Author Topic: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing  (Read 6204 times)

Mobius

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 338
VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« on: April 17, 2015, 05:35:06 AM »
We all know that a knot that is easily tied is a nice start to whether we actually use that knot, or not  :P

In the case of mountaineering that is one aspect, along with security, why a knot like the Retraced Figure 8 Loop (RF8L) is prevalent in climbing circles. The other main reason, I believe, is it's verifiability. Unfortunately, 'verifiable' means different things to different people in this context, so the term is at least somewhat subjective. ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5254.0 is where this was partially discussed recently).

I am not trying to invent a new acronym for the sake of it, however I feel that the worthiness of a knot, in term of it's verifiability, has generally been understated. I believe for a knot to be considered 'verifiable' it needs to exhibit some characteristic that is distinctive. For example, the difference between a Granny Knot and a Square Knot is one tuck, yet the distinctive interlacing of the 'collars' lets you see you have tied a Square Knot correctly. A Square Knot is VET I believe.

As a counter example: The difference between a Hunter's Bend and Zeppelin Bend is not so obvious (at least to me). I have tied a Zeppelin bend quite a lot, yet I can look at a picture of a Hunter's Bend and really have to inspect it rather closely to know the difference. In the case of the Zeppelin Bend and Hunter's Bend, mis-tying one for the other is probably not a big issue, however since these knots are easily confused, both these knots are not VET, in my mind. Of course, the mis-tying of a knot into it's 'look-a-like' could be quite a safety issue in other circumstances.

Is VET a useful concept (acronym)? Since VET seems to rank a lot more highly than PET in the case of the well respected RF8L, it might be a useful addition to think about when presenting a new knot. Your thoughts please.

Cheers,

mobius

[edit: fixed the spelling of 'zeppelin' and Hunter for Hunter's :-[ ]

« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 08:24:16 AM by mobius »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2015, 07:22:48 AM »
We all know that a knot that is easily tied is a nice start to whether we actually use that knot or not  :P

In the case of mountaineering that is one aspect, along with security, why a knot like the Retraced Figure 8 Loop (RF8L) is prevalent in climbing circles. The other main reason, I believe, is it's verifiability. Unfortunately, 'verifiable' means different things to different people in this context, so the term is at least somewhat subjective. ( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5254.0 is where this was partially discussed recently).

I am not trying to invent a new acronym for the sake of it, however I feel that the worthiness of a knot, in term of it's verifiability, has generally been understated. I believe for a knot to be considered 'verifiable' it needs to exhibit some characteristic that is distinctive. For example, the difference between a Granny Knot and a Square Knot is one tuck, yet the distinctive interlacing of the 'collars' lets you see you have tied a Square Knot correctly. A Square knot is VET I believe.

As a counter example: The difference between a Hunter Bend and Zepplin Bend is not so obvious (at least to me). I have tied a Zepplin bend quite a lot, yet I can look at a picture of a Hunter Bend and really have to inspect it rather closely to know the difference. In the case of the Zepplin Bend and Hunter Bend, mis-tying one for the other is probably not a big issue, however since these knots are easily confused, both these knots are not VET, in my mind. Of course, the mis-tying of a knot into it's 'look-a-like' could be quite a safety issue in other circumstances.

Is VET a useful concept (acronym)? Since VET seems to rank a lot more highly than PET in the case of the well respected RF8L, it might be a useful addition to think about when presenting a new knot. Your thoughts please.

Cheers,

mobius
I agree with much of this, and it gets neglected too often.  I actually think the invention and slinging of acronyms is counterproductive.  It serves to hide the meaning.  You can just say that a knot is easily inspected or verifiable, or that it lacks evil impostors (which have been another topic of discussion).

A knot can have benign impostors, too, by the way.  In the case of the Zeppelin Bend and the Hunter Bend, you have two secure knots.  The Hunter Bend is just jam prone, and the common method of tying the Zeppelin Bend makes it practically impossible to accidentally get the Hunter Bend anyway, so it's probably not the best case.  It's more common that instructions merely mislabel the knots out of ignorance.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2015, 07:24:12 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2015, 02:26:34 AM »
Easy is a relative concept.

Indoor rock climbing gyms are (in my opinion) a very good place to start to examine the use of particular knots and their 'issues'.

If knots are used at indoor climbing gyms (which is an 'artificial climbing surface') it is almost without exception ABoK #1047 (Figure 8 eye knot). I disagree with the use of the term 'retraced figure 8' - because this merely describes the tying method. When a person has finished tying #1047, it has the same appearance and is identical in structure regardless of which method was used to tie it. In other words, the outcome is the same - its #1047.

Another point I'd like to make is the concept of the 'relic' knot. Any knots left in a rope will cause a retrievable abseil system to fail - it wont retrieve because the knot will jam at the anchor point. Therefore, when climbers untie the rope from their harness and attempt to retrieve it, if they inadvertently leave #524 (the so called relic knot) in the rope (or indeed any stopper knot), it will not retrieve. Several mountaineers have died (or been seriously injured) as a result of failure to retrieve their ropes during a multi-pitch abseil descent (directly or indirectly - as once they have lost or given up their ropes - they are forced to continue descending without the security of ropes. Note: There are several scenarios which could lead to ropes becoming stuck/jammed during a retrieval process and I wont go into details here...

Back to the indoor climbing gym... As you can imagine, all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds could walk into a climbing gym and sign up/pay for a climbing session. The staff have to teach/assess/confirm each and every customer how to use the facilities belay systems and to make sure that customers follow the gym 'rules'. Typically, ABoK #1047 is employed within the rope attachment to client harness interface (refer attached photo).

ABoK #1047 is a popular choice for the following principal reasons:

1. It is well entrenched within the culture of climbing in general (its been used and promoted for 50 years)
2. It has a proven track record - we know it works
3. People tend to parrot what they've been taught - it gets passed on from generation to generation
4. People tend not to stray far from what their original instructor taught them - they defend what they've learnt
5. Culture is hard to break - just look at any workplace with workers who've been there many years in the same job
6. Instructors favour (English spelling) teaching it...its relatively straight-forward to teach it
7. No special precautions need to be taken with the structure - compared to #1010 - you will die if no precautions are taken (eg securing the knot in some way)
8. Its secure and stable in all possible loading profiles in the context of climbing (eg you can fall upside down and the knot will still work) - you can also fall sideways and it still works.
9. And now for Mobius point.... it is easy to verify. Most instructors ask customers/students to look for parallel 'train tracks' when tying/forming the structure -and to leave a 200mm tail (8 inches for people who think imperial measures).
10. This last point is somewhat tricky - the legal aspects. It is easy to find wide-spread support for #1047. In a court case (think Americans and suing everyone in sight), I would not like to have to prove to a jury that my unique knot structure was equal to or better than the vanilla flavour #1047. I imagine I could argue my case - and I would need a very good lawyer (think $$$$). Also, most climbing gym owners/directors would not want to get too creative and allow exotic (and potentially untested) knot structures to be used at their workplace.

Climbers in general do not really care about the technical details of knots or ropes - they just wont to know that it works as advertised. IGKT members on the other hand - really like the technical details. I bought a great book a while back called 'How Apollo flew to the Moon' - it goes into great technical detail about how NASA actually pulled off its remarkable successes. Your average Joe on the street doesn't care about 'PAD' sheets and 'The State Vector' in steering a space craft. They just like to know that Armstrong and Aldrin planted the flag and left foot prints on the moon (unless you are one of those conspiracy theorists).

I like to tinker with my router and tweek the settings. Joe average internet user couldn't care less about routers or the 7 layer OSI model or how data is communicated in packets. I like to build my own PC computers and install my own software. Joe average computer user couldn't care less about what goes on 'under-the-bonnet'. They just want to know how to turn it on and then get on with having fun.

In the same way, Joe average climber couldn't care less about intricate alternative knot structures to #1047. Joe average climber generally goes-with-the-flow and uses what everyone else is using.

Time to stop typing now...

Mark

« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:18:10 AM by agent_smith »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2015, 03:58:09 AM »
Another point I'd like to make is the concept of the 'relic' knot. Any knots left in a rope will cause a retrievable abseil system to fail - it wont retrieve because the knot will jam at the anchor point. Therefore, when climbers untie the rope from their harness and attempt to retrieve it, if they inadvertently leave #524 (the so called relic knot) in the rope, it will not retrieve. Many mountaineers have died as a result of failure to retrieve their ropes during a multi-pitch abseil descent.
Can you provide citation of an actual case of someone leaving a figure eight loop partially untied which then caused the rope to become stuck upon retrieval leading to death?

For perspective, this chart reports a total of 1686 fatalities in mountaineering in the US and Canada for a recent 55 year period or a little over 30 a year on average.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2017, 04:47:39 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2015, 04:05:52 AM »
  I disagree with the use of the term 'retraced figure 8' - because this merely describes the tying method.

  Correct ! However, "ABoK#1047" is like calling the Sheet bend as "ABoK#1" !  :)  For such a primordial knot, I do not see why we should use the Ashley s numbers... "Fig.8 loop" is OK. Perhaps "double line fig.8" ? ?
This is not a knot.

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2015, 07:04:53 AM »
I'm not even going to dignify a full and detailed response to roos post questioning deaths resulting from climbers/mountaineers failure to retrieve their ropes.
You cant be serious in asking such a question!
I'll assume you're just trying to make some comment for your own self-gratification (or self importance). Nevertheless, to educate you roo, I modified my post to indicate that it could be direct or indirect causation - because once climbers lose or give up their ropes, they are then forced to continue without their ropes. Continuing without the security of a rope(s) obviously is a risky prospect. Getting down safely off a mountain without ropes is one thing, but crossing a glacier without ropes is just as serious and risky as the climb itself. Glaciers have many hidden crevasses. Imagine falling down a crevasse without the security of a rope... So back to deaths - all tragedies have a root cause. I would argue that losing ones ropes triggers a whole cascade of events which can (and do) lead to deaths in the mountains.
I'm going to assume that roo is not a climber and is ignorant of all that I write herein.

Mark
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:24:58 AM by agent_smith »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1860
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2015, 07:21:13 AM »
I'm not even going to dignify a response to roos post questioning deaths resulting from climbers/mountaineers failure to retrieve their ropes.
You cant be serious in asking such a question!
I'll assume you're just trying to make some comment for your own self-gratification (or self importance).

Mark
I'm serious, and I do not ask for "self-gratification".  I'm giving you the chance to give evidence so we can examine the particulars of the situation.  That's all.  I'll gladly accept it should it surface. 

Please do not take offense. 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 07:33:38 AM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


Mobius

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 338
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2015, 07:29:19 AM »
   A property of a knot, which can be objectively defined ( and perhaps "measured", somehow, as well ) is the number of its slightly different "dressings". ( I say "slightly", because there are knots ( the "bi-stable" knots (1)), which can be "dressed" in so different, geometrically, ways, that they should be considered as different knots. )

I think verifying the correct dressing of a knot can be more subjective than verifying the correct structure of the knot in the first place :) For example, the nub of a knot can look quite different (and no doubt load differently) depending on what you tighten first when dressing.

  It seems that a knot which can be dressed in more than one ways, which ways, although slightly different, nevertheless can be a cause of some problem later, when/if the knot will be loaded heavily, is a knot that, of we can, we should better avoid.

I think that the two parts of verifying a knot have to be based on inspecting the knot prior to dressing it fully (ie. its loose predominantly 2D shape, that is hopefully fairly distinctive in some way) and then again when the knot is snug ready for use. That is what your link (1) showed I believe, though I could not get the Hunter s X Bend to look like the Pretzel-to-Pretzel Bend (I probably didn't try hard enough ;) )

  So, dressed in a one/single/singular form, would be a desirable, objective property of a knot, indeed.     

I think we could ruin just about any knot by finding a way to dress it badly. Some knots are able to be dressed quite loosely (a Zeppelin Bend for example) and it tightens to its best nub form all by itself under load (so I have read somewhere). Now that is a desirable quality.

Mobius

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 338
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2015, 08:03:04 AM »
Easy is a relative concept.

Indoor rock climbing gyms are (in my opinion) a very good place to start to examine the use of particular knots and their 'issues'.

If knots are used at indoor climbing gyms (which is an 'artificial climbing surface') it is almost without exception ABoK #1047 (Figure 8 eye knot). I disagree with the use of the term 'retraced figure 8' - because this merely describes the tying method. When a person has finished tying #1047, it has the same appearance and is identical in structure regardless of which method was used to tie it. In other words, the outcome is the same - its #1047.

Another point I'd like to make is the concept of the 'relic' knot. Any knots left in a rope will cause a retrievable abseil system to fail - it wont retrieve because the knot will jam at the anchor point. Therefore, when climbers untie the rope from their harness and attempt to retrieve it, if they inadvertently leave #524 (the so called relic knot) in the rope (or indeed any stopper knot), it will not retrieve. Several mountaineers have died (or been seriously injured) as a result of failure to retrieve their ropes during a multi-pitch abseil descent (directly or indirectly - as once they have lost or given up their ropes - they are forced to continue descending without the security of ropes. Note: There are several scenarios which could lead to ropes becoming stuck/jammed during a retrieval process and I wont go into details here...

Back to the indoor climbing gym... As you can imagine, all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds could walk into a climbing gym and sign up/pay for a climbing session. The staff have to teach/assess/confirm each and every customer how to use the facilities belay systems and to make sure that customers follow the gym 'rules'. Typically, ABoK #1047 is employed within the rope attachment to client harness interface (refer attached photo).

ABoK #1047 is a popular choice for the following principal reasons:

1. It is well entrenched within the culture of climbing in general (its been used and promoted for 50 years)
2. It has a proven track record - we know it works
3. People tend to parrot what they've been taught - it gets passed on from generation to generation
4. People tend not to stray far from what their original instructor taught them - they defend what they've learnt
5. Culture is hard to break - just look at any workplace with workers who've been there many years in the same job
6. Instructors favour (English spelling) teaching it...its relatively straight-forward to teach it
7. No special precautions need to be taken with the structure - compared to #1010 - you will die if no precautions are taken (eg securing the knot in some way)
8. Its secure and stable in all possible loading profiles in the context of climbing (eg you can fall upside down and the knot will still work) - you can also fall sideways and it still works.
9. And now for Mobius point.... it is easy to verify. Most instructors ask customers/students to look for parallel 'train tracks' when tying/forming the structure -and to leave a 200mm tail (8 inches for people who think imperial measures).
10. This last point is somewhat tricky - the legal aspects. It is easy to find wide-spread support for #1047. In a court case (think Americans and suing everyone in sight), I would not like to have to prove to a jury that my unique knot structure was equal to or better than the vanilla flavour #1047. I imagine I could argue my case - and I would need a very good lawyer (think $$$$). Also, most climbing gym owners/directors would not want to get too creative and allow exotic (and potentially untested) knot structures to be used at their workplace.

Climbers in general do not really care about the technical details of knots or ropes - they just wont to know that it works as advertised. IGKT members on the other hand - really like the technical details. I bought a great book a while back called 'How Apollo flew to the Moon' - it goes into great technical detail about how NASA actually pulled off its remarkable successes. Your average Joe on the street doesn't care about 'PAD' sheets and 'The State Vector' in steering a space craft. They just like to know that Armstrong and Aldrin planted the flag and left foot prints on the moon (unless you are one of those conspiracy theorists).

I like to tinker with my router and tweek the settings. Joe average internet user couldn't care less about routers or the 7 layer OSI model or how data is communicated in packets. I like to build my own PC computers and install my own software. Joe average computer user couldn't care less about what goes on 'under-the-bonnet'. They just want to know how to turn it on and then get on with having fun.

In the same way, Joe average climber couldn't care less about intricate alternative knot structures to #1047. Joe average climber generally goes-with-the-flow and uses what everyone else is using.

Time to stop typing now...

Mark

A very interesting post thank you Mark.

I have not had time to digest this post fully yet, however I think one inference I can draw from it is that though PET is an issue with #1047 (I am not good with Ashley's numbers, maybe I should buy that book :) ) it does not override the proven historical and largely successful use of the knot in general. Not yet, anyway. Verification is one part of it's continued use, however it is not a 'verification' vs 'PET' issue as I probably portrayed it.

Many mountaineers have died as a result of failure to retrieve their ropes during a multi-pitch abseil descent.

This is a real worry though. I am definitely thinking PET from now on.

Cheers,

mobius
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 08:15:16 AM by mobius »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3959
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2015, 08:24:09 AM »
I'm not even going to dignify a full and detailed response to Roo's post questioning deaths resulting from climbers/mountaineers failure to retrieve their ropes.
You cant be serious in asking such a question!  ...
This doesn't put your assertion in good standing, then.
I've been reading rockclimbing forum chatter for a long
time, and I don't recall discussion of issues with "relic knots"
--but I do know that the fig.8 eye knot is the the common
and commonly recommended method (usually in contrast
to the bowline).

And if you just think about the alleged circumstance,
you'd question even the gravity of the situation --not good,
but ... so grave?  After all, if the relic knot in one END of
the line jams at the rappel rings (or whatever) at the TOP,
you will at least have about half of the line retrieved below,
from which a climber could be belayed to climb up to free
the jam (the orientation of the line, then, would be sort
of upside-down vs. the abseiling situation --both ends
at the top, center point at the bottom w/belayer).

Now, some difficulty, even failure, to retrieve ropes on
account of the bulk and snagging of an end-2-end knot
joining abseil lines (the usual situation : a climbing rope
is tied to another or a haul line to make a full-length
abseil twin line).

Quote
I disagree with the use of the term 'retraced figure 8'
--because this merely describes the tying method.
When a person has finished tying #1047, it has the same appearance
and is identical in structure regardless of which method was used to tie it.
In other words, the outcome is the same - its #1047.
I used to hold a similar position on knot names, and on
this case in particular --to find it so stupid that two of our
kermantle-rope testers (viz., Dave Richards, & James Frank
(CMC Rope Rescue Manual)) included each such knot
in their testing (and, yes, got similar results)!!

ORRR, one can realize that in fact the assertion of getting
the same knot is something that can be empirically tested:
do the commonly applied two methods really have the same
result, in practice?!  --yes, in theory, except that you must
realize that this knot is NOT carefully specified (such as which
end bears load --and #1047's presentation is a case in point)!
Conceivably, an empirical study could find that the tying method
results in a difference, often.  (That said, there have been some
tests of haphazardly tied fig.8s showing somewhat common results.)


--dl*
====


Mobius

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 338
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2015, 09:31:53 AM »
....
do the commonly applied two methods really have the same
result, in practice?!  --yes, in theory, except that you must
realize that this knot is NOT carefully specified (such as which
end bears load --and #1047's presentation is a case in point)!

This is why I think a 'so-called' TIB knot needs to be loadable from both ends. If a knot is loadable 'S-part only', then that knot does not deserve a TIB status in my opinion. If a knot is tied TIB, then nobody wants to be playing "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" about which end to load in a critical situation!

Cheers,

mobius
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 09:47:27 AM by mobius »

Mobius

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 338
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2015, 12:49:36 PM »
Find an acronym !  :) ( in addition to the TIB-ness, which is OK, just something less of what you demand).

 ;D No-one seemed to like my VET invention... so I think I will leave acronyms alone for awhile ;D  With that in mind, maybe we can just try and talk about 'TIB-ness' in terms of either-end loading for some critical applications?

Cheers,

mobius

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3959
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2015, 04:33:42 AM »
I think a 'so-called' TIB knot needs to be loadable from both ends.
If a knot is loadable 'S-part only', then that knot does not deserve a TIB status in my opinion.

   A knot is TIB when it can be tied in-the-bight, period.  ...
   An example : you may have a long line, and you may need to tie a bowline in the middle of it, ...
+1, well put.
Throwing in an eye (or maybe a hitch) without need for
fetching the tail of the line can be a Good Thing !!

Now, one might insist that any mid-line eyeknot be TIB
but one shouldn't conclude that all are --there might be
situations that benefit from a knot that must be tied with
ends (but done once and thereafter resident in the line for
whatever function finds it so appealing).

--dl*
====

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2015, 10:36:54 AM »
Quote
No-one seemed to like my VET invention...

Mobius - I like the concept because it does indeed already have real-world application.

I like the 'verifiable' part - but no so much in favour of the concept of 'easy tieing' part.

Easy 'tieing' is a relative concept - whats easy for me or you may not be so easy for another.

Climbers/mountaineers have long appreciated and understood the notional concept of 'verifiable' - even though they may never have documented (or thought in terms of) that word as such.

As I already pointed out, indoor climbing gyms are an excellent place to start looking for answers - there would be a huge volume of customers passing through climbing gyms all over the world every year. Nearly all of these customers would have to know how to attach a climbing rope to their harness. The knot most favoured is #1047 (Figure 8 connective eye knot). Although I don't have actual hard statistics for you, I can say with reasonable certainty that #1047 is the preferred knot.

If we accept this as fact for a moment - then we can ask the question the question; "Why #1047"?

It is my personal view that (one of) the key reasons #1047 is preferred is because it is easy to verify. The structure has 2 key patterns:
1) It takes the form of the numeral 8; and
2) It has the appearance of parallel train tracks (which twist about in the form of the numeral 8.
There are other reasons too... such as 'proven reliability' - we know it works. And the vast majority would support its use - and therefore you have the general backing of the climbing community as a whole.

There are 2 indoor climbing gyms in my home town and both use and rely heavily on #1047.

The other type of adventure activity which also tends to rely on #1047 is 'challenge ropes courses'. Go here for some background info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropes_course

It might be worth your while to make contact with a local indoor climbing gym and ask the owner/proprietor what type of connective knot they use at their facility (and why). I would also be keen to find out the results of your inquiries (if you choose to do so). Would be good to get an outside perspective...i would suggest that you don't say anything about the concept of 'verifiable' - because that would 'bait' them and you would receive corrupted feedback.

Something else I'd like to point out: Knot strength is nonsense - what matters most is stability and security. I usually cringe when I see people in various forums on the internet discussing and comparing knots based on strength. Its a pure fiction. As far as I am aware, no tie-in knot has ever simply catastrophically failed on account of reaching its ultimate tensile strength in a lead climbing fall. I would argue that knots 'fail' on account of poor stability and/or poor security. Which brings me to the so-called 'Euro death knot'. There is an incredible amount of what I refer to as bullshit about ABoK #1410 - when in reality, its the offset figure 8 bend (no ABoK number available) that is the likely culprit. Anyhow,  if you ask indoor climbing gym owners why they choose a particular tie-in knot - if they start quoting % strength figures you can safely ignore it. Try to obtain additional info apart from just strength.

I'd like to add the concept of 'verifiability' to my knot study guides because I think it is a concept that has merit.

Mark

« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 10:51:52 AM by agent_smith »

xarax

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2781
Re: VET - Verifiable Easy Tieing
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2015, 04:41:16 PM »
   It would be interesting if you make a poll, and ask the members of the indoor climbing gyms in your home town which knot of the two shown in the attached pictures is the "correct", properly dressed fig.8 knot ( bend or loop ) ... :) :)
   This is another wager - if the "wrong" answers are more than 5% of the total, I win !
   Noope, the proper dressing of the fig.8 bend and loop is not easily tiable, nor easily verifiable. My theory is that people tie it, because it is such a beautiful knot !  :) 
« Last Edit: April 22, 2015, 05:59:26 PM by xarax »
This is not a knot.