Author Topic: Ashley Bend #1452 extended  (Read 3720 times)

Ruby

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« on: November 29, 2014, 05:58:06 PM »
hi , do you think that this knot looks like Ashley Bend extended?
an old knot (from ABoK 792): 2 loops and 1 tuck





Ashley Bend #1452 : 1 loop and 1 tuck


Dan's Ashley Bowled Over re-tucked: 1.5 loop and 2 tuck





all similar, and all complicated!  :D



http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4777.0
"Ashley Bowled Over" & Re-tucked (#1452)!
« Last Edit: November 30, 2014, 02:55:04 AM by Ruby »

Ruby

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 174
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2014, 02:49:59 AM »
this knot looks like this


isn't it ABoK #792 ?



--


ABoK #1452 is a two-strand diamond knot. #781

ABoK #783,  Footrope knot,  is reverse diamond knot.

it's very easy to tie a reverse diamond knot, "first a crown , then a wall , then tuck up , and that's all"


and #792 is a doubled Footrope.
crown + wall + tuck up , + crown + wall + tuck up

and this is ABoK #792 extended again!
crown + wall + tuck up , + crown + wall + tuck up, + crown + wall + tuck up
seems complicated, but things just get repeated, very easy.

this way the knot is getting bigger and bigger... not practical any more. just more decorative 8)
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 11:06:52 AM by Ruby »

Knutern

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 113
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2018, 11:02:10 PM »
Old thread - yes I know.

I found one characteristic about the Ashley bend (the "normal one") that I cannot find in other bends. There is possible to tie more than just two rope ends together. However, the stability of that knot might be questionable.
I'm aiming for knots that is secure, AND that is easy to untie.

NautiKnots

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • Nauti Knots
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #3 on: April 04, 2018, 04:16:13 AM »
There is possible to tie more than just two rope ends together. However, the stability of that knot might be questionable.

I've found the 3-strand version of Ashley's Bend:



to be stable, secure, and strong under pull from any two (or all three) standing ends.

Regards,
Eric

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2018, 06:12:18 PM »
No : in #1452, after one end's overhand is formed,
the opposing end dives down into it going by & opposite
the finish of the tail; here, you are rising up with it,
as does #1408.  (Or you've overwhelmed me w/rainbow!)

 ;)

knotsaver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2018, 07:51:54 PM »
I concur with Dan, the Overhand(s) should be there.
I think Eric tied a 3-strand Footrope knot (ABoK 696) (or a 3-strand Diamond (ABoK 693)) because the Ashley's Bend can be tied by using a 2-strand Diamond/Footrope knot (ABoK 781, 783). We should tie a 3-strand Footrope knot with the last tuck of each strand under itself.

I found one characteristic about the Ashley bend (the "normal one") that I cannot find in other bends. There is possible to tie more than just two rope ends together.
Why do you say that? If I've understood correctly, have a look there
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2012.msg14196#msg14196


The KISS principle works here, and the winner is the venerable
Overhand knot -- ...

the simple (3- (4,5...-)strand) Overhand should have that characteristic.
Hope this helps.
Ciao,
s.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 07:57:56 PM by knotsaver »

NautiKnots

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • Nauti Knots
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2018, 04:19:41 AM »
One can view Ashley's bend two different ways:
  • as a capsized 2-strand footrope knot, or
  • as bend composed of 2 interlocking overhand knots.
Given that Knutern approached it as a capsized footrope knot, and spoke of adding a strand to form a 3-legged bend (and that footrope knots were originally tied in three strands), I showed a picture of a capsized 3-strand footrope knot.  This bend has three faces that resemble the two faces of Ashley's bend, but each individual strand does not form an overhand knot.

It is also possible to tie a 3-legged bend composed of interlocking overhand knots in the same pattern as Ashley's bend.  This knot is bulkier, with larger rim parts, and the three faces take on a different appearance.

I think both knots make interesting, practical, and attractive bends.  Either could arguably be called a 3-legged Ashley's Bend.

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2018, 04:09:31 PM »
I concur with Dan, the Overhand(s) should be there.

Note that Dan doen't say that overhands are not there,
but that their orientation is like that of #1408 vs. 1452!
(Mind you, they "are there" in this extended format and ... ,
I'm looking at how the working end eventually penetrates
the SPart's initial turn --that central nipping area.)

And please note that Ashley gives this knot #1452 inadequate
presentation : firstly, his image is ambiguous over some few
ways in which the knot can be dressed & set; and tying such
things --as yChan favors-- in a sort of one-fell-swoop,
both-tails-together manner *IMO* is not a good way AT
LEAST to show exact form --that is better done by
tyhing one half fully and then reeving the other through
it.  In this particular case, it is where one can show exactly
how the knot should/could be dressed (with arrowed array
of tail tuckings, one can give a couple of possibilities,
though in this case there is further shaping possible.)


 :)

--dl*
====

NautiKnots

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • Nauti Knots
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2018, 04:34:23 PM »
Note that Dan doen't say that overhands are not there,
but that their orientation is like that of #1408 vs. 1452!
In the photo I presented above, the knot is a 3-strand footrope knot, capsized into a bend.  If one were to withdraw any two of the strands, the remaining strand would NOT consist of an overhand knot.  I.e. it is NOT composed of intertwined overhand knots.  Nor is it in the form of ABoK 1408.

Quote
And please note that Ashley gives this knot #1452 inadequate
presentation : firstly, his image is ambiguous over some few
ways in which the knot can be dressed & set;
If you look at Ashley's illustration between the diagrams #1451 and #1452, you'll see a drawing of each knot in its dressed geometry.

Regards,
Eric

NautiKnots

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • Nauti Knots
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2018, 05:10:55 PM »
Here are a couple of photos of ABoK 1452 extended to three legs by adding another overhand knot in the same fashion.

knotsaver

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2018, 11:43:31 PM »

Note that Dan doen't say that overhands are not there,
but that their orientation is like that of #1408 vs. 1452!
(Mind you, they "are there" in this extended format 


I'm sorry Dan, I've misunderstood your words, but the overhands are not there (in the first pictures by Eric), as Eric said too, whilst "they are there" in the last pictures: thank you Eric, I was referring to that knot: it is bulky but it is nice!
Ciao,
s.

NautiKnots

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • Nauti Knots
Re: Ashley Bend #1452 extended
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2018, 04:44:58 PM »
It makes an effective 3-strand lanyard knot too, with a character like the footrope knot, but bulkier.