What is the Lapp knot (a bend) good for?
Many things. It's the base of a fine set of
bight hitches (in which
category I include the
Sheet bend, and maybe should include
the
SquaREef knot(!).
A Lapp knot has the same structure as a sheet bend,
but the roles of working end and standing part of the cord that wraps around the U cord are interchanged.
Exactly -- and as was later remarked, it's the particular structure of
the
same-side Sheet Bend : tails on same side.
The origins of being used by Lapplanders or other northern, icey-area folk
is that it was tied in leather *webbing*, we might say -- i.e., a relatively
rigid flat-cross-section material. Consider the two loadings (Lapp v. Sheet)
in such material, and I think you'll prefer the former. One can also try
nylon (etc.) woven webbing, but this unlike leather is compressible.
Still, it seems that cord hitched to a webbing bight is better when in
the Lapp vs. Sheet orientation.
Contrary to the video, the two working ends must come out of the knot on the same side.
YES, spot on.
I just load tested it in 1/16" / 1.6 mm nylon braid. It slipped to failure under moderately heavy load.
Dang, you and that measly little cord again. Even so, I'm not getting that result.
One needs to set the knot carefully, pulling on all ends and being esp. sensitive
to getting the
hitching side (i.e. the non-
bight (hitched to, you see) side) snug.
BUT, I won't argue in favor of its use in this form, even so (even though I think
it should be holding; I might be missing transformations in the geometry as
load peaks. Again, this doesn't concern me for I use a variation, anyway, for
anything serious.
NB: this Lapp orientation is that of a
ring-loaded Bowline ! Which is
why the so-called (by Ashley and his echoes) "Left-handed Bowline" is more
secure in such loading.
I use the simple Lapp, w/slipped hitching-side tail, for a quick release knot,
sometimes -- as pulling the slip-tuck spills the knot completely free.
Now, the obvious variation(s):
1) make a turn around the two SParts with the hitching tail and 2nd tuck;
this anchors the structure to remove the dangerous slippage, as
the full turn will bear down on its SPart;
2) repeat this wrapping, and then tuck the hitching tail out under the
initial turn of the hitching SPart (so, parallel to the bight legs);
this becomes ineffective if the bight is much larger than the hitching
line, as the *ravine* between bight legs will be too *roomy* for
nipping the tail.
These knots have the beneficial characteristic of being
secure-when-slackunlike the
Sheet bend -- nothing to sneeze at!
NB: one can make the initial wraps around
both bight legs,
but the knot will be difficult to untie; making the wraps around only
the bight's SPart (or, even if loading is in the dangerous-for-Lapp
orientation, then the tail) will allow for some hope of
forcible
loosening -- by pulling the bight tail to pry out some hitching-SPart
material, and enable further loosening. YMMV with materials & load.
It also strikes me that the structure is more secure when joining two
ends than joining end to eye (what I've called a "closed bight"),
as if the bight legs have equal loading from the setting, the knot
doesn't seem to close (snug up) as securely -- something one can bias
in dressing/setting, to imbalance eye legs to sort of simulate an
end-2-end geometry.
.:. The Double Lapp knot -- the best unsung new knot!--dl*
====
