Author Topic: WANTED: Consensus for BB.  (Read 3201 times)

zoranz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« on: October 11, 2014, 02:34:16 PM »
Hi all!

There were many discussions about dressing (alpine) butterfly bend (BB). This post is strictly related to bend. (NOT loop!) Standard is: parallel tails. But - DL suggested that it is better to cross the tails. Result would be non-jamming knot. (That is analogy with #1452.) On the other side if we remember #1408/9, we know that over/under gives different quality of knot.
Well, Dan's opinion is presented in Seaworthy's photo:


I drew (trying imitate Ashley's style  8)) this solution, and opposite too. Do we all agree with (a) as better option. Of course, i don't expect universal applause. But, maybe we can sometimes agree...

After Dan's comment I corrected the attachment! For ease of understanding the discussion, I left the original (incorrect) drawing.

Best regards, ZZ
« Last Edit: October 15, 2014, 04:28:49 PM by zoranz »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2014, 04:03:13 PM »
   There is also a third very stable version, where the Tail Ends are side-by-side = parallel to each other.
   The best thing is to TEST those three bends, and see which can be untied more easily than the others, even after heavy loading ( "heavy" loading, is a loading near the limits of the knot s strength ).
This is not a knot.

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1926
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2014, 06:24:57 PM »
Hi all!

There were many discussions about dressing (alpine) butterfly bend (BB). This post is strictly related to bend. (NOT loop!) Standard is: parallel tails. But - DL suggested that it is better to cross the tails. Result would be non-jamming knot. (That is analogy with #1452.) On the other side if we remember #1408/9, we know that over/under gives different quality of knot. Well, Dan's opinion is presented in Seaworthy's photo:


I drew (trying imitate Ashley's style  8)) this solution, and opposite too. Do we all agree with (a) as better option. Of course, i don't expect universal applause. But, maybe we can sometimes agree...

Best regards, ZZ
In reality, when and if this bend gets used, maybe 1 in 1000 will fuss with tail crossing options.  I doubt that either form will have any problems with jamming, regardless of tail dressing.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 06:45:15 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".

Notable Knot Index

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2014, 05:58:50 AM »
But - DL suggested that it is better to cross the tails.
Which echoed the recommendation made by Wright & Magowan
in their 1928 Alpine Journal presentation of the knot (eyeknot)
to the climbing world.

Quote
I drew (trying imitate Ashley's style  8)) this solution, and opposite too.
Do we all agree ... ?
No : you didn't, and so I don't!
(look closely!)

Beyond this, I'd wonder why we are at all bothering
with this end-2-end knot rather than using either
of the others that you mention (viz., #1452, #1408)!

Even for the original purpose --i.e., making a mid-line
eyeknot--, I can favor a slight variant in which one
half forms a fig.8 and thereby gets the SParts'
draw to be in the same (circular) direction, and I think
avoids some of the jamming vulnerability of the original.

--dl*
====

zoranz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
Re: WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2014, 03:01:52 PM »
Yes, sorry, i made mistakes in the drawings.
It is interesting why i use this bend. When I am "in wild" and need a temporarily solid bend (no question about life) I am sure that can not make mistake (get evil impostor) with this knot (but in the original drawing I did  >:(). I am not expert (in sense to have good arguments), so only I can cite Dave Root:

"This bend is very easy to remember how to tie because it doesn't matter which way you pass the second end of rope through the loop in the first end of rope, and it doesn't matter if you curve the two ends of rope upwards or downwards, and it doesn't matter if you cross the two ends of rope on top of or behind the main parts of the ropes. The only thing that matters is that the two ends of rope form interlocked loops which are mirror-images of each other, and that they both pass through the center of the knot together (i.e. in the same direction)."

Either way, in the incorrect drawing I "succeeded" to overlook the fact that the loops are not interlocked. (I apologize, and thx to DL - for his "eye of eagle".)
Now it is attached edited (and hopefully, this time, correct) drawing. (I edited the original post, too.)

Best regerds, ZZ
« Last Edit: November 01, 2014, 04:14:15 PM by zoranz »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
Re: WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2014, 06:22:45 PM »
Yes, sorry, i made mistakes in the drawings.
It is interesting why i use this bend. When I am "in wild" and
need [a] temporarily solid bend (no question about life)
I am sure that can not make mistake (get evil impostor) with this knot
(but in the original drawing I did  >:().
I am not expert (in sense to have good arguments), so only I can citate Dave Root: ...

But this points to a question of How much of
a knot does one know?
--i.e., that one can know
enough to get to the point of various finishes,
and not further.

Frankly, I think that more is made of "evil impostor"
--a name-calling akin to cheap political talk--
than is warranted.  OTOH, that warning has merit.

In the case of tying #1452, I form one overhand
and then *aim* for reeving the 2nd end into this
at a point where I will also bring it out --and
that focus ensures that the desired version is tied
(and re this knot, one will usually have easy enough
loosening & untying for common duties; in uses where
great force is expected, than take care on dressing).
Similarly, one should understand #1408 well enough
to put tails so that the draw of the SParts twists them
to advantage and not draws them out.

.:.  It seems that one posits correct-enough tying for
the butterfly and arbitrarily cites a point where some
casual tying might go wrong/inferior with other knots.

My annoyance is that I find the butterfly structure came
to value in a case where ends cannot be used; but where
ends are available, why not take a symmetric knot?
That said, Alpiner's nifty quick-tying method can be used
for the end-2-end knot and so gives some claim benefit
(but given the free ends vice the mid-line's continuous
strand, there is a degree of trickiness to keeping things right)!


--dl*
====

zoranz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
Re: WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2014, 01:35:00 AM »
OK,
I practised tying #1452 (non-jamming version) and I see it is really better bend. (And no need to mention that it is recommended by Ashley.) For "every case" I made drawing of it. The drawing, that I carry in my pocket, and occasionally look at him, is attached.
"Repetitio est mater studiorum."
It is easier to me to tie simultaneously both working ends. (I use "6" & "9" method.)
Next time i'll draw the tight bend. (Of course, I watched and imitated photos found on the internet. BTW, I prefer drawings vs. photos.)

Regards, ZZ

zoranz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
Re: WANTED: Consensus for BB.
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2014, 11:31:23 AM »
And now: tight bend.

ZZ

 

anything