Ashley, sadly, seems to have gotten off to a lousy start in his
"snug hitches" section
I hope you're not including the ABoK #1688 ...
If the shoe fits, ... . Yes, that is a good enough paradigm.
(And I see the tail tucked under two parts, and some needed
care to dress it thus.) Consider the severe testing to which
the OP wants the hitch to withstand. His solution of putting
in a u-turn is one obvious way to redress the tail's being able
to be pulled out.
... , with most of them having the same
flaw of putting pressure of the SPart directly --sans mitigation--
on the tucked tail,
Why is putting pressure where it can do the most good a flaw? If you try to clamp on a heavily tensioned part, it's going to have much less stopping power.
My wording isn't so good, here: I mean that the SPart
pullsdirectly against the tucked tail. (And it can't deliver that full
pressure in many of these hitches until it has pulled sufficient
tail out, if one sets the knot tight by hauling on the tail
--i.e., the initial force bears into the bight w/the tail as
one leg, before the tension flows around the object to
clamp on the tail.)
(Oddly, in a braided mason line around a shovel handle's
smooth breadth, the knot I show in upper-right --with
*options* on tying ("A", "B", or both as "C")-- actually
tightened (= shrank the bight around the SPart) as I
repeatedly jerk-loaded it (which, frankly, I don't like it
doing, as it makes untying a tad tedious) !?)
--dl*
====
