bend for connecting round cord to webbing

[SS369]

Why do you feel that representation is the less regarded version, if you please?

The sheet bend with tails (& SParts) on opposite sides
seems to do more slipping in tightening than leaves me
comfortable.  I recall that Rob Chisnall reported on some
testing that he'd done in various materials on these two
basic versions, and came to the conclusion that it seemed
a mixed bag depending upon material.  And I know that
Dave Richards found some sort --but I don't know WHICH--
of the knot to slip in some of his trio of materials.

I think that the opp-sided version gains if one tucks the
bight tail back up through its apex.  This opp-sided version
seems to draw more, um, *square* and looks the better
for it, perhaps; but that slow walking of material through
the knot unsettles me about it.


--dl*
====

Hi Dan,

I am hoping that you can dredge up that previous report of Mr. Chisnall's and whatever you can from Mr. Richards to share with me.

As bcrowell seems to have settled his mind to a decision of what to use and what not to, the rest of the discussion is perhaps just academic.
He should use only what he feels and knows(!) to be the best option.

Dan, I tried the tails of the tape bight mutli-turn sheet bend oriented both ways and it appears to matter not one bit. The tape will bunch on the rope side at the tape bight tip and cinch down tightly.

As for the reverse of this where the rope is the bight with stopper (my add), as I read your preference to be, the rope easily slid to the stopper in the slick embrace of the crushed tape.

Trying the tape wraps neatly laid atop each other yielded no better results in holding power, but did reduce the length overall while increasing the width somewhat .
The latter two were almost untieable at the modest loading and required tool aid, with the over wrapped one being the easier.

In an ad hoc tug of war test I tied a sling of tape (1 inch Nylon) and 6mm accessory cord using both configurations, tape bight sheet bend vs rope bight sheet bend (sans stoppers for this test) on each end. The tape bight method only tightened more (regardless of which side the tail was on) and the rope bight method slipped till the rope's end disappeared, at which point I stopped the experiment.

It is recommended by other climbers, who appear to have considerable experience, that if the original idea is to extend the rappel using tape, that it be kept as short as possible. I personally believe the tape bight sheet bend would be a an option.

SS

P.S. The Albright type (configured tape as bight) works but is more permanent.

[roo]

What would be a secure bend to use if you needed to join a piece of 14 mm webbing to a 9 mm climbing rope?

Here's another vote for the Zeppelin Bend.  Test it in the conditions you expect to verify its performance.

[Dan_Lehman]

Hi Dan,
I am hoping that you can dredge up that previous report
of Mr. Chisnall's and whatever you can from Mr. Richards to share with me.

Chisnall's article should be findable via the IGKT
Knotting Matters Index, et cetera.  Richards's
results were hosted by NSS, but then removed upon
someone's befuddlement with what should've been
recognized as a simple mis-labeling of table & data
--i.e., one rope's former matched to another's latter.
(I'd hoped to have helped Richards restore this long
ago, but things move (?) slowly.)

Dan, I tried the tails of the tape bight mutli-turn sheet bend oriented both ways and it appears to matter not one bit. The tape will bunch on the rope side at the tape bight tip and cinch down tightly.

Given the reaction of the tape to the constriction,
this isn't a surprising result.  YMMV per tapes?!
But the advice came in regard to ropes.

As for the reverse of this where the rope is the bight with stopper (my add),
as I read your preference to be, the rope easily slid to the stopper
in the slick embrace of the crushed tape.

You mis-read my instruction : it is NOT the reverse,
except for the intial turn, minimal structure (i.e., the
Lapp bend is the reverse of the sheet bend)
--which I do not recommend--; the subsequent wraps
of the "multiple Lapp bend" go around only the hitching
line's (tape, by my reversal) & and bight's SParts, NOT also
the bight's tail (in the case of an eye, it can be of some
help to shorten the one side so to model an "open
bight" in tension, at least to give a little imbalance
in tension, as this seems to draw into a better form,
IMO).  This shouldn't be so jammy --but I won't swear
that it's easily "forcibly loosen-able" everywhere,
just that it has some chance of this, especially where
forces aren't great--,
with ability to pull bight legs apart to pry out just
enough of the hitching SPart to enable the bight
tail to be worked free, and so on.  --which is why
the hitching wraps must not include this tail
beyond the initial hitching turn!

Trying the tape wraps neatly laid atop each other yielded no better results in holding power,

Rather, that should do the opposite!

I've just re-tried what I recommended, using the only
readily grabbable volunteer material at hand --5/16" new
laid PP rope & some 3/4"ish solid lumber-binding nylon, PP?
tape.  No hint of slippage.
(no mistying  )

It is recommended by other climbers, who appear to have considerable experience,
that if the original idea is to extend the rappel using tape,
[] it be kept as short as possible

What's "kept short"?  --the length of tape?  THAT
must be as long as needed to get down : there is
no choice that it be "kept as short ..." --you're down
or not!  As for "considerable experience", I cannot
fathom anyone having much if any such experience,
unless by doing some experimental daydreaming
just in case ... !  As noted, experience has one prepared
with adequate rope.

I also am waiting for someone to explain how this whole
abseil structure is arranged, such that there is even some
theoretical possibility of extension :
what are the lines in play;
how are they configured (what is anchored to what);
what is the expected retrieval method?

We are thrust to the sharp end of some undescribed
rap line and asked to tie on tape; I don't understand
the context of this.

--dl*
====

[Luca]

Hi to all,

The Zeppelin and the Hunter's bends beginning to peep in the speeches and in the use also among some Italian climbers.From what I've read in a couple of forums,what I have noticed ,is that most often is preferred the use of the Hunter, especially because it is perceived as a more compact knot, and therefore less likely to be accidentally released by a possible trapping of the portion of rope immediately adjacent to the tail(the famous"holes"given by the stability and the no-jamming attitude of the Zeppelin,in this case appear to be seen as a disadvantage) against an eventual protrusion of the climbed surface(I think statistically unlikely to happen, but in fact it never know what can happen!).I've also read that the Zeppelin is considered in general less secure in respect with the Hunter's, because the two overhands of which it is composed are interlinked just only one time,by the tails only(I do not think is a good argument in this case, since it does not seem to be taken into account many other aspects (of which I also continue to be quite ignorant) that contribute to make a knot secure).
So,I do not know if these arguments that I read are valid or not(if someone wants, I'd like to read your opinion!), but what I also wonder,re-reading this thread, is if, in the case of union of rope/webbing,or ropes of different size/construction/material, the Zeppelin has something more to offer than the Hunter's or other interlinked overhand knots-based bends.


                                                                                                      Thanks, and bye!

[Dan_Lehman]

The Zeppelin and the Hunter's bends beginning to peep in the speeches
and in the use also among some Italian climbers.  From what I've read in a couple
of forums,what I have noticed ,is that most often is preferred the use of the Hunter,
especially because it is perceived as a more compact knot,
and therefore less likely to be accidentally released by a possible trapping of the portion of rope
immediately adjacent to the tail (the famous"holes"given by the stability and the no-jamming
attitude of the Zeppelin, in this case appear to be seen as a disadvantage)
...

Then what they should be considering are Ashley's end-2-end
knots #1425 [no "a"] & #1452 --both putting tails to one side
together, like the favored abseil-ropes-joiner offset overhand,
and both being "more compact".

Re SmitHunter's bend, favor the "Hunter's X bend" version
shown recently in another thread ("Bistable Knots", & older) by X1
--less prone to jamming.

A concern about the two knots cited above is the actual
production of the sort of *in-between* knot which is
neither one nor the other, that "false zeppelin",
as it's an easy mistake in not "minding one's 'p's & 'q's!"

Btw, I tried the zeppelin with the materials I just cited
in my prior post (8mm laid PP rope, some thin solid tape),
and it seemed finely secure.  Still, I think I'd favor the
bight-hitch that I described of tape hitching to rope.


--dl*
====

ps:  Although this is off-topic, is there any general discussion
from Italy about which tie-in (eyeknot) to use?!  (There
is currently some renewed raging about the bowline and
some further security precaution vs. the fig.8 eyeknot.)

[X1]

what they should be considering are Ashley's end-2-end knots #1425 [no "a"] & #1452 --both putting tails to one side together, like the favored abseil-ropes-joiner offset overhand

  There is a considerable number of bends that look like this...
  A quick view at Miles :  M.#A8 (Plus Double Harness), M.#A11 (Triangular), M.#A12 (Decorative), M.#A23 (Crown), M#B11 (Snug), M#B.30 (Flat).
  A quick view at my files : the bends shown at the attached pictures.
  So, there might be a "practical" purpose for those ugly knots, after all...  (*)

(*) Of all those knots, only the Double Granny bend and the Violin bend ( the reversed of ABoK#1422) are not ugly...On the contrary, the curvilinear silhouette of those two knots, the flow of the twisted standing parts alongside the knot s nub, makes them beautiful.

[X1]

  (2)

[X1]

 (3)

[X1]

  (4)

[Luca]

Hi Dan,Thanks.

  Although this is off-topic, is there any general discussion
from Italy about which tie-in (eyeknot) to use?!  (There
is currently some renewed raging about the bowline and
some further security precaution vs. the fig.8 eyeknot.)

The two loops most used (practically the only ones, as far as I've read)for the tie-in,are the Fig.8 eyeknot and the"retraced Bulin knot",which is identical to a Bowline in the bight:the double loop in this case is generally made building a single Bowline using the lightning method,that usually is retraced before that the initial noose is capsized to form the nipping turn.Both of these loops are secured (more absolutely the Bulin) with a double Overhand around the SPart.The CAI(Italian Alpine Club)'s tutorials,seem to most recommend the use of Fig. 8, probably because it is less susceptible to errors during execution by the novice;the Bulin is cited only as if it were a thing of the past (however, illustrating the execution of the knot).But reading the discussions the reality seems to be different: many experienced climbers adopt almost exclusively the Bulin, as easier to untie,and as it is perceived as most suitable for dissipating energies in case of a fall, because the loop is doubled and the knot's nub is looser;some others tend to use the Bulin in"rock" and the Fig. 8 in"mountain",or even,the Bulin if they are first on the rope, and the Fig.8 if are second.Of course many people use only the Fig.8.
I've almost not found evidence, in these discussions, regarding the use of any single loop Bowline secured in any way, except to discourage it;only one person who wrote that he successfully used the Yosemite(strictly provided with backup knot around the SPart).
For the record, I found a couple of references to the use of some unidentified noose for the tie-in,and even a case in which someone claimed to have used a Barcaiolo (Clove Hitch)(a number of comments of disapproval there was no lack).
In conclusion, from what I saw, in my part it seems to remain very "classic";despite the general attitude that I inferred from the discussions in Italian forums is a bit like"regulate like you want",seems to prevail a tendency to not change the old habits (and maybe even is the no-awareness of how to be able to adopt new ones,but in reality I would not allow me to judge).

                                                                                                               Bye!