ek wrote:You are unable to make the single overhand stopper and Yosemite finishes work on a climbing (i.e. dynamic, i.e. high stretch) rope?
The standard for these types of ropes stipulates a required "knottability" which is better than that of most semi-static ropes of similar thickness. I am extremely surprised that I am able to easily cinch down a knot in 11mm cave rope which you are unable to cinch down in 11mm climbing rope.
Is it possible that your 11mm climbing rope is actually 11.5mm and quite old?
Possible, yes. And in the dynamic, although it can make the bend, it just wants to and CAN
un-bend/loosen, with its firm roundness & smooth/fine/slick sheath. The PMI, though, also
old (but little worn), doesn't begin to make the bend! "In your dreams!" it screams.
knudeNoggin wrote:I should point out--and hope to see illustrated in the (yet just updated!) pdf file
cited in the OP--that there is a Yosemite-like finish which sounds as though ...:
if you don't get the whole cross-under then over-under-and-through thing just right
- you fail the test. Even if it may "look right" at first glance.
I just want to point out that you're quoting NZcaver here--I did not say that.
I'm an equal-opportunity quoter; NZ hailed from another year--the future--, briefly!
Regardless of whether or not doing the Yosemite bowline "wrong" produces an acceptable knot
(or even one superior in stability), there are three problems with it, the first two of which are quite substantial:
(1) It's not gone through real world testing, nor has it gone through lab testing. We know the Yosemite bowline works.
(2) It looks jumbled when tied. It would be very hard to know for sure that it is tied correctly....
(3) It uses a bit more rope, whereas the Yosemite bowline uses very little extra rope.
??? You talk as if you know the knot to which I refer, and yet your remarks belie that,
for the most objective aspect--#3--is clearly wrong, as the version I'm talking about
takes the end only 180 around an eye-leg and YoBowl wraps 360 (with space, if not
adequately flexible). And there's no "jumbled" look, either.
As for lab testing, I haven't seen much of that for the Yosemite that comes to mind,
but I've no trouble trusting this other version irrespective of a lab test; we're talking
about issues of security, anyway, and there isn't a lab test for that (though I'm thinking
that there SHOULD/could be--some uniform back'n'forth shaking of eyeknots tied to
a bar, where largely it would be a binary (pass/fail) grading).
To re-state this simpler knot: vice the YoBowl's turning the end X-wise around the
end-side eye-leg and then tuck it out through the collar beside the mainline,
take the end ANTI-X-wise around the leg & out. Quicker, simpler, millimeters less rope (!),
and better able to be hauled tight (the end part alone, which has an Overhand form.
Incidentally, if the
collar (where br're rabbit runs "around-the-tree") is a full,
"round turn", you get excellent grip on the Yosemite-tucked end.
knudeNoggin wrote:this might be what's going on here (and should get bonus points, not failure!).
(Btw, I must emphasize that in MOST PRESENTATIONS, THE BOWLINE IS SHOWN
FROM THE WRONG PERSPECTIVE (for understanding its structure, and esp. for
understanding the various extensions to secure the structure; and even for the
better orientation of the quick-tie method of forming the knot's central loop).
The "front" perspective in the pdf should improve understanding & recognition,
a LOT.)
Good point. For the "landlubber" method, the common view is preferable for a student to follow and
verify correct tying. For actually seeing how the knot works, the other side makes more sense.
I don't buy this: seeing correctness and the knot's working go hand'n'hand.
The trickiest part to see (of such a simple marriage of a bight & loop!) is the crossing
that the mainline makes in forming the loop; the in-&-u-turn bight part is easily
understood and perceived. And, again, beyond that, all the interesting extenstion
stuff is going to happen in the proper "front" side, pretty much.
The quick-tie method of taking the end and reaching across the mainline then
back into the space that will become the eye-space and continuing the motion
to cast the central nipping loop into the mainline has also be presented wrong-headedly:
doing it by reaching OVER the mainline leaves it crossing UNDER in closing the loop
and so it will fall away unless somehow supported, if one is tying the eye around
oneself (where the non-moving hand grips the mainline's side of the eye);
whereas reaching up under the mainline and ... will leave the mainline resting
against itself (if one is in a normal upright orientation to gravity, etc.).
I think we have different ideas about what is "recognizable."
I think you're too long at the Yosemite alter! Old is more familiar than new,
but the symmetry and simplicity of some other versions are plenty recognizable
(and what passes for a Fig.8 often is different one case to the next, each of
which gets *recognized* as okay--indeed, there was a rather comical case in
which RescueMan adamantly insisted on one image of a Fig.8 being wrong
even after my insistence to the contrary, and only some posts later wast its
form *recognized*. I'm pretty sure I can marry a Fig.8 & Overhand form to
pass the average recognize-the-Fig.8 test by most of those who think they
know-it-when-they-see-it. Heck, it'll look BETTER than some bona fide 8s!
knudeNoggin wrote:I'm waiting to hear a rationale for why the Cowboy Bowline is unacceptable that stands up.
... On the other hand, the common bowline ... seems to resist capsizing
when the tail is pulled better than the Cowboy bowline ... .
I think that it's a
leg that's being pulled when this supposed failure
vulnerability is brought up--a tall tale. How is this supposed to occur?
(In some scenario one might imagine that the knot reties itself after
capsizing into a Marlinespike hitch to the tail when the tail's released
--it is one of the Bowline's given tying methods, anyway.) But, we are
going to secure the knot somehow, so this is academic.
The Cowboy bowline better resists the sort of capsizing that does occur (in such
frequency that I wonder if it's desired!?) in mooring lines I've examined. (Which
could be worked into the "Dutch marine" myth somehow, but ... .)
((I'll see what I can find re the Nederlander's account.))
You'll have to show me some historical evidence, though, to get me to believe
that the term "left-handed bowline" is based on the notion that left-handed people
are inferior.
Ashley's glossary so defines it, as perverse or somehow out of the accepted way.
Beyond that, Occam's Razor cuts differently for me, without so much conjecture
about a foundation of particular knot orientation! (When you go a few paragraph's
deep and bring in mathematical coordinates, you have Occam upside-down.
)
Just make sure that both the minor loop and major loop are tied in the same way.
If they're different then what you get is a non-bowline that, ...
I call thus an
"anti- bowline; there are some interesting, quite decent ones,
but we'll leave them aside for now. (Just realized one of the mooring line capsized
knots was one--a Buntline Hitch, e.g.: haul the hitch into straightness to see what
it puts into the mainline, and that is a fully symmetric anti-bowline, which is nice
to look at and esp. if the end gets
seized, but isn't so great otherwise.)
(As a side note, the double overhand stopper is not secure in all applications.
Nor is a bowline: also in Spectra, but pure 12-strand, the end needed to be stoppered,
after which it was found to break at about 33% tensile strength! (Amsteel Blue)
*kN*