Best and quickest hitch for a smooth pole?

[roo]

Tying knots when I'm a bit stressed, tired, tying it in around an awkward object, in rainy and cold weather, are situations when I do actually find a lot of knots very difficult to tie. They seemed easy and simple at home, but when I'm out there I get easily frustrated when I'm stressed out and in a hurry. The once so easy, simple and quik knots seems complex, messy and slow.

Those pre-made, friction-independent pipe slings are looking better all the time.

For those of you who want to use friction systems, I looked up what you need to make it legal per ASME standards.

For this regime, the horizontal clamping force on the pipe would have to be reliably applied at .65*(Pipe Weight)/(lowest expected coefficient of friction).

So, what  is the coefficient of friction?  Wet nylon block on steel is 0.15.  Oily metals tend to be in the neighborhood of .03-.10.  I'm not sure what mud splashed metal would be.

[xarax]

The Gripping Sailor Hitch is perhaps the most effective hitch for a smooth pole I know of

I have tried this hitch, of course, and I have found it one of the LESS effective, !  Even the hitches in the ABoK are better...You should study the gripping hitches a little more. It is a very interesting subject, and I believe that the gripping hitches around poles or tensioned ropes are the most demanding knots - so they are the most interesting !

and time is money (that's how your boss and customer sees it).

   If you use knots to make a living, yes. I do not sell or buy anything that has to do with knots, and I do not even use knots in my everyday life. Knotting is a hobby, a game, a puzzle, it has no "meaning" or "financial interest", for Knot Land s god sake ! So is golf...What is the meaning of trying to put a small white ball into a hole in the ground, hitting it with a stick ? Why you do not send a servant, a robot, or a trained dog to do this for you ? 

[xarax]

Gleipnir is one of those knots, and that's why I often tie a simple Constrictor even when the Gleipnir would have been a better option. The inverted Gleipnir is even worse.

Gleipnir is one of the most simple knots we know, even simpler than the bowline ( of which it might well have been an predecessor...). The Gleipnir nipping loop is exactly the same thing as the bowline nipping loop - and I do not believe that you would ever characterize the bowline as a time-consuming, complex knot !
The only, minor, difference is that, in the Gleipnir, we do the most simple, easy thing we can think of, we pass both the tails through it, in an effort to secure them. In the bowline, we became a little wiser...and used only the one end, and a new, more clever invention, the collar. On the contrary, the Costrictor is a complex knot indeed, much more sophisticated in its mechanisms than the Gleipnir !
    Now the inverted "Gleipnir", the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", is nothing but the same bowline nipping loop, placed in a way that the two limbs of it, when they are being pulled, they can pull/squeeze the loop itself, as a whole, on the surface of the pole...I do not understand why you find this most simple, easy thing difficult to tie, or time-consuming...I guess that it has something to do with the not so satisfactory understanding you have about the Gleipnir and its relation with the bowline nipping loop - and I believe you can very easily overcome this by examining and studying the knot just a little more. I think that if you re-name the Gleipnir as "both ends through the bowline s nipping loop", you will be able to tie it in a shorter time, with ease. 

[Hrungnir]

The Gripping Sailor Hitch is perhaps the most effective hitch for a smooth pole I know of

I have tried this hitch, of course, and I have found it one of the LESS effective, !  Even the hitches in the ABoK are better...You should study the gripping hitches a little more.

I had it outperform The Prusik, Klemheist, Double Pile Hitch and Rolling Hitch. The KC Hitch was good, but in my brief testing the Gripping Sailor Hitch was slightly better. The KC Hitch and Gripping Sailor Hitch needs a bit more space to "spread" out, before they really hugs the pole.

Perhaps you compared it to other hitches than those, when you came to the conclusion that it was less effective?

and time is money (that's how your boss and customer sees it).

   If you use knots to make a living, yes. I do not sell or buy anything that has to do with knots, and I do not even use knots in my everyday life. Knotting is a hobby, a game, a puzzle, it has no "meaning" or "financial interest", for Knot Land s god sake ! So is golf...What is the meaning of trying to put a small white ball into a hole in the ground, hitting it with a stick ? Why you do not send a servant, a robot, or a trained dog to do this for you ? 

I do actually use knots to solve some problems at work, at home, in the garden, when working out, when I'm hiking in the mountains, solving problems related to my car or when trying to help family and friends. The rope and knots is just a tool, helping me to solve bigger problems. When working on a project (unpaid or paid), you wanna focus on your tasks and being effective. It doesn't matter whether the poles were brought by a volvo or a mercedes.

[Hrungnir]

Gleipnir is one of those knots, and that's why I often tie a simple Constrictor even when the Gleipnir would have been a better option. The inverted Gleipnir is even worse.

Gleipnir is one of the most simple knots we know, even simpler than the bowline ( of which it might well have been an predecessor...). The Gleipnir nipping loop is exactly the same thing as the bowline nipping loop - and I do not believe that you would ever characterize the bowline as a time-consuming, complex knot !
The only, minor, difference is that, in the Gleipnir, we do the most simple, easy thing we can think of, we pass both the tails through it, in an effort to secure them. In the bowline, we became a little wiser...and used only the one end, and a new, more clever invention, the collar. On the contrary, the Costrictor is a complex knot indeed, much more sophisticated in its mechanisms than the Gleipnir !
    Now the inverted "Gleipnir", the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", is nothing but the same bowline nipping loop, placed in a way that the two limbs of it, when they are being pulled, they can pull/squeeze the loop itself, as a whole, on the surface of the pole...I do not understand why you find this most simple, easy thing difficult to tie, or time-consuming...I guess that it has something to do with the not so satisfactory understanding you have about the Gleipnir and its relation with the bowline nipping loop - and I believe you can very easily overcome this by examining and studying the knot just a little more. I think that if you re-name the Gleipnir as "both ends through the bowline s nipping loop", you will be able to tie it in a shorter time, with ease.

I understand that the structure of the Gleipnir is simple and that its structure is related to the Bowline. I also understand that the Inverted Gleipnir is just an upside-down Gleipnir.

However. Tying methods and structures are two different things. I'm able to tie the Bowline with one hand in two motions. I've seen people tie the Bowline with no active hands at all. Just swinging the working end. Is this possible to do with the Gleipnir? 

To tie a Gleipnir I put the rope two times around the object. I have to let go of one of the working ends while grabbing the middle of rope and twist it (be careful to twist in the right direction) to make a loop. When I'm not holding the other working end, it might slip off the object and out of position. Next I put the working end I'm holding through the loop. Then I let go of this working end, grabs the other working end and puts it through the loop. Here the working part I'm not holding might slip off (especially if the object is small, short or narrow), which certainly would make things difficult and annoying. Then I let go of the loop and pull both working ends to tighten.

[xarax]

I had it outperform The Prusik, Klemheist, Double Pile Hitch and Rolling Hitch.
Perhaps you compared it to other hitches than those, when you came to the conclusion that it was less effective?

 (I do not know what is the "double Pile hitch" (?)...)
  I have compared it with the Blake, and the Ashley s hitches - among them the ABoK#1740 and the little modification of it I had made... And, of course, I always compare apples to apples, that is, friction hitches with the same number of coils.

I do actually use knots to solve some problems at work, at home, in the garden, when working out, when I'm hiking in the mountains, solving problems related to my car or when trying to help family and friends. The rope and knots is just a tool, helping me to solve bigger problems. When working on a project (unpaid or paid), you wanna focus on your tasks and being effective.

  I never use knots at home, I am retired so I do not work, I do not have a garden ( I live in an apartment where people are complaining about noises when I try to test knots... ). I am not going up on the mountains but only out at the sea, I do not have a car because I live in the city center, my family and friends HATE me when I speak to them about knots, as I always do ! 
   The knots themselves are my problem, I do not use them to solve "bigger problems", because I think that the problems of the knots are big enough for a hobby - and the big problems of life can not be solved by the use of knots, unfortunately !  ( In fact, they can not be solved, period.) My focus is on learning all the interesting simple knots, and how they are related to / transformed into each other.
   So, we are as different as we could be !  However, I am sure we love knots just as much as anybody else in this forum, and it is this love of knots that brought us here...

[xarax]

I also understand that the Inverted Gleipnir is just an upside-down Gleipnir.

I have not said that... There is no "up" and "down" on this hitch, and by just placing something "upside-down" you do not change it ! I have said that ;

the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir", is nothing but the same bowline nipping loop, placed in a way that the two limbs of it, when they are being pulled, they can pull/squeeze the loop itself, as a whole, on the surface of the pole.

  Of course, you are right about the Gleipnir being harder to tie than a bowline...That might be the reason people have discovered the bowline, and forgot the Gleipnir !  I was talking about the concept of the Gleipnir, that is more fundamental than the bowline ( and it has no need for the collar). So, conceptually, the Gleipnir is a more fundamental, simpler knot than the bowline, even if it is harder to tie ( for two handed / five digits on each hand creatures ! I do not know what octopuses would have said, if they have discovered the language... ) I mean, the fact that a knot is simpler than another, does not make it easier to tie...

[Dan_Lehman]

The gripping hitch around poles, presented at:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2075.msg16893#msg16893
is superior, by far, to the Pipe hitch, the Icicle hitch or the Kleimheist hitch (to name but a few...)
I have tested all the known hitches-around-poles, and then some, and I know.
Of course, I guess that there will be another half century or so, before we. the concervative knot tyers, will re-discover this fact..

  But where are these test results for public consideration? 

  I wait to publish them after yours...
  As I have said, I prefer OPT...  My tests are not at the quality level I would like them to be, so I keep them to myself, for the time being.

You may prefer "OPT" ("other people's testing), but your
claim here was different --and needed to be, given it all.
So trying to wave off any serious question is just cowardly,
or what else should we call it?  You, who "know" how "far
superior" something is, yet, cannot say how this rare wisdom
is to be understood?
--in terms of the test method : what materials where used
(hitching & object; cordage type & size(s)); how the various
knots' results were graded/ordered.


One can envision a test device in which the two ends of
specimen cordage are knotted in competitive hitches on
either side of some capstan-like cylinder for simultaneously
pulling each end towards it, wrapping up the line.  Then,
at least in some H1-vs-H2 ordering one might see one
knot yield while the other holds.

The icicle hitch is said to grip even a tapered spike;

  "Is said..."    By whom ? Where are his "tests results for public considerataion" ? Did this "who-ever" tested also the hitches I have proposed, and have compared them to the hitches he knew? ( provided he now knows the hitches I have proposed..)

The demonstration of this was before a meeting of the IGKT;
it's reported in an old issue of Knotting Matters.  And that
is a point of reference for what the *knot* --some particular
entanglement of cordage to some spike-- can do:  it stands
as a challenge for other hitches to equal or not --just this,
and not some sort of more *transferable* currency of hitch
performance, although it seems a considerable feat.

that hitch you show as "superior" doesn't look good enough to hold on slick pole.

"Look" ?  Do you judge knots by "looking" at them ? 
...

Yes, just as you do in looking at your gentle curves
in those hoped-to-be-so-strong end-2-end knots you've
put up --a naive look, devoid of any intelligent testing
to support it (and I know, for I've followed that path,
but have some testing & practical hints of its speciousness).
So, I look at your hitches and try to see how force will
flow into them, on what it will bear, how it might tighten
further, and so on --a looking that bereft of better understanding
is itself only an inchoate basis for judgement, but one that
should be made (i.e., one should make oneself forecast,
to test one's beliefs), in a sort of trial-&-error building.

It can hold on any pole because it can be pre-tightened
as much as we can tighten it even before it is loaded -

Everything can be <done as much as it can be> --that is
a mere tautology.  But as for seriously tightening some
knot, that will depend upon materials:  manual force will
be insignificant for much rope tightening --quite in contrast
to that in angling knotting, where setting knots to some
50% of expected break strength is sometimes expected
for getting proper results!

... And I wait your comparative tests on "knotted materials" tied with those knots.
Until then, I suggest you "look" more carefully ! So,yes, it is "superior to the Icicle hitch,
BY FAR, as you will be surprised to discover before the end of this half century...

Such childish replies serve you poorly.
As noted, I look at that (however tightened) wrapping of
cordage you advance and surmise that on loading it will
move on a tapered device and NOT have the mechanism
to increase tightening & thus grip on the reduced-radius
material and so will slip even more, to failure.  Whereas
those knots that feed force into the bottom of a coil can
have some chance of rapidly constricting around such
a tapered object sufficiently to hold.  (Though I remain
leery of putting much faith in them; still, one person
was brave enough to suspend himself by a now famous
hitch.  (In true knotting fashion, some arborist site cites
this performance in promoting its use of the hitch, without
considering that the arborist use is to load both ends,
unlike the single-S.Part loading that gripped the spike!))

  I believe that Derek tested his hitch to a smooth pole, with a hydraulic jack?

  I do not put a question mark,
 when I say that Derek Smith has NOT tested the hitch I have proposed,
and has not compared it to any other hitches...using a hydraulic or not jack -  just as you, I believe (?)  .,

No, but what you say raises a question mark in readers,
for there's nothing there, but assertion.  Derek tested ...
in that manner, with that result.  Now, he didn't test
your knot; but how DID you --in what way, with what
materials and what force.  For if all you did was dangle
your empty chair from a water pipe and rouse your
neighbors, we'll have a good idea of figuring which of
the these briefly tested knots has had the real challenge.


--dl*
====

[xarax]

So trying to wave off any serious question is just cowardly, or what else should we call it?

Modesty, wisdom... among other things...Iff you do not dare to publish anything out of "cowardly", you should not suppose others have the same motives ! 
Anyway, I hope I will publish my results as soon as I can... and, of course sooner than 35 years ... I will not live so long !
I want to test each knot at least 20-21 times, to its ultimate strength/ breaking point, so that 1 test would represent a 5% difference, and the sample would be reliably large enough. Now, my universal test machine needs about a 2 m length of rope each time, and we have hundreds of bends and bowline-like loops. It will need some time, and some money, to accomplish this task.
Each person has some talents and some shortcomings. I am not born to be an experimentalist, but I am forced to do this dirty job, too, because some people are too lazy, or shy, or what-else, to do or publish their notes, their results...or believe they will better do it in the after life.

--in terms of the test method : what materials where used (hitching & object; cordage type & size(s)); how the various knots' results were graded/ordered.

I have used 9-12.5 mm nylon-based  kermantle climbing ropes till now, but I believe that we should do our tests in a more common and "generic" type of material - so I have decided to go on with 1/2' solid braided nylon - and cheap !  - rope. Any other suggestion is welcomed, of course. The diameter of the object/pole - as well as the sheaves the rope would be wrapped around on the machine - would be 8 and (hopefully) also 16 times the rope diameter, i.e. 4 and 8 inches.

One can envision a test device in which the two ends of specimen cordage are knotted in competitive hitches on either side of some capstan-like cylinder for simultaneously pulling each end towards it, wrapping up the line.  Then, at least in some H1-vs-H2 ordering one might see one knot yield while the other holds.

   I wanted to get rid of the usual problem all the universal testing machines have, that is how to connect the specimen to the two anchor points. I have decided a simpler procedure : I tie the two ends of a 2 m. rope segment with the bend I want to test, and then push two sheaves, around which this loops is wrapped, apart from each other, by the use of hydraulic cylinder(s). It is easy to mark the maximum pressure of the cylinders until the rupture, and then to compare the results. Of course, one can also do the same test with two knots tied on the same two-segment loop, in a tug-of-war type of test...but I am afraid that the vibrations on the rope during the collapse of the one, will somehow affect the other.

[qush thote]

it stands as a challenge for other hitches to equal or not --just this, and not some sort of more *transferable* currency of hitch performance, although it seems a considerable feat.

   For the pre-tensioned griping hitches I am talking about ( even without using a 2;1 mechanical advantage to pull the ends of the coil tube more forcefully ) , this is a piece of cake- and you  should have understood it by now !

   Yes, just as you do in looking at your gentle curves in those hoped-to-be-so-strong end-2-end knots you've put up --a naive look, devoid of any intelligent testing to support it (and I know, for I've followed that path, but have some testing & practical hints of its speciousness.

   Well, I am hoping that I will be proved to be right some day- by intelligent testing, when you will decide to execute and publish them ! For the time being, I am not so "intelligent" - and I am not sure I would be able to become more "intelligent" any time soon... ! And if you have "looked" at the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" - or even the one where the pre-tensioning of the ends is conserved in/by the Double Constrictor- and you have decided it/they will not hold as tight as the Icicle hitch, then you have a very minor, simple problem that can be solved immediately... Buy another pair of glasses ! 
   I have shown that any gripping hitch where the two ends are firmly entangled together, via a Gleipnir closing knot or any other similar tight mechanism, just because this closing knot can preserve any pre-tensioning of the ends, is superior, by far, than the well-known hitches which do not benefit from that effect. It is an altogether new class  of gripping hitches around poles - but i know there will another half century needed for the conservative community of knot tyers to ACCEPT this...and, fortunately, I will not be living by then !    

manual force will be insignificant for much rope tightening

   Noope ! That is what a naive "look", or though, might suggest, but it is wrong nevertheless. The result of even a manual pull - even without using a mechanical advantage - are impressing ! My theory is that this has to do with :
   1. the sufficient length of the coil tube : the rope has enough room to be elongated sufficiently, and so be tightened effectively all along its length.
   2. the fact that even a minor tensioning has a major effect on the ANGLES between the coils and the axis of the pole. Keeping those angles perpendicular right from the start, is proved to be of paramount importance.
   
   Of course, you are not going to test this by yourself, will you ? It is EASIER to "look" than act - as we all come to know some day !  And saves you from the "coward" obligation to tell to somebody else - else than yourself - :
"You are right, I was wrong."

As noted, I look at that (however tightened) wrapping of cordage you advance and surmise that on loading it will move on a tapered device and NOT have the mechanism to increase tightening & thus grip on the reduced-radius material and so will slip even more, to failure.

  1. You are wrong. Even a modest pre-tensioning is more important than any subsequent self tensioning - AND the Gleipnir hitch does not exclude any additional self-tensioning !
  2. Try to figure out another, better mechanism to do the same thing, have the ends entangled together, preserve any initial pre-tensioning, while, at the same time, is capable to further tensioning ( by the self-tensioning), when the hitch will be loaded. I am sure you could help here, and figure out another, perhaps simpler and better mechanism to do the same thing...iff you wish to be constructive, and not just criticize easily. I do not say that I am not glad with criticism, any criticism. The fact that someone pays some attention to a knot, even if he does not understand much of it, makes me veeery happy, believe me. However, I would be more glad if I have seen some CONSTRUCTIVE help, some new ideas, some proposals, along the line of though I had put through. I believe in the creative forces the exchange of ideas can generate inside people...but I see no point in quarreling, or arguing about self-evident facts. I do not question the integrity or honesty of any person I talk with, and so I insist the others do the same with me. All this hostility about a simple f... knot is unbelievable - unless we remember that persons are not rational beings, of course...
   You can argue as much as you wish with me, but I am afraid that you can not argue with the knots I present - simply because nobody  can argue with knots...The knots are there, waiting for us, and whoever do not "see" this simple fact, loses the joy of looking at a marvelously beautiful little corner of nature.

one person was brave enough to suspend himself by a now famous hitch.

Well, I did the exactly same thing with myself, the "simple-hitch- la-Gleipnir", and 8 coils, tied around a 3 " pole... Am I brave enough ?  Nooo, because I was hung at a 3" height above the ground, the f...coward ! ...

[xarax]

   The very tight friction hitches around a pole - capable of being pre-tensioned to a smaller or larger degree - that I have described, are not very "quick to tie"-  but, mainly, once they are set and tightened around the pole, they are not easily and quickly released. I was looking for a gripping hitch that would be very tight, yet it would also be able to get loose in a moment , a "quick to release" hitch - and so be free to slip out of the pole, or let the pole free to slip through it. I think that I have found such a hitch, and I present it here, for further evaluation. I briefly mention the two main advantages of it :
   1. Once the two ends are pulled, it grips the pole surprising tightly - and, also surprisingly, it remains in this tight state, even without a knot that entangles the two ends, and even if there is no additional loading of the ends. This is due to the fact that it incorporates a diagonal element, that keeps the coils tightly compressed upon to their adjacent, neighbor coils. So, when the rope segments of the coils are pre-tensioned by the pull of the two ends, and they are elongated a little bid, the friction forces imposed on them by the neighbor coils do not let them return to their previous loose state.
    2. Now, the beauty of this hitch lies in the quick release trick : We  just have to rotate the "upper" coils relatively to the "lower" ones, and the hitch gets loose instantly ! ( At the hitch shown in the attached pictures, there are three "upper"  and three "lower" coils, but we should better investigate the optimum numbers by testing.)

[xarax]

   One might well ask ? "Why don t  you just call this hitch as a "multi-coil Clove hitch? " Well, I have thought of this for a while, but I was not convinced by the evident similarity... As I have said, this hitch works because the "diagonal" pushes the coils the one onto the other, so, once they have been  tensioned and elongated a little, they remain in this state by the friction forces imposed on them by their neighbour coils.This is not happening in the common Clove hitch. Now, the mechanism is different, but ,given the fact that the tying method and the form are so similar, we may well call it "multi-coil Clove hitch" - if "Steroidal Clove hitch" does not sound formal enough...   I do not really know, I always leave the (secondary) matter of the "name", the label, to the knot-tying community -  provided the given name is not a totally misleading one.
   I would like to mention that the optimum number of coils is depending upon many things :
1. With a nylon rope, which can be elongated a lot, we need fewer wraps than with, say, a polyester one. Also, with ropes that are very slippery, we need more wraps.
2. On a pole with a slippery surface, it s easier to pre-tension the coils, so we need fewer of them to achieve the same result. On the contrary, on a pole with a rough surface, we may not be able to pull the ends forcefully enough, and elongate the segments of the coils along their entire length. Of course, on a slippery pole we always need more wraps than on a rough one, in general - so those two contrasting requirements need to be balanced.
3. If we can pull the ends, the one after the other, while pushing the pole ( with our feet, for example), at a right angle with the axis of the pole, then we can apply a stronger force, so we will be able to  pre-tension them more, and so we will need a fewer number of them.
4. The "diagonal" should be diagonal enough, that is, its angle should be adequate to ensure that the "upper" and the "lower" coils would be pushed towards each other , so the friction forces between adjacent coils would be sufficient to prevent any accumulated tension from escaping through the ends. So, with a rope of larger diameter, relatively to the diameter of the pole, we need fewer coils - because in such a combination the angle is about 45 degrees -which, as I reckon. is a sufficient inclined diagonal. (See the attached pictures for such a hitch, where two only coils of a larger rope wrapped around in a thinner pole, lead to a 45 degrees angle.)

[Hrungnir]

   One might well ask ? "Why don t  you just call this hitch as a "multi-coil Clove hitch? "

Man, this is a Rolling Hitch just with an extra tuck, so it becomes symmetric, and resists pulling in both directions.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/RollingHitch-ABOK-1734.jpg

[xarax]

, this is a Rolling Hitch just with an extra tuck, so it becomes symmetric, and resists pulling in both directions.

   I think that the Rolling hitch has rope strands crossed over other rope strands...(1), and work differently. I describe the mechanism of the Rolling hitch, and of other similar hitches, as "the riding turn mechanism"(2). And I have to point out that a single turn around the diameter of a common pole has not sufficient length to be sufficiently elongated with the pull of its end - so it can not be pre-tensioned.
   Having said that, I believe that all the Ashley hitches ( ABoK#1734-ABoK#1746 ) should be re-examined as multi-coiled hitches...and in the light of the pre-tensioning mechanism. I have only studied the ABoK#1740 a little, and with a limited number of coils.(3)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_hitch
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2191.msg16556#msg16556
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3016.msg17923#msg17923

[knot4u]

I have started a thread about the theory of gripping hitches in "Knot Concepts & Explorations".

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3800.msg22285#msg22285

[xarax]

   As the parents of the gripping hitch shown in the attached pictures below are published in this thread, I take the liberty to post it here...
   It is a combination of the multi-coiled Constrictor-like hitch, of Reply#21, with the multi-coiled Clove-like hitch, of Reply#39. Each of the two ends pull half only of the coils, so we can overcome more easily their friction with the surface of the pole during the pre-tensioning,  ( as in the multi-coils Clove-like hitch ), but there are two crossing diagonals that squeeze the coils between their neighbours, ( as in the multi-coils Double Constrictor-like hitch ). A very tight hitch, but not easily untied when tensioned.