Author Topic: Yet another bowline variation  (Read 5119 times)

Tuoppi

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Yet another bowline variation
« on: May 03, 2013, 07:37:04 PM »
Hello everyone.

As it seems, the bowline knot is the favorite knot for many, and constantly being worked on. This is something I came up with some time ago, and I haven't managed to find an name for this variation or even prior sample of it.
This variation can be tied in the middle of the rope, requires to be tightened properly in order to carry load and is dangerously easy to open by pulling the "release" end of the line.

While tying this knot is not lightning fast as it has to be tightened evenly in order to hold, it isn't very complicated and therefore has an useful feel to it.

Edit: the improvement over regular bowline knot is that this unties completely with a pull of the cord.

(Sorry for the complete lack of proper terminology. My apologies, first post, not native speaker, etc.)










« Last Edit: May 04, 2013, 08:34:26 PM by Tuoppi »

Ruby

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2013, 03:23:08 AM »
Interesting knot.

Maybe pull the right leg of the main loop to capsize it into bowline like collar

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2013, 10:26:54 PM »
Hi Tuoppi,

About this loop has already been discussed in this thread:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3924.msg23274#msg23274

If you load the no slipped version by the tail,you will get a Carrick loop(ABOK #1033, below).

                                                                                                                    Bye!




Tuoppi

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2013, 11:08:15 PM »
About this loop has already been discussed in this thread:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3924.msg23274#msg23274

If you load the no slipped version by the tail,you will get a Carrick loop(ABOK #1033, below).

Nothing new under the sun - I thought so, but had to check. Thanks!

In that discussion, this is the same knot I came up with:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3924.0;attach=7271;image

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2013, 12:58:31 AM »
   Thank you, Luca.

   I was sure I have seen this bowline somewhere in the forum, but I could nt find where ! However, I was also sure that you will find it, as you did for a number of other knots, and I was right !  :)
   I would nt feel very comfortable with this "lockstitch"- like locking of the tail, that depends on the stiffness of the rope. Tied on soft ropes, and under heavy loading, I feel / fear that the two legs of the tail, the slipped bight, will be forced to pass through the nipping loop.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lockstitch2.gif
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 01:01:56 AM by X1 »

Ruby

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2013, 02:13:14 PM »
After Pulling one leg i think it's same as Eskimo bowline

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2013, 05:30:50 PM »
After Pulling one leg i think it's same as Eskimo bowline

Surely you can see the difference between
the two knots in the images you post?!


--dl*
====

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2013, 05:44:12 PM »
I would nt feel very comfortable with this "lockstitch"- like locking of the tail,
that depends on the stiffness of the rope. Tied on soft ropes, and under heavy loading,
I feel / fear that the two legs of the tail, the slipped bight, will be forced to pass through the nipping loop.

I.e., that a part serving qua *toggle* depends on its firmness
for effect --yes, something to beware.  Roo & I long ago attacked
the too-popular (so gimmicky to be appealing) highwayman's
hitch
on account of such a failing; and recognizing the problem
also led to a simple re-ordering of that structure to produce a
more stable and like-functioning slip-free hitches.

But in this OP case, surely the tightness of the turNip will
dominate movement and simply restrict the opening beyond
conceivable pulling through of anything --just as the nipped
bights of a sheepshank (which have no toggle, but potentially
resistance-to-bending, to resist being pulled through) aren't
pulled through (rather, there, one should worry about capsizing).
Indeed, sometimes that nip is overly strong from what
one might need for securing the slip-tuck --i.e., that
insufficient force reaches through to nip the toggle
and keep it secure!


--dl*
====
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 11:04:10 PM by Dan_Lehman »

X1

  • Inactive
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2013, 04:39:04 AM »
in this OP case, surely the tightness of the turNip will dominate movement and simply restrict the opening beyond conceivable pulling through of anything --just as the nipped bights of a sheepshank  aren't pulled through (rather, there, one should worry about capsizing).

   Most probably... but as funny things happen under severe loading (at least on some slippery materials - we have seen the "flow" and the "walking" of the lines ), one should keep his fingers crossed - and that is not something beneficial for one s psychology. I would nt trust my life on a Sheepshank, a Captain Mullin s ABoK#160 - 161 hitch, or a Gleipnir... I need to SEE them holding near their strength limit, or near 50% of the rope s ultimum strength, at least, to believe it - and I do not think they can reach those limits.
   Moreover, there is the issue of cases where the nipping loop is ( still, or momentarily ) loose, or has not been shrank adequately yet, while there is some tension on the returning eye leg. Then, this toggle mechanism can be repeated once more, so, even if the first toggle succeeds to sip through the eye of the needle / nipping loop, the second one will get caught... However, this repetition reveals that the blocking mechanism is not so clever, even in the initial one-toggle case.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 05:09:13 AM by X1 »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2013, 11:12:21 PM »
in this OP case, surely the tightness of the turNip will dominate movement and simply restrict the opening beyond conceivable pulling through of anything --just as the nipped bights of a sheepshank  aren't pulled through (rather, there, one should worry about capsizing).

   Most probably... but as funny things happen under severe loading ...

Indeed, and in this OP case one should beware the potential
of that initial turNip transforming into a more open helix and
prying out some of the toggle, which as my point above suggests
might not be so surely nipped, on account of the very turNip's nipping!

Not sure you meant this re repeating the toggling --it wouldn't
be that any slipping through could occur if ...-- one might, yes,
toggle the toggle.  (Oh, the very idea just boggles!)


--dl*
====

Ruby

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: Yet another bowline variation
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2013, 01:37:32 PM »
just find that it's very easy to tie this knot with only right hand,
the left hand keep holding both two ends

interesting
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 01:40:12 PM by Ruby »