Anyone ever seen this one?

[Erickson]

I teach knot tying to scouts, and we put up a lot of tents for the Cub Scout resident camp, so I end up teaching the Taut-line again and again. A lovely knot. My only complaint is with young scouts in a hurry keeping the coils tight prior to tightening can be a handful. So I, sitting with rope in hand between classes (what else would a knot head do?), came up with this. It's simple, effective, and surely been tied before. It's just that I can find it in no book. I've drawn it up (I'm an architect by trade) so you can play with it. It's dead useful; I use it for binding, and hitching, as well as a substitute taut-line. Don't get me wrong, it is NOT the right choice necessarily for these other uses, but it is my baby.

Let me know what you make of it.

K-

[sharky]

Don't know that I have ever seen that hitch before, but looking at the architecture, it seems to make sense in that there are 4 points of friction, and it looks nice too...

[Erickson]

I actually thought it out before trying to tie it. I was looking for something that would put more and more pressure on the standing/running part as the tension was increased. The figure eight shape with the crossing of the working end did the trick. It works sort of like one of those belaying thing-a-ma-jigs.

K-

[roo]

It doesn't look very familiar, however if you shift the free end around slightly, you can see that the "hitch" made around the standing part of the rope is a lark's head/girth hitch/cow hitch with one half given an extra twist.

So, one could argue that it might be seen as a variation on the lobster buoy hitch:

[Justin]

hello all.  I found this site thanks to JD of TIAT's youtube channel.  I ran accost this and thought you know I think I recognize that knot.  Looks allot like a Sliding Chinese crown just finish it with a bite.  Personally I like to use the Mooring Hitch instead of taut line just because its so easy to tie.

any ways pleased to meet you all and I hope to learn much and if I am lucky contribute a little too

Justin

[Dan_Lehman]

Similar things have been done,
and, frankly, better things IMO:  i.p., I find
it awkward for the working end to not cross the
line in the first pass, but to stay (in your photo)
on the right side; if you took what IMO is a natural
course, the end would first cross over, turn around
and cross the reverse direction at the initial tuck,
and so on -- a left/right/left alternation.  And this
knot seems to bite better than what you show,
in the firm old solid braid nylon that I have in hand.

 

[Erickson]

Dan,

I've seen better knots myself. Used a lot of them too. But the question is: has any one ever seen this one before? It's too simple and too useful (which is not to say any more useful than a handful of other knots that could fill the role) to have been undiscovered.

I think I've gone over what you suggest in your post (but honestly Dan, for someone as grumpy about knot terminology as you, you might consider the rest of the language as carefully). So no, I don't think I've got it. When I try what I think you mean I end up with a structure more like a sliding Chinese Crownish thing with much of the "knot" around the perimeter. The point of keeping the working end on the one side (left in my drawing) and weaving up and back rather than back and forth is to create the twisted figure eight behind the SPart which, with the working end crossing at the end, creates a friction bar that works against the two loops.

K-

[SpitfireTriple]

...Couldn't have put it better myself.

As someone else who has recently joined the IGKT forum, and who has had the temerity to present a possible new knot (or in my case, merely a new way to tie an existing knot), may I applaud your bringing this to everyone's attention.  And for risking the negativity that sadly seems so often a reaction to innovation.

I do not own a copy of ABOK (that's blown any credibility I might have pretended to!), but if your knot had already been listed there, no doubt someone would already have said so. If it is not in ABOK, then to prove that it is not a new knot would require some other evidence of prior disclosure.  I do not yet see any such evidence.  Which is not to say it does not exist of course.  NB We are not concerned with "trivial" new knots, such as, perhaps, a Round Turn and Ten Half-Hitches.  But your knot does not seem trivial.  Not to me anyway.

 I have looked at the Lobster Buoy Hitch, which I feel is sufficiently different as to make for an invalid comparison.  Though I would agree that it is useful for such attempts at comparison to be made.   I was not so sure about the Sliding Chinese Crown. (I hadn't come across this before, Justin, thanks for posting it). So I followed Mr Suber's instructions (without the bight), and the resulting knot briefly looked superficially similar to your (Mr Erickson's) knot. Then collapsed into something clearly different.  Here's a photo:  Your knot above, the Collapsed No-Bight Chinese Sliding Crown (!) below.



I think you have devised a beautiful knot, though I daresay it would need to be thoroughly tested before it could safely be recommended.  That apart, on my rope (sorry, no idea what it's made from - there goes any last shred of credibility!) at least, your knot seems to slide more easily than similar knots such as Robert Chisnall's 1982 Adjustable Loop - which I myself prefer to the Midshipman's~ or Tautline Hitch.  For those applications that require an easier slide, your knot therefore seems not only novel (assuming it is not subsequently shown to be an existing knot), but a potentially worthwhile and valuable addition to the world of knots.  Whether it eventually proves to be new or not, well done Kurt!

Andrew

PS Assuming it turns out to be genuinely new, do you have a name for your baby?

[DerekSmith]

Hi Kurt and Andrew,

Welcome to you both and thanks for your contributions, I hope that you have not been put off by the somewhat critical reception from some here. Perhaps surprisingly, quite a few new posters start by sharing their discoveries with us, expecting that the rest of the forum will be as enthused as they are.  In a couple of months, I will have been posting here for four years, yet I am still very much a newbie, indeed, only a couple of weeks ago I discovered how to make a bowline from a slipped overhand and posted it here with glee.

Unfortunately, some of our longer term members have been slipping their overhands for so long, they seem to have forgotten the amazing exhilaration of finding a new knot or method - (new to us at least, because we just found or devised it).  The thrill your both felt is what drives our field forward, so keep twiddling, finding and inventing.

@Kurt, to set out to construct a knot with specific attributes demonstrated a deep understanding of the nature of the cord and the flow of forces within a knot structure - I hope to see you over on knot theory soon, your ideas will be welcomed.

@Andrew, you have a skill which I seriously admire - the ability to develop better methods of constructing a knot.  The structure and function of a knot is important in defining its abilities, but the tying method makes the critical difference between a knot being in popular use or simply only used in knot boards.  Obviously you cannot have a tying method without first having  a knot, but having a knot (even a potentially good knot) without a good method, is as useless as having a poor knot that is easy to make.  The ability to upgrade one knot into a superior one in a simple or memorable manner is a true asset to our field - again, I hope to see your skills being put to task over on knot theory before too long.

As for the knots/methods themselves, although good, they are unlikely to set the world on fire because they do not appear to satisfy a daily or otherwise popular need, but this should not disappoint you, because what you have both brought is the bright flame of interest that this place and our field so desperately needs.  Passion is contagious, so bring it on the pair of you - more thoughts, more ideas, even more musings and please don't be worried about kicking up some dust (and grumbles) in the process.

Thank you both.

Derek

[SpitfireTriple]

Thank you Derek.

I have only been a forum member for 24 hours, and lurked only a few times before that, but I had already come across several of your posts.  I was so impressed by what I read that I even clicked on your username in order to read more of them.  They were invariably knowledgeable, enlightening, well-written, polite, positive.  There are others on here, okay, one person in particular, who seldom seems to manage the last three.

I recognise that it must be boring for old hands to keep seeing old knots "reinvented".  It was with interest I read the thread about the genuinely new (and simply brilliant) knot invented by "Gleipnir".  I felt the reception he got was not all it could or should have been. I notice he has not been around for quite a while.  That is a shame.  The IGKT needs people like him.

I smiled at your "set the world on fire" remark. I do not seek to set the world on fire, and neither of course does Kurt nor any of the other newbs.  But what is it they say, it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness...

[Erickson]

Thanks Derek,

Is that the method of feeding the working end through the loop of the slipped overhand, then pulling SPart and WPart away from each other to overturn the loop? I love that. It looks and feels like magic. It's also just a bit disconcerting to watch a length of rope held by a slipknot(!) transform into one of the strongest knots by a simple tug.

As for "new knots". I flat out don't believe in em. Period. We can twist cordage into only so many configurations, and only a small percentage of these are going to be at all interesting to anyone but a rat looking for a home. Assuming knotcraft is one of mankind's oldest technologies, people have been diddling around with lengths of flexible stuff for a very long time. Simply thinking about the age of sailing (when cordage meant rope, not sinew or thong) when knotcraft was a lively hood for so many makes for any claim of "discovery" by dilettantes like me a little like the Europeans landing at the New World and telling the Indians that they have now been "discovered". There have just been too many people in close proximity to too much rope with too much knowledge of the craft for too many years for me to believe that there is a useful knot that hasn't been tried.

However, we do tend to forget things (at least I do). And there are obviously knots that have been historically active that are no longer in vogue (do to cordage materials or defunct trades or what have you) and perhaps many knots that have been lost.

But this knot is so much easier to tie than other similar hitches that I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone say "oh yeah, that's a Farklesnark without the HH" or some such.

K-

[roo]

I recognise that it must be boring for old hands to keep seeing old knots "reinvented".  It was with interest I read the thread about the genuinely new (and simply brilliant) knot invented by "Gleipnir".  I felt the reception he got was not all it could or should have been.

Yes, the thread was too full of hype and adulation.  A sincere query deserves a level-headed persuit of truth.  It makes the resulting dialog more credible and more fruitful.

You have to decide:  Are you here for truth or are you here for a pat on the head?

[Erickson]

I think I'd rather have the truth. I work at home (the wifes at work, kids are at school), if I suddenly get a pat on my head I'm gonna leave a spot on my seat.

K-

[SpitfireTriple]

I recognise that it must be boring for old hands to keep seeing old knots "reinvented".  It was with interest I read the thread about the genuinely new (and simply brilliant) knot invented by "Gleipnir".  I felt the reception he got was not all it could or should have been.

Yes, the thread was too full of hype and adulation.  A sincere query deserves a level-headed persuit of truth.  It makes the resulting dialog more credible and more fruitful.

You have to decide:  Are you here for truth or are you here for a pat on the head?

I came here because I like knots.  Why did you come here?
I came here because I thought it might be fun to discuss knots, especially with people who know more than me (not difficult), from whom I might learn things.
I came here because, if I am going to get something out of a forum, I feel it is only fair that I should try and put something back.  In my case, a suggested new way to tie an existing knot.  And a few photos to go with it.

What I didn't come here for was for someone (not you by the way) to tell me bluntly that my contribution was effectively too obvious to be worthwhile.

What did Gleipnir come here for?  Something similar to my three things?  I don't know.  I'm not Gleipnir.  You'd have to ask him.  Except that might be difficult as it would appear he decided not to stick around.

[DerekSmith]

Thanks Derek,

Is that the method of feeding the working end through the loop of the slipped overhand, then pulling SPart and WPart away from each other to overturn the loop? I love that. It looks and feels like magic. It's also just a bit disconcerting to watch a length of rope held by a slipknot(!) transform into one of the strongest knots by a simple tug.
snip...
K-

Yes indeed that is the very method.  You clearly already know it - have you noticed that you can make both left and right hand versions of both the BWL and the Eskimo BWL simply by slipping either the SPart (BWL) or the WPart (Eskimo) and then by passing the end either from the back of the slip loop (opposite) or from the front (adjacent).

Re - 'New Knots', I think that you are probably right that everything worth using has already been made somewhere sometime - however, that really does not matter because the (re)discovery or (re)design is, for some of us at least, an exhilarating experience, and I think there is an almost equal certainty that some very good knots are yet to be (re)discovered and many more methods of tying are waiting to thrill us and become part of our growing knowledge base, thanks of course to the Guild and to the internet and people fired up sufficiently to share with us their discoveries.

Derek