International Guild of Knot Tyers Forum

General => Practical Knots => Topic started by: Ezelius on March 31, 2020, 12:13:01 PM

Title: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on March 31, 2020, 12:13:01 PM
Dear Sirs,

My favourites that I think should be more commonly taught are Reever knot and braided Machard. Reever knot for the general popoulation. Braided Machard for climbers, arborists and rescue-personnel.

Reever knot is considerably more safe than square knot. Compared to an eight, Reever knot consumes less rope and is quicker to make. It takes some more time to learn, but once learned it can be made fairly quickly. The disadvantage to square knot it that it can not be made while the rope is under tension.

https://ezelius.eu/knopar/reevers/

Braided Machard is very good and safe slide and grip knot. Many times Klemmheist and Machard are not safe enough, and braided Machard is the solution in such cases. I have also found that braided Machard is useful to attach electric lines/cables, when for example hanging them. A thinner rope (line) is used to braid the cable and then the this attached line can be attached to a screw. Braided Machard is gentle on the electric cable. It does not pinch the cable hard or bend it, minimizing risk of damage to the electric cable or antennae cable.

https://ezelius.eu/knopar/flaetad-machard/

Yours Sincerely,  Mr Ezelius



Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Knutern on March 31, 2020, 09:49:41 PM
I found that the second image is pretty important. I had times when the knot occasionally would fail to become a proper Reever knot (instead it become a very loose knot, even more loose that a granny knot, and have to make it over again).

And turns out, over time, I had this habit of laying the working ends so they points in same direction (felt like easier to do when not having a surface/bench to work on) and thus.

And because this image I got to know what I did wrong almost since first time I learned the Reever knot. Therefore, thank you :)
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Keystoner on April 01, 2020, 12:33:12 AM
Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I actually had never heard of this knot.  I'm quite fond of the Zeppelin bend, but what I don't like about it is that the tails finish at 90 degrees to the line. This Reever knot looks so nice and solves that esthetic issue of mine.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Isleofgough on April 01, 2020, 06:27:31 PM
Is the Reever's knot safe for joining ropes for a rappel? I've used the EDK successfully, but was not aware of this knot.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 01, 2020, 06:52:39 PM
Dear Isleofgough,

The European death knot (EDK), i.e. the offset overhand bend, has the advantage to slip over edges. I have not tried the Reever knot on climbing ropes for rappel, but the example in the following page is made with polyamide (nylon) climbing grade ropes of I think 7 mm thickness, and I did not notice any inconvenience.

https://ezelius.eu/knopar/reevers/

I think figure eight bend, Reever bend and double Fisherman's knot are a knots for joining two climbing ropes, if one does not have to consider sliding the rope over sharp edges where it can get caught. They are a little different, so one can try them all out to get acquainted to the differences. Double Fisherman's knot is good for making semi-permanent loops (slings) because it is probably the one that is most unlikely to undo itself of the three.

According to Wright Magowan (Alpine Journal nr 40 maj 1928, Knots for Climbers) the Reever knot is reliable and strong. It reaches 86,4% of the cord strength. The Fisherman's knot reaches 81,2% if made concordant, but only 70,9% if made discordant. But this test was small, and is old. Ropes are also probably different now than for 100 years ago.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: agent_smith on April 04, 2020, 01:39:31 AM
per Ezelius:
Quote
The European death knot (EDK), i.e. the offset overhand bend, has the advantage to slip over edges
Any end-to-end joining knot that is offset will translate more easily around an edge...particularly a 90 degree edge from low anchors.
The term 'offset' is defined by a particular geometry where the knot core is displaced from the axis-of-tension.

Quote
I have not tried the Reever knot on climbing ropes for rappel
This is fortunate because the Reever knot ('bend') is not inherently secure. Once disturbed, it becomes insecure and cyclic loading will trigger failure. Disturbance of the core of the Reever can come from contact with rock edges/protuberances...

Quote
I think figure eight bend, Reever bend and double Fisherman's knot are a knots for joining two climbing ropes, if one does not have to consider sliding the rope over sharp edges where it can get caught.
The primary consideration in life critical applications is security and stability.
In situations where it is known that an end-to-end joining must translate around an edge (particularly from low anchors), an offset structure should be used. Depending on the current environmental conditions and rope type (eg snow/ice/water/mud/stiff ropes/very slick ropes etc) #1410 offset overhand bend may require additional maneuvers to increase security.

Quote
According to Wright Magowan (Alpine Journal nr 40 maj 1928, Knots for Climbers) the Reever knot is reliable and strong. It reaches 86,4% of the cord strength.
Strength is irrelevant.
What matters in modern textile ropes is security and stability.
The Reever knot/bend is not inherently secure and should not be used in life critical applications.
I have confirmed its vulnerability by joining a Beal 'Joker' to an Edelrid 'Corbie' rope (both EN892 certified dynamic ropes) - and once disturbed by an edge or protuberance, cyclic loading acted to cause a loss of security - and the ropes slipped apart.
In the real world of mountains/rock surfaces, it is almost guaranteed that there will be edges and protuberances... rather than a perfectly uniform/smooth surface. Also, if abseiling - there will be some movement of the (joined) ropes as the abseiler descends - including some cyclic loading (induced by stopping and starting or uneven control of descent).

NOTE: There appears to be a strong focus on strength - as a crucial determinant for placing reliance on a joining knot in life critical applications. In fact, the notional concept of 'strength' is irrelevant. The crucial determinants are security and stability.

Quote
Ropes are also probably different now than for 100 years ago.
No 'probably' at all.
It is 100% confirmed that modern climbing ropes are completely different to the ropes used in Wright/Magowan era!
You may not be aware of the EN892 standard (dynamic ropes)?
And EN1891 standard (low stretch ropes)?
Modern climbing ropes cannot be sold on the market unless they conform to an ISO member nations standard.
Also, no climber will purchase a rope that doesn't carry a certification compliance mark.
In the Euro zone, CE marking for class 3 PPE is compulsory.
The new PPE regulation 2016 (Euro) has closed many loopholes - and conformity to EN1891 / EN892 is mandatory as part of that CE regulation.

In the time of Wright/Magowan, CE regulations and EN standards for mountaineering ropes did not exist.
Furthermore, modern climbing ropes are synthetic, not vegetable fibre!

EDIT NOTE: Typo's corrected (eg "ad" edited to and... "clipped" edited to slipped)
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Isleofgough on April 04, 2020, 05:54:58 AM
Thank you for the assessment of the knot for rappelling. It sounds like I should stick with the EDK. It is certainly an easy knot, and the ability of the rope to not get stuck on edges is beneficial.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 04, 2020, 10:11:40 AM
Dear agent_smith, Are you sure we are talking about the same knot. I have never experienced the Reever bend to capsize, and the way it is built indicates that it does not capsize.

Whether the Reever bend has some use in climbing, I will leave to the experts, but I think the Reever bend is a knot that should be more widely known among the general population (which is was what I said in my initial message), because it is really good and an important alternative to the square knot (reef knot) that is very prone to open itself. I guess the knot can be knotted in the wrong way and this could make the knot unsafe. It is easier to recognize if an figure eight bend is correct, but the figure eight bend takes a longer time to knot, so that knot is unlikely to be used for common tasks.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 04, 2020, 02:50:29 PM
I wonder about the Reever in the name of Reever knot. Is Reever the name of a person, or does it refer to "sailor"? And why is it not called Reever's knot?
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Dan_Lehman on April 04, 2020, 09:47:26 PM
Dear agent_smith, Are you sure we are talking about the same knot.
Harry Asher's "Simple Simon" (oh, or is it Vice Versa?)
is the same structure but loaded asymmetrically (so,
ONE side's ends of the Reever trade jobs).

The *reverse* of the reever also looks worthwhile,
and then of course there are the usual "double"ing
versions if one is concerned about security.

I'll have to see about this "disturbance" mentioned
as injurious.

But, to the task of abseil, one will prefer an offset joint
such as the OWK (aka EDK), which ought to be made
more sure by tying off the proper tail (or both tails),
or using a variation such as Agent_Smith presents,
or taking a full round turn of the choking strand
(thus making that line's knot a Fig.9).


--dl*
====
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: agent_smith on April 05, 2020, 12:24:36 AM
per Ezelius:
Quote
Dear agent_smith, Are you sure we are talking about the same knot?
Yes.
Link to Reever knot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reever_Knot
See also Knotting matters #85 (published 2004).

Quote
I have never experienced the Reever bend to capsize, and the way it is built indicates that it does not capsize.
I never typed the word "capsize".
The use of the word 'capsize' is something you have typed - not me!
You might need to read more carefully  ;D

...

Some commentary:
If you look through the literature evolved from climbing authors, you will be hard pressed to find a recommendation to use the Reever end-to-end joining knot for uniting 2 climbing ropes.
What you tend to see is #1415 Double fishermans bend.

#1415 Double fishermans is inherently secure (and stable) - and this is why it is the preferred method of joining 2 ropes for use in life critical applications. However, it has a propensity to jam (its Achilles heel). It also typically fails to translate around a 90 degree edge (particularly from low anchors).
#1411 Figure 8 bend is also commonly used - but it too has a tendency to jam and also struggles to translate around a 90 degree edge.

The Zeppelin bend solves the jamming problem but, it too struggles to translate around a 90 degree edge.
Only joining knots that are 'offset' will easily translate around a 90 degree edge.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 05, 2020, 08:59:32 AM
Dear Agent Smith,

I see nothing about "disburbance" in Knotting matters #85 regarding Reever knot.  I assumed you meant it could capsize if the knot was disturbed in shape.

What I see in Knotting matters #85 and in the internet is that Reever knot is a good secure knot. What is written there is very much in line with what I think.

Citation from Knotting matters #85:
"So the Reever knot can be tied by a method which is easy to learn and easily remembered. It is proof against mistying and correct tying is easily recognized. It is a secure bend (in the sense of resisting alternating loads without loosening). It is compact and streamlined in form and the working ends lie neatly alongside the standing parts. I believe that the Reever knot deserves to be more widely known and used."

I have never recommended Reever knot for climbing. It is the Braided Machard that I recommended for climbing! I recommended the Reever knot for the general population! But I also want point out that joining dynamic ropes while belaying or rappeling is not the only application for knots in climbing. I also want to point out that the the offset overhand knot (the European Death Knot, EDK) is not free from controversy because it is a knot that is a compromise. It appears insecure, contrary to most other climbing knots that has an appearance of being safe and secure from undoing themselves. But this disadvantage has been accepted due to the fact that no one has managed to create an more secure looking offset bend than the EDK.

It is always beneficial to be able to select the knot that has the most suitable properties. If one wants a knot that is less laborious to make, that consumes less cord and is smaller than a figure eight bend, then the Reever knot may be an alternative, and certainly much better than a square knot (reef knot). If one wants a (semi) permanent knot safe from opening by accident during use, then the double fisherman bend is a good alternative.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: agent_smith on April 05, 2020, 09:57:25 AM
per Ezelius:
Quote
I see nothing about "disburbance" in Knotting matters #85 regarding Reever knot.  I assumed you meant it could capsize if the knot was disturbed in shape.
I would respond by stating that simply because a vulnerability or weakness or some sort was not mentioned in 'Knotting Matters #85' - does not rule out the possibility of such a vulnerability or weakness.
Knotting Matters is simply a publication - it isn't an authority.
The author of the 2004 content was Mr Dick Clements.
So the content was written some 16 years ago - and Clements does not positively identify what type of rope/cordage he used in his (quote) 'informal tests' (unquote).
Clements cites Wright and Magowan - the era of these guys is vegetable fibre laid rope (not EN892 dynamic rope as we know it today).
Clements is also not 100% crystal clear if his comments pertain to life critical applications (eg climbing/mountaineering).
You would also have to stake everything on what Clements wrote as being 100% authoritative.

Quote
What I see in Knotting matters #85 and in the internet is that Reever knot is a good secure knot. What is written there is very much in line with what I think.
Its a free world...you are absolutely entitled to form your own views.
There is no law or barrier stopping you from doing so.

Quote
I have never recommended Reever knot for climbing.
By extension, could we assume that you mean..."not recommended for life critical applications?"

Quote
It is the Braided Machard that I recommended for climbing!
The "Braided Machard" is a hitch - specifically a slide and grip progression hitch.
The Reever knot is an end-to-end joining knot.
You are discussing two completely different classes of 'knot':
In the first instance; an end-to-end joining knot.
And in the second instance; a slide and grip progression hitch.

Quote
But I also want point out that joining dynamic ropes while belaying or rappeling is not the only application for knots in climbing.
There are lots of different applications of 'knots' in climbing, abseiling, caving, vertical rescue, canyoning, challenge ropes courses, rope access work, etc.
The Reever knot isn't inherently secure and so its not recommended for life critical applications.
I would add that Clements was not specific about uniting 2 different rope diameters or frozen/iced ropes.

Quote
There are many other uses where one would like to make a knot, and it is always beneficial to be able to select the knot that has the most suitable properties.
Yes - selecting the most effective knot for a particular situation requires knowledge and skill - which must be learnt.
In life critical applications, making the wrong choice could have catastrophic consequences.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 05, 2020, 11:30:10 AM
Dear Agent Smith,

I do not know what you are trying to say. I think there is no real disagreement here. I guess you got confused over me putting two knots in the same topic/thread, where one knot was for general purpose and the other was for climbing. It had probably been better if I had made a separate thread for each knot. The point was that I think these knots should be more widely known as they fill out a "gap" in among useful knots. The braided Machard because it outperforms the Klemheist and Machard in climbing, and the Reever bend because it would be a far better knot to use than the square knot for joining two ropes. I think that for the general population the Reever knot should be one of the first bends to learn. The natural first bend to learn is the square knot because is an easy step into knotting, and because its the base for tying ones shoelaces. But otherwise the square knot is too unreliable. The next bend to learn would be Reever bend. It is safe from untying itself and it is easy to open after subject to load. The negative side with Reever bend is it requires more practice to gain proficiency, but at the same time I think joining two ropes is a basic skill that all people should have, so the effort is worthwhile. Or are there any other suggestions for what would be the best second bend to learn? Fisherman's knot (simple), figure eight bend or sheet bend could be alternatives, but I think the Fisherman's knot is prone to jamming and sheet bend is prone to open itself, so I think these are less important to learn as a second knot than the Reever bend, although they are simpler to make.


Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 05, 2020, 11:33:42 AM
Please, Could anybody help me out with the origin of "Reever" in Reever bend. Does "Reever" refer to the name of a person or does it refer to "sailor"? And why is it not "Reever's bend"?
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: agent_smith on April 05, 2020, 12:14:54 PM
Hello Ezelius:

Please look at reply #4:
Quote
I think figure eight bend, Reever bend and double Fisherman's knot are a knots for joining two climbing ropes
Note your typed words... note your specific reference to Reever bend for joining two climbing ropes.

Quote
I guess you got confused over me putting two knots in the same topic/thread, where one knot was for general purpose and the other was for climbing.[/quote
There is absolutely zero confusion.
I am simply stating the facts.
I think the confusion may in fact lie in the particular drafting of your words...
I am simply pointing out inaccuracies - and potential risks.

Quote
The point was that I think these knots should be more widely known as they fill out a "gap" in among useful knots. The braided Machard because it outperforms the Klemheist and Machard in climbing...
This is an inaccurate statement.
Each slide and grip progression hitch has a specific characteristic.
In fact, #1762 Klemheist hitch has very high grip strength to its host - to an extent that it is arguably superior to other slide and grip hitches in terms of pure gripping capability.
And the French Prusk (Machard Tresse) is superior as a 'self-belay' to safeguard a person while abseiling and also superior as a 'progress capture device' (PCD) in mechanical advantage systems.

Quote
...and the Reever bend because it would be a far better knot to use than the square knot for joining two ropes.
This string of words forms the second part of your above sentence.
Probably safer grammar is to separate it into its own sentence - and add the words; "for non life critical applications.
I would also comment that just about any knot would be better than a reef knot for uniting 2 ropes (in non life critical applications)!!

Quote
Or are there any other suggestions for what would be the best second bend to learn? Fisherman's knot (simple), figure eight bend or sheet bend?
This question is not answerable.
Reason: Every occupation/sporting application has its own specific requirements.
Context is key.

If you asked a fisherman, he would answer differently to a rope access technician who would answer differently to a boy scout who would answer differently to a surgeon (and so on).

It would be better to frame this question as:
Which knots are best to learn for rock climbing applications (specifically to join 2 ropes)?
Or;
For the fisherman...
Which knots are best for joining fishing line?

...

As to your last post re the use of the term 'bend'...
This is a technical point... there is a strong case to confine the use of the term bend to those situations which unite 2 ropes. But, Ashley stirs the pot a bit in his use of the term bend...
Some argue that the preferred term for uniting two ropes is; "end-to-end joining knot".
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 05, 2020, 12:47:05 PM
Dear Mr Agent Smith,

In reply #4 I said I think. I know your opinion by know. I had preferred to hear the opinion from more people and especially from people who have actually tested to use the Reever bend or test reports.

Evidently you like to dissect every wording, but I am not going to explain evident things for every sentence. Of course everything is more complicated than one can explain in a simple sentence.

I have had many occasions where the Klemheist and Machard are not good enough, and where the braided Machard works. So I it is a knot I really appreciate. I am not going into more detail, because I am not that found of writing long texts explaining details. Also, I think everyone needs to makes his own experiences.

Do not be silly, I talked about the general population regarding the Reever knot. I did not talk about anglers.  But if you need examples it could be joining two ropes at home, at work, sailing or scouting.

You are of course free to write as many comments as you want, but I may chose not to answer if find them  exasperating.

Yours Sincerely, Mr Ezelius

P.S. I am still very curious about what Reever stands for. Is it a name or does it mean "sailor"?





 
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: agent_smith on April 05, 2020, 02:32:50 PM
Dear Ezelius:
Quote
Evidently you like to dissect every wording, but I am not going to explain evident things for every sentence.
Not so.
Using the quote function is common practice on this forum.
There is no ill will or anything ill conceived.
I am simply quoting your typed words - nothing more - nothing less.
I would venture to suggest that this whole forum is based upon the written word (ie language) - and photos of knots.

Quote
I have had many occasions where the Klemheist and Machard are not good enough, and where the braided Machard works.
And I have had 30 years of success with the 'French prusik' (Machard Tresse) working effectively as a progress captive device in M.A systems and as a self-belay to protect against loss of control while abseiling.
Your success is not diminished or tainted by my successes.

Quote
Do not be silly, I talked about the general population regarding the Reever knot.
I wasn't being silly.
There is nothing wrong with the Reever end-to-end joining knot in non life critical applications.

Quote
You are of course free to write as many comments as you want, but I may chose not to answer if find them  exasperating.
Thank you.
I don't find your remarks exasperating or a contest of who has greater knowledge and expertise.
I am simply responding to your typed words.

The broad category of 'hitches' has many sub-classes.
From load control; binders; slide & grip progression; and nooses... each finding its place within the order of knots.
Specific hitches suit specific applications, there is no one magic bullet.
For example, for progress capture devices (PCD) in mechanical advantage (M.A.) systems, efficiency is crucial. The 'hitch' must allow the rope to free-flow relatively unhindered, and yet grip and capture the hard won progress during rest intervals and resets. And here the 'French prusik (Machard Tresse) has supremacy.
This is but one example of the myriad applications for hitches...

As to the history of the 'Reever' end-to-end joining knot, we may never be 100% certain of its origin or naming.
For example, Wright and Magowan sometimes get credited with #1053 Butterfly... and yet, it appears in an earlier publication (and linked to 'Linesman'). Similar situation with the infamous 'Hunters bend' - which was later found to have been published as a 'Riggers bend' by Phil Smith.
It appears Ashley may not have been aware of it... or if he was, perhaps it was accidentally omitted from his book?

If you find out who actually discovered the Reever end-to-end joining knot and why it was named 'Reever' - please share it in this topic thread :)

EDIT NOTE: I have a copy of the Wright and Magowan report...I'll do some digging to see if there is a trail of breadcrumbs about the history of the 'Reever'...
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 05, 2020, 03:55:41 PM
Dear Agent Smith,

Please note that the french prusik knot is called "le Machard" in French. In french there is a knot called "le Machard tresse" (acute accents are missing due to limitations in forum character set) which translates into "braided Machard" in English.

https://ezelius.eu/knopar/knopar-olika-sprak.html

Braided Machard:
https://ezelius.eu/knopar/flaetad-machard/index.html
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: agent_smith on April 05, 2020, 04:21:58 PM
Dear Ezelius,
French is not my strong point...for me it is a complex language.
Although I take the historical origin of this type of slide and grip progression hitch from Serge Machard who tragically died in 1963 at 18 years of age,.
There are several variations - all based on Serge's original invention.
There are so many variations and local names - that it is almost an exercise in futility to try to pinpoint who means what and with what particular variation.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Dan_Lehman on April 13, 2020, 09:29:27 PM
P.S. I am still very curious about what Reever stands for. Is it a name or does it mean "sailor"?
So, too, am I,
but I didn't find any explanation in Wright & Magowan's
Alpine Journal article of 1928.
Cf.,
http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/16_Report_Wright_Magowan_1928.pdf (http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/16_Report_Wright_Magowan_1928.pdf)
which is another nice knotty thing PACI has to offer to us.

(My guess will be "Reever" from "reeving" if not "reef".)

THankyou,
--dl*
====
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Keystoner on April 13, 2020, 10:57:44 PM
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reeve

reeve verb
rove\ ˈrōv  \ or reeved; reeving

Definition of reeve (Entry 2 of 3)

transitive verb
1: to pass (something, such as a rope) through a hole or opening
2: to fasten by passing through a hole or around something
3: to pass a rope through

intransitive verb
of a rope : to pass through a block or similar device
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 13, 2020, 11:28:26 PM
Thank you for helping me out of what Reever refers to. At first I assumed Reever was referring to a name, but that seems to be wrong then. The origin of the knot and its name seem to be unknown.  Now, I sort of assume that reever could be a person. Maybe somebody working on a boat, but I can not find reever on the internet in that meaning, which annoys me.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/reeve
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: agent_smith on April 14, 2020, 12:08:10 AM
Hello Ezelius:

I have extracted some published information for you - so its all in one place and easier to investigate.

Unfortunately, I could find no historical information that points specifically to how the name "Reever" was assigned and by whom.
The earliest published data that I know of is from Wright and Magowan in 1928 (see attached extract).

Dr Harry Asher published the "Vice Versa" bend in 1989 - it had an asterix (*) assigned to it which indicates a new discovery in his book. Asher doesn't specifically state that he personally discovered it...one can only 'assume' that he did. Presumably the name 'vice versa' was a reference to one half of the knot being in one direction and the other half copied in the opposite sense.

The name "Reever" could simply be an attempt to describe the threading of the rope through and around itself in a uniform pattern?
There is nothing in Ashley to provide additional guidance...

EDIT: Had trouble with getting acceptable image quality...
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 14, 2020, 04:26:36 PM
OK. Then I guess it would be correct to write "reever knot" with a beginning letter in lower case. I always wrote with a capital "R" in the beginning before because I thought it was a name. It is sad that the history of the origin of the knot is unknown, for a curious me.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: SS369 on April 15, 2020, 06:03:26 PM
Me personally, I would rename it to "reeving bend".
Maybe that is what it was and along the way it morphed... as names sometimes do.

SS
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Brocky on April 15, 2020, 06:15:07 PM
Regarding the Braided Machard, I think the complete use of the loop length, little extending beyond the hitch to clip into to, makes it function satisfactory more than the number of wraps and braids.  Your tying seems to be a 2-6, wraps-braids, generally more wraps and less braids are used.  The Valdotain Tresse, which uses a cord with an eye on each end is the same hitch, and is also dependent on the cord length, if it is fixed.  I cut a loop apart and was able to make a more compact hitch by not being limited by a set length.  A 4-2 and 3-3 where the shortest that would reliably grab each time, with the 3-3 performing easier.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: Ezelius on April 15, 2020, 07:48:48 PM
Thanks for thoughts, comments and feedback!

This is an instruction video where braided Machard (Machard Tresse) begins at  3 min 38 sec:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1RG-CSgGpc
Please, note that the ends should be alternatively below  and above each other when braiding.
Title: Re: Reever knot and braided Machard
Post by: KC on April 15, 2020, 11:02:54 PM
Brocky, i'm always thinking, the tail length in tresse's is mostly to assert angle of pull
>>To the input, then thru chain.
.
To connive specific range of sine force from either competing side as grip from load/for load
>>and in high focus climbing hitches of precision, accuracy and durability etc. are tuned to user weight/style as well as the mated materials (cord to rope)
.
We ask more of friction hitch then just hold or release, let alone the interim between repeatedly then hold again
>>at lifeline  security, accuracies and confidences.
We might ask more bull dawg hold or quick release of some, and even then is a 1way or 1x deal etc.
>>nothing else so repeated variances and usages especially at such risks/trusts i think
Truly wondrous knots!