Author Topic: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?  (Read 2127 times)

BelgianBight

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« on: September 29, 2017, 11:38:20 PM »
Would wrapping the standing part around the (standing part of the) loop formed by the bowline twice - instead of once - make the bowline better or less secured against untangling whilst shaking without a load on it?

In case a visual representation is required, I am talking about repeating the wrap that occurs in step two in the image below, before working the working end through the top loop again.



It seems to me as though it would provide a more secure finish due to the multiple wraps around its standing part, much like a slide-and-grip hitch, though I never see it used - for good reason, perhaps?

Any and all input is appreciated!

BB

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2017, 12:46:55 AM »
Quote
Would wrapping the standing part around the (standing part of the) loop formed by the bowline twice - instead of once - make the bowline better or less secured against untangling whilst shaking without a load on it?

Your terminology is confused - but the diagram you supplied helped me to understand what you suggested.
If I have correctly understood you... the short answer = No

Wrapping the tail around the 'returning eye leg' will not enhance the security of the common #1010 Bowline.
Note that the stiffness/hand of your rope plays a significant role...the more supple/flexible your rope is, the easier it is to set and dress the knot. Stiffer ropes wont benefit from this type of tail maneuvering around an eye leg.

A much better alternative is to use Scott's lock. I use it all the time...and Scott uses it as a tie-in knot for rock climbing applications (where safety is critical). Scotts locked Bowline is ingeniously simple and effective. It also places 3 rope diameters inside the nipping loop.


Mark Gommers

BelgianBight

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2017, 01:31:17 AM »
Hi Mark,

Thanks a lot!
My terminology was indeed wrong, and my syntax, having reread that sentence, was far from optimal. I'm happy you understood the gist of what I was trying to convey, though!

I hadn't seen the "Scott's lock" version of Bowline tie-offs, it seems simple yet very effective!
What scenarios do you use it in? I know in climbing people tend to shockload their tie offs a little by bouncing up and down slightly to set the knot. My usecase would be more of the "tie, dress and toss it over a mooring pole" variety. Any idea as to how it compares to the Yosemite finish - if that's even a sensible comparison?

Just to be certain, this video locking off the bowline is the correct way to tie the Scott's bowline?
Kr,

BB

*Edit: Provided I've tied it correctly; It does seem significantly harder to undo when compared to the Yosemite finish, which still retains the "pop-unlock" feature of the Bowline, no?
**Edit2: Let me correct myself here, I tied it correctly this time and it does indeed retain the "pop-unlock" - I'm loving this way of tying off a Bowline!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 01:51:51 AM by BelgianBight »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2017, 12:01:30 PM »
Its no secret that I am a fan of Scott's locked Bowline.
In my view, it is ingeniously simple and effective.

I am not sure whether Jedi master Dan Lehman or Sith lord Xarax are devotees of Scott's lock????
Regardless of where they stand, they would have to admit that it is simple and it works as advertised.

I hope that the actual discoverer (Scott) chimes in and gives his viewpoint.

I remember the time (several years ago) where many were working hard to discover new combinations of secure Bowlines.
Alan Lee (another Jedi knot master) has also created scores of marvelous new knots.

But, it appears that Scott trumped them all (no link to president Trump) !

I have heard some rumblings from 'Roo' - another member of this forum - where he posted that he found an alleged vulnerability where he was able to cause Scotts locked Bowline to deform. Maybe Scott can shed some light on roo's concerns?

Mark Gommers

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1804
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2017, 02:24:20 PM »
Good day BelgianBight and welcome.

I've posted here and there on this simple lock for the standard #1010 Bowline. The main thread is here > http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.0

I use this particular "simple lock" personally because it works and is simple. As you may read, there are numerous ways to arrive at a locked (or more secure) bowline loop and those are offered. But, if you read that thread fully, you will find that simple may go out the window.

roo had some misgivings, as he is wont to do, sometimes. But, I contend that if the loop is dressed well and snugged up, as a considerate knot user/tyer should do, then there'll be no problems.

I have used this configuration with every cord, rope, cable, wire, webbing, etc. that I have laid my hands on and it works.

I use it for my "life support" while rock climbing and have passed it along to other climbers.

It is up to you to form your own opinion.

Enjoy the process.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 02:42:11 PM by SS369 »

BelgianBight

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2017, 04:28:26 PM »
Hi SS369,

Thanks for the welcome and for the link to that topic. After having skimmed through that thread it dawned on me that the first "S" in "SS369" stands for Scott, and you discovered this locking method. So far I am a fan of this locking method and will be using it instead of the Yosemite finish I would have usually tied. Thanks for sharing it!

BB

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2017, 05:02:27 PM »
I am talking about repeating the wrap that occurs in step two in the image below,
before working the working end through the top loop again.

It seems to me as though it would provide a more secure finish
due to the multiple wraps around its standing part,
much like a slide-and-grip hitch, though I never see it used
- for good reason, perhaps?

Any and all input is appreciated!
BB ("Better Bowline"?  ;D ),
you're using "standing part" too loosely; we've come to compress
it into "SPart" and by that mean that part (or two) of a knot that
has full load --the "main line" leading into an eye knot, e.g..
And so what you're proposing to wrap isn't the SPart but the
"returning eye leg" (Agent_Smith's term).

IMO, a problem with the Yosemite bwl. is that in wrapping
ONE strand --1dia turn-- it asks too much of often firm kernmantle
rope, which will resist bending so sharply.

What you propose, however, has been done my me for wrapping
both legs of the eye; and the result is akin to the binding
seen in the strangle/blood knot, and, yes, does give good
slack-security as one would expect.  Tying becomes a little more
tedious, but hardly terrible.

Harry Asher introduced a bowline variation he named
"the Brummychan bowline" (I THINK that's it) in which
such wraps come around the SPart in making the (thus elaborate)
collar.


--dl*
====

BelgianBight

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2017, 06:06:24 PM »
Hi Dan,

I am indeed aware of my mistaken usage of the knotting terminology. I don't blame myself too heavily however, as I submitted this topic on Friday night at 00:38 after SEVERAL Belgian Trappists  :P

I definitely agree with you in that the Yosemite bowline does not quite work in firm kernmantle rope, even my rapelling line (new and still fairly stiff) does not like the Yosemite finish all that much, whereas it seems to take a Scott's lock without needing to shockload the knot (as final dressing) as forcefully.

Thank you for your further explanations regarding the Yosemite, Asher's version and your own (wrapping both legs of the eye), and the correct terminology!

Even though BB does not stand for "Better Bowline", I do feel like I have found a better way of tying my Bowline in this thread - with the Scott's lock. It does exactly what I need it to do (protection against coming undone when unloaded/thrown, and redirecting the working end so it is no longer inside the loop), it does it well, and it looks.... interesting, almost like a decorative Bowline when you look at it from the front.

Cheers for your input!

BelgianBight
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 06:08:12 PM by BelgianBight »

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2017, 06:11:08 PM »
Hi SS369,

Thanks for the welcome and for the link to that topic. After having skimmed through that thread it dawned on me that the first "S" in "SS369" stands for Scott, and you discovered this locking method. So far I am a fan of this locking method and will be using it instead of the Yosemite finish I would have usually tied. Thanks for sharing it!

BB
Regarding my misgiving on the Scott's Lock Bowline, I had some capsizing events during testing.  The more elastic the line, the easier the capsizing.  Here are some frame-by-frames of the phenomenon in bungee:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4480.msg32318#msg32318

The general shape-shiftiness of the knot leaves one a bit puzzled as to the optimum form, and I do believe novices could yank the free end to favor a more unstable form, and so I wouldn't advise this becoming a common-use knot.

If you are well-versed in the vulnerabilities of the knot, it is worth experimenting with.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


BelgianBight

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2017, 06:57:33 PM »
Hi Roo,

Thank you for your input!

I will remember the Monsoon Bowline you suggested for when there is a time when I handle bungee/springy rope, I don't own any at the moment aside from bungee fasteners - on which I use the provided metal hooks on both ends of the rope, rather than knots. I did try to replicate the capsizing by faulty loading of the working end in the bungee fasteners and ended up with a non-capsized knot I had to undo with my teeth (due to the biting nature of stretched and wrapped bungee cord):





Then again, I loaded it by pulling it manually, did the capsizing you experienced happen under a more significant load?

Br,

BB



roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2017, 07:20:54 PM »

Then again, I loaded it by pulling it manually, did the capsizing you experienced happen under a more significant load?

Br,

BB
The first time I had a capsizing event was with nylon rope under heavy load.  I believe a looser form and a spread-out bowline collar contributed to the failure. 

Much less force should be required for the more elastic bungee.  Variances in initial tightness and overall form will affect your chances of observing the event.
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


BelgianBight

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2017, 08:08:55 PM »
Thanks, Roo.

Does the capsized version still hold or does it slide?

It seems to me that when dressed and set properly, and when loaded correctly, there is no chance of it capsizing. SS369 using this version of the Bowline as life support for climbing reinforces that thought for me.

BB

roo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1796
    • The Notable Knot Index
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2017, 09:35:39 PM »
Thanks, Roo.

Does the capsized version still hold or does it slide?

It seems to me that when dressed and set properly, and when loaded correctly, there is no chance of it capsizing. SS369 using this version of the Bowline as life support for climbing reinforces that thought for me.

BB
As I recall, the capsized version turns into a shrinking loop with a poorly-held tail.

I think an optimal dressing can reduce the risk of capsizing significantly, but cyclical loading may increase the capsizing risk.  Also, as most knots can loosen from slack flogging, the "set" of the knot can vary with time and conditions.

« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 09:39:03 PM by roo »
If you wish to add a troll to your ignore list, click "Profile" then "Buddies/Ignore List".


BelgianBight

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2017, 09:52:42 PM »
Quote
I think an optimal dressing can reduce the risk of capsizing significantly, but cyclical loading may increase the capsizing risk.  Also, as most knots can loosen from slack flogging, the "set" of the knot can vary with time and conditions.

Something to keep in mind indeed. Thanks again for your input!

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 993
Re: Bowline with double Yosemite finish, more or less secure?
« Reply #14 on: September 30, 2017, 11:57:27 PM »
Quote
Regarding my misgiving on the Scott's Lock Bowline, I had some capsizing events during testing.  The more elastic the line, the easier the capsizing.  Here are some frame-by-frames of the phenomenon in bungee:

The key here is to understand that no climber/abseiler/canyoner would ever use 'bungee' (highly elastic) cord as a means of human fall protection.

When using normal EN 892 or EN 1891 kernmantel ropes, the phenomena roo reports simply doesn't happen.

Keep in mind that Scott uses 'Scotts locked bowline' for lead climbing applications - and this is the ultimate test of faith in a particular knot. You will die or get seriously injured if your harness tie-in knots fails. I know that Scott would never ever use 'bungee' cord as a material for human fall protection.

I have personally used 'Scotts locked bowline' numerous times for building anchors for top rope climbing and abseiling. Evidently, I am still alive because I am writing this post :)

Note: I never never never never never ever ever ever use ropes other than those that conform to EN 892 or EN 1891. Exception: I do also use Sterling USA HTP 'static' ropes...this is a well made rope (also popular with vertical rescue teams).

Note also that there is another long thread on this forum about HMPE cords...which cause issues with knot slippage (security). Might be worth checking that out. Again, HMPE is used in thinner accessory cords - I haven't seen it used in full EN 892 or EN 1891 conforming ropes.

Mark G