Author Topic: Secure version of a Carrick Loop  (Read 6350 times)

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« on: October 13, 2013, 12:52:15 AM »
Check it out! What a difference 1 extra wrap around the "Tree" makes (the Red part of the rope in the image below).

Huge gain in security at the expense of it's marvelous untie-ability though...

Even still... Wow!

It matches the security of an Alpine Butterfly, IMO.

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #1 on: October 14, 2013, 02:09:14 AM »
Hi NotSure,

I tried;the knot, set as you described, it seems to me to be very bulky, which in itself is not necessarily a flaw, but all seems overkill!The continuation of the standing part around the knot's nub, part of the(very elongated) crossing knot nipping component,seems too curved, which could undermine the strength of the rope at the "base" of the knot.I am not convinced even with respect to the ring loading:in fact nothing happens of catastrophic, but the tail tends to be eaten and the knot to some extent distorts(hey, is not that I have presented knots much better than this!).for a loop really unmovable about ring loading: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.0
In my first post in this forum I thought that the name"Carrick loop"was referred to a version of ABoK #1439,but actually this name is referred to the loop version of #1443, which,as explained on that occasion by Dan Lehman http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3902.msg23140#msg23140 , if set correctly can be a very reliable loop for heavy loads(but I'm just repeating, because I've never experienced seriously!)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2013, 02:18:16 AM by Luca »

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2013, 06:08:35 AM »
Hi Luca,

I have no idea about the strength of this knot, so it could very well be weaker in comparison to others... I'll take your word for it.

Security has been greatly improved though. It no longer shifts about under various loading configurations nor is there any chance that I have seen of the tail slipping through the knot under any kind of slack/shake testing.

I quite like the bulk of this knot, actually. It looks rather interesting, and it makes it easier to work loose when untying. Well, too each their own I guess.

That's a very interesting link for the Lee-Zep loop and variations thereof. Thanks! I'm going to study that some more.

However, the "Carrick Loop" link you provided indicates the ABoK #1033 Carrick Loop, of which this loop is not. That 1033 loop is indeed based on the faulty ABoK #1443, whereas this Carrick Loop is based on the correct configuration of ABoK #1439. You'll notice that this loop has the main parts (Leg 1 and the Standing Part) pulling diagonally apart from each other and every crossing is an alternate over/under configuration. The #1033 loop in your link does not have the alternate over/under at every crossing.

Perhaps some moot points. I don't know.

Cheers.

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2013, 10:37:54 PM »
Hi NotSure,

Well,actually I'm just parroting the words of others who have pointed out that, with regard to how it should be built a loop, it is advisable that the portion of the rope which is the continuation of the standing part, that by now is part of the knot's nub, remains as straight as possible, before it ends to go across the knot's nub,but even I actually have no idea of can be strong or not this loop!
The Lee Zep Bowline can certainly be regarded as a "link bowline", as has been ranked by Xarax, but,if one wants, it can also be seen as the result of a retucking a loop version of a Carrick "mat" (# 1445),which seems by itself even worse than # 1443;I forget to mention that is also for this reason I have given it as an example.

                                                                                                                Bye!

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2013, 04:20:25 PM »
Woohoo! Easy Untie-ability has been restored with a kind of yosemite tie-off. (This knot is probably stronger now too by lessening that tight angular turn of the collar).

TIPS:

Don't form the tie-off (green rope section in the knotmaker picture) until after Leg 1 and the Standing Part have been drawn up to form the desired structure.

Also, just like the bowline, only tighten the tie-off after you've finished working Legs 1 and 2 with the standing part tight.


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2013, 06:36:22 PM »
   I can not see any problem in the security of this particular Carrick mat turned into a crossing knot loop... It is not a knot on which we should add something, it is a knot from which we can not subtract anything - so it is a good knot, IMHO.
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3467
This is not a knot.

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2013, 07:27:17 PM »
The devil's in the details with that one... I find if I load one leg of that loop, I can make the nipping loop straighten out, such that it now becomes a noose. Perhaps if I were a better dresser, things might be different?

Anyway, here's this secured version of mine tied as a bend. It's now 4-way loadable and leg 2 (if it were tied as a loop) is nearly a perfect "T" to the junction. Interesting...

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2013, 10:43:15 PM »
Hi NotSure and xarax,

Setted in the way showned by xarax, the simple version of the loop is vulnerable to the ring loading  in my experience, so that sometimes I can get the knot from slipping off even by force of the arms if it was not tight with a bit of force previously,and in any case,if not spill, it distorts in another(maybe better?) dressing(even if the orientation of the tail shown by xarax poses perhaps a little "brake" to all this).  I like this last idea by Notsure because ​​makes the knot TIB; taking a cue from these two considerations, I personally would add a couple of retuckings to the simple version in this way:

                                                                                                                                                                      Bye!

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2013, 01:31:38 AM »
  Hi Luca,

  The compact final form of your TIB crossing knot - based loop looks much better / less ugly than its knotting diagram !  :) ( I hope that you do not consider this loop an example of "a knot from which we can not subtract anything "... :) )
   Needless to say, in all those "secure versions", the most interesting property of the capsized forms of the Carrick mat-based bends and loops ( the amazing, almost miraculous transformation of a loose, flat pattern of interweaved lines into a tight 3D knot at an instance, in just one step (1)) is lost, because the simple initial Carrick pattern is buried underneath other, more complex structures. To my mind, it seems as if we have forgotten why we had utilized the Carrick mat in the first place ! Moreover, I can not figure out any simple, easy to remember method to tie them in the bight - but I might well have missed something.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3105.msg18631#msg18631
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 01:48:26 AM by xarax »
This is not a knot.

Luca

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2013, 02:20:06 AM »
I can not figure out any simple, easy to remember method to tie them in the bight

Me neither!(a "pretzel" shape could be a good start, but the rest is all to see!), For now is "encouraging" the idea that it can be TIB!However,what I do not like is still the curvature  that the standing part assumes after passing through the "false collar" ..
                                                                                        Thanks for the pics!

                                                                                      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NotSure, giving a second look at the "After Tie-Off" pic(reply #4), it does not seem to represent the retucking of the knot represented in the "Before Tie-Off" pic, or I see badly?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 02:29:00 AM by Luca »

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2013, 07:15:26 AM »
Xarax, the reason why I was (and still am) drawn to the "carrick mat" for a loop knot was for it's shear ease of untying ability.

I was a little disturbed at how much it could wiggle around / distort / slip / transform when loaded in different kinds of ways though, so I was determined to find a way to secure this loop from all of that nonsense.

Thankfully, in my mind, this problem has been solved and the ease of untying has been preserved. I don't believe it is that much more complicated to tie now, but then again I've been practicing it a lot...

Luca, the "After Tie-Off" pic in reply #4, is actually fully dressed as well. Sorry about that. Here are a couple of pictures showing the retucking in a still loosened form. Btw, nice catch with the TIB. I had a quick look at it, but I think all the twists required probably make it a no-go. (pretzel indeed)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 07:22:52 AM by NotSure »

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2013, 06:52:41 PM »
Perhaps I should have stated the goals I was striving for in my opening post to avoid some of the debating debacle here? Better late than never!

So, my ideal PET loop knot would be easy to untie after heavy loading and also would be able to withstand:

individual leg loading;
ring-loading;
tail-loading and/or non-directional loop loading (from people accidentally hanging on to the tail end instead of, or in addition to, the loop);
and slack testing

(Yes, I'm shooting for the moon, wanting all the cake and eat it too, etc) :D

I don't believe there is one that accomplishes all those particular traits better than the Secured Carrick Loop #2 that I proposed above. But then I don't know every loop knot and so I do appreciate any pointers, improvements or directions you guys could send this way.

Luca's comes close (and possibly may even outperform this one), but I personally find it somewhat problematic to tie/dress consistently and correctly, also I think a half-hitch lock for the tail-end may be required in some instances. I'm still mulling his variation over right now. Maybe with some more practice and testing in different materials my mind will clear up on this one...

Cheers.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 06:53:31 PM by NotSure »

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2013, 07:21:39 PM »
The knotmaker diagrams sometimes aren't terribly easy to follow so the following pictorial is of my version of the secure carrick loop (or bend for that matter) complete with my ingrained bowline-like thought process as a commentary.

Enjoy.

NotSure

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 40
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2013, 07:23:01 PM »
part 2 of 2

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: Secure version of a Carrick Loop
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2014, 06:25:10 PM »
   I have noticed only recently that the Luca s TIB crossing knot-based loop shown at (1) and (2), is identical to the "doubled" Span-bend-based TIB bowline B, shown at (3). It seems that, by now, we have tied almost all the simple TIB PET eyeknots that exist - but we will never be sure we have tied them all, unless we devise a systematic way of generating such knots - something like the periodic table of elements. The fact that we do not have a general, exhaustive method of generating knots, even for the less complex symmetric bends, tells me that we have not reached the end of our road... So we can only keep walking/tying, with the hope that, some day ( not in the veeery distant future !  :)), we will succeed in exhausting all the possibilities, by the only methods we have : repetition, and trial and error...

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4649.msg30241#msg30241
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4649.msg30243#msg30243
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4692.msg30296#msg30296
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 06:26:52 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.