NZcaver wrote:Cheryl Jones wrote:The knot can (and should) be "dressed" and tightened with the ropes remaining parallel throughout the knot.
Still, I'm not sure that this results in the same outcome that you described. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe my second and third shots and Robert's red rope shot all show properly dressed figure 8's. (Robert, you disagree?) Robert's earlier tree photo shows a knot that appears to be both incorrectly tied (tail on the wrong side) AND undressed (the last loop before the bight should be flipped over it's neighbor and snugged tight).
I think you've got it; Cheryl doesn't (Robert shouldn't have conceded).
Moreover, that pretty untensioned knot in BWII(?) for the Tensionless Hitch
is of the "correct" start but needs to be dressed as you suggest--the loose end's
turn should come down around the parallel one. Though, as it is, I'd rate it as
"a good knot"--performs its function, which is to give an eye for the 'biner, quickly
tied & untied (even were the end to work completely free of its last tuck--which
it won't--, the resulting, er, 3/4 Fig.8 would be fine (such knots have been tested)).
Note that NZCaver's first, starting orientation of the knot is the REVERSE (re which
end is loaded, which is TAIL) from that
flat, unrealistic diagram of the Fig.8 loopknot
in Robert's msg. (and one that, sadly, is often parroted). Formed like this, the
draw of the eye bight through it can naturally rub it and bring the right loop (of the
standing part) into proper position for dressing. This supposed easily tied knot
poses much more difficulty when tied the "re-threaded" way, such as to a climbing
harness.
But as for arguments pro/con a given orientation, well, YMMV. It's been asserted
that AMGA testing found "properly tied" Fig.8 loopknots weaker than others;
but "sloppy/mistied" aren't terms denoting exact forms, and there are no doubt
some weaker versions of these.
As for the "right" v. "wrong"/"cowboy" bowline, the supposed vulnerability of the latter
to being jerked into some failure seems mythical to me: in most cases, IMHO, even
WERE the end to snagged so as to capsize the knot, if the end was freed, the
knot should capsize back into form (indeed, it's a way to tie it--"the slip-knot way").
Frankly, I think that this is an invented problem.
In any case, what is more certain is that the cowboy/end-on-outside bowline
resists
ring-loading, which can occur if the eye snags on something (or if,
as is given anecdotally, some foolish rescue person tries to hoist you by hooking
the eye); loaded this way, the knot becomes the Lapp Bend. The "proper" bowline
will most likely spill. (A Dbl. Bowline in either orientation will resist spilling.)
Back to the Fig.8, in what NZcaver at least posits as proper. I'd set that form by
tensioning the END vs. eye bight; this will put a nice curve into the standing part,
which when loaded (well more than you're likely to manually set!) will bear into its
parallel twin part, and also curver over paired parts crossing it, and out against
paired parts at the end of the knot--much
padding, gentler curves.
Based on some testing that claimed this form to be 8-10%pt.s stronger a sort
of bowline-fig.8 compromise loopknot was designed (no testing on this to report).
Cf. Lehman8 at
http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/KnotPhot ... tions.html
On the main set of knots (
http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/ ) one can see an asymmetric version
of the Fig.8 loopknot.
And below shows more clearly the symmetric version loaded on the other end.
Knots is a field with surprising little rigorous research, and a LOT of outright,
incredible nonsense. Beware bold pronouncements; and realize that material matters
--what works well in that supple double-braid polyester yacht rope might fare poorly
in stiff kernmantle caving rope (PMI No-Flex, e.g.), or some firm rope w/round
cross section vs. a rope w/readily compressible cross section.
*knudeNoggin*