, is
slack in the middle, will flap in the wind, and will collect rainwater and
snow. Hence the interest in topology. A properly done wing will be quiet
and stable in the wind, will shed water reliably, and will shed snow with a
kick from below.


True, it does not take advantage of the arch effect of a
catenary parabaloid, but it doesn't need to.


If you don't think so, then you're all set with a tarp. People have been
happy with flat tarps for centuries. Civilization marches on.


I find it hard to believe
that the only company that sells such a thing is Campmor and their price
is too high. A big square of rain fly material with a few loops or
grommets should do the job just fine...for less money.


I haven't seen Campmor's, so I don't have an opinion. I conspicuously
avoided mentioning brands.

Fred