Author Topic: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725  (Read 9609 times)

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« on: January 18, 2012, 09:44:04 PM »

"Backhanded Hitch" ABOK #1852


"Backhanded Hitch" ABOK #1725

Numerous diagrams on the Internet show the second knot.  Unfortunately, the second knot tends to capsize (e.g., the backhand portion begins to come around the bar).  The first knot does not capsize.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 02:23:19 AM by knot4u »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1615
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2012, 05:59:07 PM »

"Backhanded Hitch" ABOK #1852


"Backhanded Hitch" ABOK #1725

Numerous diagrams on the Internet show the second knot.  Unfortunately, the second knot tends to capsize (e.g., the backhand portion begins to come around the bar).  The first knot does not capsize.
I think the looseness of the diagram may contribute to what you are experiencing.  Tying the final two half hitches snug to the rest of the hitch would help reduce this movement.

I don't see this hitch often, although the first diagram seems more like a more intuitive way to hold line tension as you finish off the hitch.  It makes me wonder if Ashley meant to draw something else in #1725.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".

Sweeney

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 911
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2012, 06:54:17 PM »
It makes me wonder if Ashley meant to draw something else in #1725.

I think Ashley intended the difference between 1852 and 1725. First 1852 is shown attached to a ring, something one would be close to when attaching the rope probably whereas 1725 is attached to a bar. 1725 can be tied by passing a single bight and this is useful if either the bar is too high to reach or is in an awkward place to get at. That said the couple of times I've seen this the knot it was finished with a bowline (ABOK #1726) not 2 half hitches (which would slide up to the attachment point and could be difficult to reach to undo). The bowline finish uses more rope but this is be worth it for the convenience. Is the knot is less likely to collapse with both ends equally loaded?

Barry
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 07:14:27 PM by Sweeney »

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2012, 12:09:15 AM »
That said the couple of times I've seen this the knot it was finished with a bowline (ABOK #1726) not 2 half hitches (which would slide up to the attachment point and could be difficult to reach to undo). The bowline finish uses more rope but this is be worth it for the convenience. Is the knot [is] less likely to collapse with both ends equally loaded?

yes

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2012, 07:14:28 PM »

I think Ashley intended the difference between 1852 and 1725.

I concur; actually, there should be no doubt about it --Ashley's
text confirms his drawing (so, both are either right or wrong)!

Quote
First 1852 is shown attached to a ring, something one would be close to when attaching the rope probably whereas 1725 is attached to a bar. 1725 can be tied by passing a single bight and this is useful if either the bar is too high to reach or is in an awkward place to get at.

Quite so.  In the first case, the point would be to take
some of the load off of the locking 2HHs, and to keep
them spaced from the ring, easy to untie.
But one should question the value of the doubled rope in
the latter's pass around the object given the finish --i.e., is
the load well distributed on the two parts around the obect?
--otherwise, why not pass a single strand ... ?!

It occurs to me to try to tie the 2HHs so that they capture
the passed bight --eh, so-so, IMO.  Or, better, to turn this into
essentially a twin-eye knot, casting a turn/HH of the SPart
around the bight AND tail, then using the tail to wrap
around SPart and through bight tip; set the knot by drawing
down the bight-tip snug on the tail-wraps (equalizing load
on the eye legs.  .:.  This results in a bowinesque twin-eye
knot with 3 diameters through the central nipping loop,
which should suffice for the implied applications (mooring).

For that matter, one could suggest dispensing with even this
much novel knotting, and just tie a bowline with the bight
tip qua tail, and use the single-strand tail to put in some
final securing (and easily untied) component --perhaps just
make a sheet bend to the bight tip, or 2HHs to it!?

Quote
That said the couple of times I've seen this the knot it was finished with a bowline (ABOK #1726) not 2 half hitches (which would slide up to the attachment point and could be difficult to reach to undo). The bowline finish uses more rope but this is be worth it for the convenience. Is the knot is less likely to collapse with both ends equally loaded?

NB:  #1726 IS WRONG --SPart & tail are swapped : this knot
cannot be tied as the text states, as the illustration shows
the SPart (rather than the tail) passing through the bight.
Ashley should've copied #1853.  (Yes, in the working of the
finished knot, it's a wash --the eye-knot loading legs equally--;
but in the tying, it's a matter of the 1 vs 2 passes.)
This is numbered among our collected Errata for ABOK .


--dl*
====

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1615
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2012, 07:38:45 PM »

I think Ashley intended the difference between 1852 and 1725.

I concur; actually, there should be no doubt about it --Ashley's
text confirms his drawing
After reading the text on 1725, it does appear to confirm the intent of the drawing.

Quote
1725.  THE BACKHANDED HITCH is used in tying up to the stringpiece of a wharf, where it is usually difficult to reeve the warp underneath the timber.  Only a single pass is required.  A bight is pushed through the gap under the stringpiece and the end is the rove through the bight to be half hitched twice, and then stopped or seized.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 07:45:36 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2012, 11:16:33 PM »
NB:  #1726 IS WRONG --SPart & tail are swapped : this knot
cannot be tied as the text states, as the illustration shows
the SPart (rather than the tail) passing through the bight.
Ashley should've copied #1853.  (Yes, in the working of the
finished knot, it's a wash --the eye-knot loading legs equally--;
but in the tying, it's a matter of the 1 vs 2 passes.)
This is numbered among our collected Errata for ABOK .

Nice catch!

#1726 is wrong, assuming #1726 is supposed to flow from #1725.

#1853 is also wrong, assuming #1853 is supposed to flow from #1852.

In short, #1726 should be tied like #1853, and vice versa.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 11:22:49 PM by knot4u »

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2012, 04:13:32 AM »
I didn't say this in the original thread because I wanted to keep it simple:  You can get #1852 if you start like you're tying #1725.

Try it.  Begin tying #1725, but don't tie the ending Half Hitches yet.  In other words, throw the bight over the pipe and put the working end through the bight.  Before you tie the Half Hitches, pull on the standing end until the backhand portion makes its way around the object.  If you did it correctly, the backhand portion now goes around the standing end, instead of the working end.  Now, you can tie the Two Half Hitches as shown in the diagram for #1852.  After you do this once, it will seem so obvious.

What's the value?  Well, if you want #1852 but want to start with the bight-around-the-object-trick of #1725, then you can have the best of both worlds.

Notice, you can also go the other way.  That is, you can get #1725 after starting like you're tying #1852.  However, there doesn't seem to be much advantage going that direction.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2012, 04:41:51 AM by knot4u »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2012, 07:23:35 AM »
#1853 is also wrong, assuming #1853 is supposed to flow from #1852.

But it isn't : see #1851 for confirmation of your original
misgivings ("... but it must be stopped or it tends to capsize").


--dl*
====

knot4u

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1076
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2012, 06:28:51 PM »
#1853 is also wrong, assuming #1853 is supposed to flow from #1852.

But it isn't : see #1851 for confirmation of your original
misgivings ("... but it must be stopped or it tends to capsize").


--dl*
====

OK, the flow would have been better if #1852 and #1853 switched positions.  It's only now that I'm noticing the differences of these backhand hitches.

Mbm

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2013, 01:35:52 AM »
The backhand knot is one of my favorites. Amoung the few hitches that can easily by untied under load. Yet very secure. It should be used more often.

I agree that #1852 is the correct version.

Gripnerd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Backhanded Hitch #1852 vs. Backhanded Hitch #1725
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2013, 08:43:56 AM »
I know this is a super old thread, but this fascinates me. I work as a Grip in film, and I've always been taught that 1852 was called the "High Tie" but I always knew that was just a trade name for the knot, but now that I've found this thread, i have to re read back through the relavent sections of ashley's.