Why flat shock cords?

Related to another thread on tying knots, I wonder why most manufacturers use flat shock cords (Quest is an exception). Would'nt a round cord, like a rope, be a lot easier to use?
Jim

Jim wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I am sure it is simply because "flat" is cheaper. It is also, I feel, far less likely to "zipper", as opposed to a round rope-like cord (though such an event would be more than unlikely in the small rockets we are speaking of).

  Quoted Text Here  
Flat cords also fold to a smaller space more easily.
Pardon the tech post!

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Do they, in "reality"? I have always had the "gut feeling" that they did, but have never sat down and proved it "mathematically".

news:t2cDe.830
  Quoted Text Here  
I didn't even prove it mathematically, but a few years back I thought it would be cool to use a cord instead, and I shockingly found I could NOT fit the same length in the body tube I was used to using for flat. it did fit at all , yikes !
But, some might say you don't need to use as much cord as you do web, but that's another question.
Jerry, do you know ?

  Quoted Text Here  
I find the length is more connected with component inertia. While there are non-elastic advocates among us, I feel elastic with a nylon line inhibitor at the 1/3-1/2 stretch length is "optimal.
YMMV.
Jerry

  Quoted Text Here  
Flat cords can be folded or rolled with virtually no "holes". Round cord can be packed, but will still have gaps.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759