I think you've got the ones I can think of. Simplicity is a good thing at times, and it's the simplicity that allows their use with improvised poles (most commonly trekking poles, not admittedly much use to a cyclist, but if you're in woodland you don't need any poles at all, you can just string between a couple of trees).horizon wrote: ↑22 Apr 2021, 4:48pmWould you care to list them? My own guess is that the ridge is a fundamentally strong (triangulated) structure, very simple in design and more tolerant of inexactitude. Anyone can construct a simple ridge tent (though I presume bending the right branches into a tunnel shape isn't rocket science either!).
Would depend how you measure "for a given level of usefulness" to compare to unit weight. A definite weakness of a ridge is there's little sitting space off-centre, and that can be an issue with multiple occupants but not to much for one. The floor space next to the wall might only be 20cm high, and while that's a problem to sit in it's useful space if you just want to lay your kit out. So if you're measuring against "sittable volume" tunnels probably have it, if you want floor space along side sittable volume the ridge (all else being equal) will proably take it.horizon wrote: I do appreciate the space that a tunnel/dome provides, less appreciative of broken poles and structural weakness. I also wonder whether there is more actual material involved in a tunnel/dome and that this therefore makes them more dependent on lightweight materials.
One place where a tunnel is typically worse than a ridge is weight of pole for a given length of tent (and tunnels are similarly ahead of domes and in turn geodesics in that regard). On the other hand, pegging requirements (and thus weight of pegs) work the other way, with the simplest (single pole pyramid) needing the most pegging and a geodesic the least.
You choose, you lose...
Pete.