Climbers are sooo poor knot tyers ! They know only a very small number of knots ( and they even naively
believe that these knots are the only ones, and the best possible ones, suitable for them, simply because they do not know anything else...), they do not know ( and they do not want to learn ) how those knots "work", they do not know ( and they do not want to try to figure out ) how to improve them, and, last but not least, they just do not care about knots ! Fortunately, knots were tied, tried, studied, and improved by sailors. If the water on planet Earth was less or was frozen, perhaps we would have had more climbers and fewer sailors - but I am sure we would have had fewer and worse knots !
When a knot tyer watches this video with the fig.8 loop, the very first thing he notices, is the most
obvious thing : the initial shape of the
fig.8 loop is distorted very unevenly, to a degree it becomes unrecognizable. Then, the next thing he notices is that this outer "higher" collar seems to be almost unloaded, that it, almost redundant ! Evidently, it does not participate in the dissipation of the tensile forces as mush as the other segments of the nub - and when a structure does not utilizes some of its available elements, or a knot does not utilizes some of its segments, it is not an optimally designed mechanism : it uses more material than it needs, and it uses it in a non-optimal way.
Therefore, it is reasonable for a knot tyer to think that this knot could perhaps be "
abbreviated" ( Dan Lehman s term ) : it can become less convoluted, yet remain as secure as the
fig.8 loop - and perhaps it may become even more secure ! We can not be sure about the role played by the much less loaded/utilized elements, as this outer "higher" collar - it may be positive, but it may also be detrimental, and contribute in a less favourable loading of the other elements, which carry the largest percentage of the burden induced by the tensile and compression forces inside the nub.
And, just after that, a knot tyer will ask himself if an "abbreviation" of the
fig.8 loop would improve it regarding its greater problem, the difficulty of untying it after heavy loading. Perhaps a smaller, less convoluted knot, which consumes less material, but which utilizes this material in a more even and efficient way throughout its nub, would be easier to untie.
My understanding, judging from the conservative, to say the least, way climbers see knots, is that an "abbreviated"
fig.8 loop would never persuade them that it is equally or even more effective. However, perhaps the opposite strategy may work : Leave the redundant elements there, in their almost decorative role, and
add something more, which will improve the overall balance and achieve a more even distribution of the forces inside the nub, so the knot will be distorted less, and will become more easy to untie. This was the meaning of my idea to "plant" / "nail" / retuck the Tail End through a properly chosen opening of the
fig.8 loop, so the equilibrium of tension, compression and torsion inside the nub becomes more pronounced.
To whom am I telling this ? To people that have never just think for just a minute about the number of different dressings a
fig.8 loop may have ? And they still
believe in the TWO infamous "strong" and "weak" forms, TWO "more efficient" and "less efficient" dressings, etc... ? In short, in the ying and the yang ?
And they call me, the poor old sailor who dares to tell them that there are more stable and symmetric dressings of the
fig.8 loop,
a parrot ?
It was always like this, even in the purest scientific fields, like physics. The new ideas were established, only after the previous generation of physicist had retired... Perhaps, in the future, some young climber, who will also happen to be a knot tyer, will tell himself : " Enough, with this sacred
fig.8 loop ! Let us search for something else.."
The parrrrotttt.