But my take is that this stage is incomplete and with the closure of the collar in the right one there will be balance in the entanglement around the SPart left & right, in contrast to the left-side basis, where all the knotting falls on one side. (They are both ungainly.)
Correct. However, I tried to compare the stability of the bowline-like nipping structures themselves, in isolation / independently of the presence of the collar rims - not the finished knots. Nowadays, I follow a standard procedure : I do not consider the finished knot right from the start. Instead, I try to examine how the knot behaves when : 1 , there is only one leg of the would-be collar penetrating the nipping loop(s), and : 2, when both legs are penetrating the nipping loop(s), but the collar rims are very loose, or - as agent_Smith suggested - cut off ! If you do this, you will see what happens : The nipping structure at the left t is able to bear some loading, and remains in the same compact shape, while the nipping stricture at the right degenerates into someting else ( at the best case, into two separated nipping loops, the one above the other).
It is reasonable to suppose that, under extreme circumstances, the nipping loops would be forced to rely to nothing else than themselves, i.e. that they would confront their tendency to degenerate into open helices by their own structures, without any the help offered by the collars ( that would have been already pulled off the coil "tube", and so they will be very loose).
If you do that, if you remove the one leg of the collar/s, or of you cut of the rim, and examine the "adjustable noose" that is left , you will see what I mean immediately. It might be a good strategy or a misleading one - but, at the time being, it is the only thing we can do - because we can not imagine, without experiments, what the bowline would look line under severe, almost catastrophic loading. To my view, this strategy gives an indication
of the ability of a nipping structure to be self-stabilizing or not - and so of the security of the bowline, in the broader sense. That is why I have appreciated the double nipping loops of the Water bowline, the Girth-hitched common bowline, and the double crossed nipping loops bowline. They are very stable structures, that will resist opening up and degenerating into open helices, even without the help of the collar s second leg, or of the collar s rim.
you overpay the turn, for services unneeded!
The fact that, at the standard, common bowlines, or their close relatives ( the Sheepshank, the ABoK#160, and the Gleipnir ), indeed,this turn is not needed, does not mean it is a bad thing ! On the contrary, I have seen that it is very effective - although one might say that it forces the strands of the the rope to make a tight turn, not so-good a thing...I have even seen that there are knots where this turn, and this turn only, is sufficient to relieve the leg coming from the loaded bight so much, that we do not need the collarany more ! I have followed this strategy to tie adjustable nipping loops, where the orientation of the nipping loop(s) "tube" remains at right angle in relation to the standing end - so that the continuation of the eye-leg-this-bight is forced to make this sharp turn,and it was proved to be very effective. In fact, this strategy ( to force a tensioned line to make a sharp 90, or more, degrees turn, so a great portion of the tensile forces will be dissipated / absorbed at the area of the turn, and there will remain mush less that has to be dealt by the subsequent nipping structure ) is one of the the main reasons behind the effectiveness of many adjustable tensioners / binders. See: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3315.0http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1870.msg21229#msg21229http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2996.msg17836#msg17836http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2996.msg17841#msg17841http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2996.msg17842#msg17842http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2996.msg17843#msg17843