Honda knot revisited

[2Kenora]

Okay so I know that the Honda knot isn't the most popular knot these days seeing as how roping calves isn't as big as it once was, but I always wondered why the knot was never improved upon.  I mean, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but I've seen many a time where the lasso roper (Calgary Stampede;  Saskatchewan rodeos; etc) have taken special attention to their rossen covered, hawser laid throwing ropes and done away with the ugly and cumbersome overhand stopper knot needed to make a proper honda and used whippings and other methods to keep the loop from pulling free.
What got me going on this took place many years ago as I spoke with a cowpoke that I'm sure would have taken the best time for roping a calf but his lariat came loose and his calf got away.  I got to talking with him afterwards and it turned out that he wanted to "streamline" his lariat and in this instance had tried a whipping in place of the single overhand stopper that he felt was costing him fractions of a second from his time.  But the whipping let go and so did his lasso!
I toyed with some rope for a time and came up with the following which I gave to the poke along with my best wishes.  I showed him how to tie and dress it (slightly easier to dress to the proper loop size and still very easy to tie).  He did well the rest of the day but I have no idea if he used my knot or simply went back to the conventional hondo.  I think that if he'd used my knot I would have seen some mention of it or any other variation on the Honda knot but I never have.
Has anyone here heard of any improvement or other way of making a Honda?
Below are some front and back pics of a conventional Honda alongside the knot I showed the young cowpoke, followed by the how to tie:

[2Kenora]

In the first two pics the knot on the right is the conventional Honda.\
On the left is the more compact "other" version.

[xarax]

   Going just one step further, make the Tail End go through the opening shown by the red dot added on the attached picture of yours - and make it go "over" the returning eye leg. Alternatively, you can twist the two legs of the collar around the eye leg of the Standing Part 180 degrees clockwise - what is the same thing. I believe this is the more secure form of the 4 different "Eskimo" bowlines, because, by going through there, the Tail End is squeezed in between the first curve of the Standing Part and the first curve of the returning eye leg - the most tight place to be ! 

[kjschaefer]

Hello 2Kenora,
if I'm not mistaken, your suggestion amounts to a left handed eskimo bowline.
Regards K

[xarax]

   if I'm not mistaken, your suggestion amounts to a left handed eskimo bowline.

  You are mistaken... There are four "Eskimo" bowlines, two of which are "left"-, and two "right"-handed, depending on the position of the Tail End ( the second leg of the collar ) relatively to the continuation of the returning eye leg ( the first leg of the collar ) : "over" ( as shown in 2Kenora s picture ) or "under" it.

[kjschaefer]

Hello Xarax,
as I count myself still as a beginner in knotting matters, I'm a bit slow regarding your correction. The issue at hand (for me at least) was: is the proposed "honda-variation" a new knot? To my mind it is neither a new knot nor a variation of the honda knot. I understand the proposed knot as an "eskimo" bowline, that is, a bowline, where one of the eye-legs is caught by the collar istead of the s-part (resulting in a very viable bowline, better suited for ring loading than the "standard" bowline. And of course there are four possibilities to form this loop, but unless using laid rope, in terms of properties I would expect only 2 variations that count: working end inside or outside the loop. - Regarding left- and righthandedness I still find the use of this term sometimes a bit confusingly attributed to knots and regarding the bowline - where to look at, formation of the nipping loop? There I see the only place, where it would be possible to define handedness unambigiously, that is, no matter, in which orientation the knot itself is presented. In the shown example I see a left handed bowline (if the preceding definition is agreed upon): as moving along the rope from standing to working end (or vice versa) the rope transits space in a form that is understood (in science and engineering professions) as lefthanded (rotating to the right in the shown picture, but moving up).
Looking forward to clarification. Regards K

[xarax]

is the proposed "honda-variation" a new knot ?

Obviously not - but then, which knot is ?  Can we be sure that the weaverbird has not tied all the possible simple knots, in trying to impress the females all those millions of years ? 

nor a variation of the honda knot.

  We can not tell this... 2Kenora tied this while he was trying to improve the Honda knot, and there are some resemblances between those two knots, indeed. It is very hard to define what is a variation of certain knot, and from which stage this variation is suddenly transformed ( in out mind only, of course ) to a different knot.

in terms of properties I would expect only 2 variations that count: working end inside or outside the loop.

   Noope... Those 4 variations are different, geometrically, topologically, AND functionally ! I am not sure they should even be called as variations of the same knot !
   The two variations where the Tail End is "under" the returning eye s first curve, are much safer - the Tail End can not slip out of this squeeze ( see the attached pictures ).

the only place, where it would be possible to define handedness unambigiously

   No. Handedness can be defined unambiguously everywhere there is a helix - because this property of helices is unambiguous. If we have a nipping loop where the two legs are crossed, in an "over"/"under" relation ( and they are not parallel to each other ), we have one turn of a helix, so we can define its handedness.
   
   You "mistake" was the article "the" !  As you mention, there are 4 "variations" of the "Eskimo" bowline, 2 of each handedness - and this has nothing to do with the handedness of the ( laid ) rope itself ! So, there is no such thing as "THE" left handed Eskimo bowline - there are two of them. The final position of the Tail End counts, and counts more than handedness !

   There are two forms of the common bowline : the "left-handed" and the right-handed""  one. Similarly there are two forms of the "Eskimo" bowline, the left-handed and the right-handed.
   Right ? Wrong !  The two legs of the collar of the standard, common bowline remain almost parallel to each other - just like the penetrating-the-nipping-loop rope segments at the Gleipnir, the ABoK#160 and the Sheepshank. On the contrary, the two legs of the collar of the "Eskimo"  bowline are crossing each other, at an angle of about 90 degrees. (The more round the bight of the loop, and the larger the angle between the two legs of the bight of the loop, the smaller is this angle. At 120 degrees, it is almost zero - just as at the common bowline). So the second leg the collar ( the tail), can pass over or under the first leg ( the continuation of the eye-leg-of-the-bight). That means we do not have two, but four different forms of the "Eskimo" bowline.
   It can be seen that, when the second leg of the collar, the tail, passes under the first, it gets itself into a position where it is squeezed in between the first leg of the collar and the rim of the nipping loop - so, at the end, we have a "hitch-like" knot, and a most effective prevention of any slippage of the tail.
   Therefore, from the 4 different forms of the "Eskimo" bowline, the two -where we encounter this "hitch-like" configuration between the two legs of the collar- should, presumably, be more secure than the other two. I guess that the difference should be quite apparent with very slippery material ( like Spectra and Dyneema) - but I have not made any relevant experiments.

[kjschaefer]

Hi Xarax, thanks for your lengthy reply. You stated in more sophisticated speech almost exactly what I wanted to infer. I missed on the term helix, but what I intended to say is, that in the basic form of a bowline there is only one helix to look at and therefore "left handed" should be correct.
One minor aspect I'd like to point out, though - in my first comment I spoke of "a left handed eskimo bowline".
So the mistake of talking about ' "the" left handed...' you attribute to me is not mine.

My (probably faulty) surmise regarding the handedness of (laid rope) was its possible effect on the characteristics of a left handed or right handed knot - it is clear to me, that the handedness of a knot is something else than the handedness of laid rope the knot is tied in. Sorry, if my lack of practice in learned discourse on knotting matters provokes misunderstandings.
Regards K

[xarax]

  ...in my first comment I spoke of "a left handed eskimo bowline".
  So the mistake of talking about  "the" left handed... you attribute to me is not mine.

   Hmmm... Imagine you have many identical things, and you want to <whatever> one of them. You will say : " I am going to <whatever> "a" thing " - meaning : "I am going to <whatever> a whatever one of those many identical things". The article "a" sounds like an indefinite article here. Now, imagine you have two different things ( and two things only, that also differ from each other ) and you want to <whatever> "the" particular one of them. Are you going to say " I am going to whatever "a" thing" ? Noope !  You will say : " I am going to <whatever> "this" thing, or "that" thing, or "the one of the two things, which...". The article "a" sounds like a definite article here.
   When there are two different left handed bowlines - as there are - and you wish to talk about "the" particular one of them, your speech will reveal those two facts : that the things are two, and that they are different. So, you will not say :" "a" left-handed bowline ". You are going to say : "This" one, or "that" one, or "the particular one of the two bowlines which..." . In such a case, where the things are two, and they are different, and you want to speak about a particular one of them, even if you use the word "a", you mean "the" , because the choice is between two, and it is a definite choice : You do not mean "any one" of them, you mean "this" or "that" of those two. Also, for two, and two only, things, you are not going to say " all", but "both", and if you do not want to mean a particular one of those two, you are not going to say "any" but "either" - because there is this residual trace of the third "number", beyond the singular and the plural, the "dual" number :
   "Dual number existed in Proto-Indo-European, persisted in many ancient Indo-European languages that descended from it  - and can still be found in a few modern Indo-European languages such as Slovene. Many more modern Indo-European languages show residual traces of the dual, as in the English distinctions both vs. all, either vs. any, neither vs. none, and so on. "
   
   Now, because I am a Slovenian, living in Ljubljana, when the things are two and differ from each other, and I read "a", I understand " the" ! 
   Or, I am not a Slovenian, but nevertheless I read what I understand, and I understood / misunderstood that you were talking about "an" indefinite one of the trillions of the left-handed "Eskimo" bowlines that are tied this moment in the Universe, and not about "those" ones ( about half of them, presumably...) which are left-handed AND tail-locked ( to use an expression / term that just happens to cross my mind right now...), as you should. 
   However, you are right you wrote "a" and not " the", so you can say that you meant "one of the two classes of Left-handed bowlines", and not "one of the trillions of left-handed bowlines "...  . I stand corrected ! 

   

   My (probably faulty) surmise regarding the handedness of (laid rope) was its possible effect on the characteristics of a left handed or right handed knot

   NOT faulty at all ! ! ! On the contrary, so damn right, that me, for one, I do not even want to speak about "the" maaany effects of rope handedness on "the" knots ! ( I use only kernmantle or braided ropes, where this effect is minimal, or does not exist, so I escape of "this" trap...)

[xarax]

a left handed or right handed knot - the handedness of a knot ...

   There are two, different things knot-tyers mean, when they speak about a left- or a right hand or handed bowline :
  1. Most people mean what Ashley means : a left- or a right- hand bowline is distinguished from the orientation of the Working End as it forms its collar, or, which is the same thing, from the final position of the Tail End ( "outside" or "inside" the eye ). This property does not change when the bowline is looked through a mirror - the Tail End of a left-hand bowline remains "outside" its eye, and the Tail End of a right-hand bowline ( ABoK#1010) remains "inside" its eye. 
  2. Few people mean the handedness of the nipping loop ( = nipping "turn", "nipturn", "turnip", and so on... ). The nipping loop of the bowline is ( = should be and should remain so ) "closed", which means that its two legs are "crossed", so the one goes "over" or "under" the other. That is sufficient to distinguish a left- from a right- handed nipping loop, because such a nipping loop may be considered as part of a helix, and a helix has a definite "handedness" ( helicity, cheirality ). This property does change when the bowline is looked through a mirror - a left-handed nipping loop is transformed into a right-handed nipping loop, and vice versa.
   So, "a" left-hand bowline may have a right-handed nipping loop, or not ... and vice versa. 

[2Kenora]

   Going just one step further, make the Tail End go through the opening shown by the red dot added on the attached picture of yours - and make it go "over" the returning eye leg. Alternatively, you can twist the two legs of the collar around the eye leg of the Standing Part 180 degrees clockwise - what is the same thing. I believe this is the more secure form of the 4 different "Eskimo" bowlines, because, by going through there, the Tail End is squeezed in between the first curve of the Standing Part and the first curve of the returning eye leg - the most tight place to be ! 

Ahh!  The Eskimo Bowline!  Thank you!
At the time I first came up with this configuration I had never heard of an Eskimo Bowline but while trying to recreate and thinking back to what I had done years ago something twigged in my memory and there seemed to be something familiar.  And of course you're right that with the extra tuck it would not only be more secure, but would be that form of an Eskimo Bowline.
And I appreciate the banter betwixt yourself and kjschaefer as I found it informative.
However, if used in place of a Honda, it is important to keep the tail as far away from the loop as possible so as not to interfere with the loop running along the standing part, which is the reason for the the turns and tucks that I illustrated.  And as far as security I feel that it performs as well as the conventional Honda, or at least for calf roping, but with slightly less bulk.  The extra tuck to make it an actual Eskimo Bowline of that type (either right or left) might not make much difference, but to the competitive roper where hundredths or a second can make or break the day it might.
I was just curious if anyone had pondered the same question as I - is the Honda the BEST knot for a lariat or is it just the defacto standard that nobody wishes to change?
Of course, despite the Calgary Stampede and the Texas Mesquite Rodeo there isn't alot of call for such a knot, but I still wondered. 

[James Petersen]

2Kenora,  first, let me extend a belated welcome to the forum. I have been trying to catch up on my reading in the forum after a rather extended hiatus.

Regarding your knot, the same setup had crossed my mind several times in the past, for use as a hondo, but that is as far as it ever went (the roper in my family was my uncle, who made braided rawhide hondos for all the lariats I ever had experience with). I believe this setup would work brilliantly. Its dressed form is very compact and seems secure enough for use as a hondo. (Security could be guaranteed with some liberal application of  Cyanoacrylate.  )

   Going just one step further, make the Tail End go through the opening shown by the red dot added on the attached picture of yours - and make it go "over" the returning eye leg. Alternatively, you can twist the two legs of the collar around the eye leg of the Standing Part 180 degrees clockwise - what is the same thing. I believe this is the more secure form of the 4 different "Eskimo" bowlines, because, by going through there, the Tail End is squeezed in between the first curve of the Standing Part and the first curve of the returning eye leg - the most tight place to be ! 

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5015.0;attach=15955;image

In my limited trials, this doesn't seem to make any difference -- when the form suggested is loaded, the tail rolls around to the same position as in the OP's form.

JP

[xarax]

when the form suggested is loaded, the tail rolls around to the same position as in the OP's form.

   As the rope in this particular knot is subject to torsion as well as to tension, when the knot is formed and then left to "close" without any further intervention / manipulation, and becomes self-dressed, this may happen, indeed - depending on the behaviour of the material under torsion. Different materials behave very differently under torsion - some ropes are able to "absorb" it completely, and some others resist to it, and "transport" any amount of torsion induced to one point further along their ropelength. However, if you dress the knot after it has already been tensioned a little bit and has already acquired a more or less compact form, you will see that the four variations are distinct, stable, and "remember" the form they have been dressed till the very closeness of the knot s nub.

[Dan_Lehman]

I've seen many a time where the lasso roper (Calgary Stampede;  Saskatchewan rodeos; etc)
have taken special attention to their rossen covered, hawser laid throwing ropes and done away
with the ugly and cumbersome overhand stopper knot needed to make a proper honda
and used whippings and other methods to keep the loop from pulling free.

PHOTOS of such knotted structures would make great
contribution to the Practical Knotting forum's founding thread,
"Knots in the Wild" !!  DO SHOW US!

... a cowpoke ... wanted to "streamline" his lariat and in this instance had tried
a whipping in place of the single overhand stopper that he felt was costing him fractions
of a second from his time.  But the whipping let go and so did his lasso!

Wow, seconds lost to the (mere) bulk of a finishing overhand knot!
Imagine if he'd tied off with one of Xarax's "Tackleclamp" coils
of cordage : the calf might've matured in the time ... !!   

Seriously, I can think of two structures I'd try rather than some
version of the Eskimo bowline :

1) Ashley's #1029 should give a good knot with double-nipping
of the line and presentation of the tail fibres to further whipping
finish against an eye leg.  (One might need some help in bending
stiff lassoing rope into a 1-diameter turn?!)

2) Use the anchor bend vice overhand as the base structure
and simply bring the tail through it, then whip end fibres to the
eye leg (which then might be beneath the rawhide abrasion
cover, further secured).  Heinz Prohaska recommended such a base
for eyeknots for rockclimbers based on the likelihood that the knot
would hold a not-further-tucked tail qua friction-gripping knot, alone
--this being an offered answer to the possibility that someone might
not fully "re-thread" their fig.8 eyeknot (although, for that base,
there is a simple "running through" that is pretty secure!).
This knot doesn't require the tight bending of the stiff line.

Both of these knots should give the nicely *wide open* aspect
to the eye, for easy running along the noose leg for tightening.

--dl*
====

ps : Nice to see "James Petersen" back among the chatterers!