Moderator: Tim White
NZcaver wrote:Very interesting... but did I miss something?
Even with all that effort this person seems to have ignored one
of the most obvious [& well published--kN] solutions to the Bowline security problem:
... the parts of the Bowline. What is labeled the "eye" I know as the bight
(in the context of a completed knot). I'm not sure what the part of the knot labeled as the bight
really should be called, but it doesn't seem consistent with what I know as the definition of
a bight (a slack part or loop in a rope).
The beauty of the bowline, imo, is it's simplicity. And it doesn't use much rope to tie.
Add a yosemite tie-off and it's pretty bomber.
I don't think I would hang on the Janus version, fig. 30
ek wrote:The double overhand stopper is also still permitted by NCRC, right?
Though I once had similar concerns, I have since tied both the single-overhand stopper and the Yosemite backup many times with bowlines tied in stiff ropes such as 11mm PMI Max-Wear / PMI Pit Rope and 11mm Sterling SuperStatic. ...
I have never had any problems with either. Neither has ever slipped substantially on me. I've always been able to get both of them to tighten down quite easily. I do have to pull hard to cinch down the stopper (when that's the "lock" I've chosen to use).
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.
While {Yosemite B.} easy to tie wrong if you don't know how, this is also the case with the bowline itself--general belief is that the "left-handed"/"cowboy"/"Dutch marine" bowline is not acceptable.
the "handedness" of the knot often appears reversed
I don't recall the double overhand stopper finish ever being taught or shown in NCRC literature
knudeNoggin wrote:!! Well, all I can say is that in some firm 11mm climbing rope, an Overhand around
one diameter just does NOT like staying tight; I have some success when tightening
this knot up against the Bowline body--i.e., pulling on the end and snugging it in
(which is in any case a better plan than just having the stopper somewhere out
along the eye-leg, which allows the bowline body to loosen).
"Easily" ??? I must have much stiffer rope than you; again, trying to get the material
to come even close to a 1dia bend is futile.
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.
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.)
knudeNoggin wrote:But if a simple wrap-&-tuck-back-through finish is sought, I find that second
(bottom half of page w/"Janus") Janus bowline, formed from a "Cowboy" base,
quick, easy, recognizable (it's symmetric), nicer. (For **lead** rockclimbers,
this has the advantage, like the Yosemite finish, of pointing the end DOWNwards,
gaining some gravity-assist against coming out of the tuck.)
knudeNoggin wrote:While {Yosemite B.} easy to tie wrong if you don't know how, this is also the case with the bowline itself--general belief is that the "left-handed"/"cowboy"/"Dutch marine" bowline is not acceptable.
Which points to a meaning of "wrong" rather than to a characteristic of the knot.
I'm waiting to hear a rationale for why the Cowboy Bowline is unacceptable that stands up.
knudeNoggin wrote:"Dutch marine" is a myth, according to one Dutch knot researcher.
knudeNoggin wrote:the "handedness" of the knot often appears reversed
Best to kill this misnomer in the moniker "Left-handed Bowline", as it has NOTHING
to do with handedness ("S" & "Z" twisting), but borrows from the colloquial sense of
"wrong"/"inferior" of lefties--at which any good lefty should take offense (and even
cite those studies showing higher mental abilities ... ! :o). (Handedness can be
seen of influence in knot behavior in laid/twisted rope and the Overhand knot
--where in one way it will better interlock the rope's strand-ridges and hold,
and in the opposite handedness not so.) In braided ropes, it's not an issue.
knudeNoggin wrote:I don't recall the double overhand stopper finish ever being taught or shown in NCRC literature
The Strangle knot--which is a dbl.oh. of a particular orientation, that most familiar
here--is likely going to be known via the Grapevine Bend (aka "Dbl. Fisherman's knot"),
and should be common knowledge, as it's a quite useful make-it-secure structure
that might be employed in many places, **2 B Sure**; it works in many materials
(e.g., the Grapevine seems to be one of the strongest webbing bends; adding a few
extra wraps, and one has a good rope-end whipping).
Chads93GT wrote:I know the bowline is extremely easy to untie after being weighted. In fact, next time I go rock climbing (after my belayer has her kid ((my wife)) I may tie off using the double bowline instead of the trace figure 8 with a fishermans backup. Kind of makes me nervous how easy it is to undo but whatever.
Chads93GT wrote:what is the actual use of the bowline that I see people so frequently talk about in this forum?
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?
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.
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.
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 think we have different ideas about what is "recognizable."
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 ... .
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.
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, ...
(As a side note, the double overhand stopper is not secure in all applications.
knudeNoggin wrote:The PMI, though, also old (but little worn), doesn't begin to make the bend! "In your dreams!" it screams.
knudeNoggin wrote: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).
knudeNoggin wrote:And there's no "jumbled" look, either.
knudeNoggin wrote:As for lab testing, I haven't seen much of that for the Yosemite that comes to mind,
knudeNoggin wrote:but I've no trouble trusting this other version irrespective of a lab test; we're talking
about issues of security, anyway,
knudeNoggin wrote: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).
knudeNoggin wrote: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.).
knudeNoggin wrote: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: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?
knudeNoggin wrote: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.
knudeNoggin wrote: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. )
knudeNoggin wrote: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.)
knudeNoggin wrote:(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)
knudeNoggin wrote:I don't recall the double overhand stopper finish ever being taught or shown in NCRC literature
The Strangle knot--which is a dbl.oh. of a particular orientation, that most familiar
here--is likely going to be known via the Grapevine Bend (aka "Dbl. Fisherman's knot"),
and should be common knowledge...
Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck]