Eskimo Bowline for Climbing?

[Harold Kahl]

I haven't seen much, if any, discussion of the Eskimo Bowline, aka Cossack knot, used for climbing in place of say the 1010 bowline or Figure 8. It would seem to have at least one advantage over the 1010, in that it has a lesser tendency to come untied. Does this knot have some fatal flaw that would prevent its use in this application?

[SS369]

Hello Harold.

I find that it distorts when the loop is pulled straight after tying and hanging in a harness and it comes loose, undone with some pull and jerk motions. I wouldn't feel good about it as a tie in loop personally.
That said, I have also tried my "simple lock" to it and find it is secured at he expense of an awkward bulk when sideways.

Can't see the need for it honestly when a locked standard bowline or Fig. 8/9 does well.
I don't recommend it.

SS

[agent_smith]

It would seem to have at least one advantage over the 1010, in that it has a lesser tendency to come untied. Does this knot have some fatal flaw that would prevent its use in this application?

Any unsecured Bowline or Anti-Bowline has a 'fatal flaw'.

That fatal flaw is that under cyclic loading conditions / slack shaking, the knot structure has a tendency to work loose.
Note this insecurity occurs in synthetic kernmantel climbing ropes - due to smooth sheath construction.
Historical photos of Edmund Hillary show the common #1010 Bowline and #1072 Portuguese Bowline (additional wraps of rope around waist to pad it out) - but it crucial to note that ropes were 'hawser' style construction and made from hemp/sisal/manila vegetable fibres. These early ropes were more 'frictive' (and also far less reliable than modern synthetic kernmantel ropes).

Note also that in Hillary's era, they only 'tied-in' with a fixed eye knot around their waist - if they tied-in with a knot structure that acts like a noose - the consequences would have been fatal in the event of fall (assuming their rope didn't break).

[roo]

I haven't seen much, if any, discussion of the Eskimo Bowline, aka Cossack knot, used for climbing in place of say the 1010 bowline or Figure 8. It would seem to have at least one advantage over the 1010, in that it has a lesser tendency to come untied. Does this knot have some fatal flaw that would prevent its use in this application?

I don't think either a plain bowline or a plain Eskimo bowline would be adopted for most critical use applications due to a lack of security in the face of motion.

It's interesting that many typical augmentations for the bowline are often much less effective when tried with the Eskimo bowline.   It may be a future avenue of investigation.

[Dan_Lehman]

It would seem to have at least one advantage over the 1010, in that it has a lesser tendency to come untied.

One can't be happy with mere "lesser tendency,"
security is critical!  There are many ways to secure
the bowline, which is otherwise well known, unlike
the Eskimo bowline.

--dl*
====

[Harold Kahl]

It would seem to have at least one advantage over the 1010, in that it has a lesser tendency to come untied.

One can't be happy with mere "lesser tendency,"
security is critical!  There are many ways to secure
the bowline, which is otherwise well known, unlike
the Eskimo bowline.

--dl*
====

Of course it is true that a secured standard bowline is better than unsecured Eskimo bowline, but I suspect that a suitable securing method could be found for the Eskimo bowline, if one were to put forth a similar effort to that which has been spent on the bowline. Am I wrong about that?

[agent_smith]

Of course it is true that a secured standard bowline is better than unsecured Eskimo bowline, but I suspect that a suitable securing method could be found for the Eskimo bowline, if one were to put forth a similar effort to that which has been spent on the bowline. Am I wrong about that?

A similar effort has been done long ago - and I realised that pursuing securing methods to lock-down an anti-Bowline were ultimately an exercise in futility (for climbing and other fall-protection applications).

You absolutely can (of course) perform the same tail maneuvers as per #1010 common Bowline to secure an anti-Bowline. For example, you can create an anti Scotts locked Bowline and an anti EBSB Bowline. Everything is the complete opposite of what you would normally tie with the #1010 common Bowline as a starting base.

In the EBSB Bowline, you begin with #1010 common Bowline (tail inside the eye). The tail finally exits through the collar and parallels the SPart.
In the anti EBSB Bowline, you begin with the tail outside of the eye. The tail finally exits the collar and parallels the ongoing eye leg.

Several years ago, when playing around with the anti Bowline and its secured derivatives, I noted its inherent 'instability' - where an odd pivoting action can be induced by alternately grasping and pulling on each eye leg. Pull down on one eye leg and the 'nub' pivots - pull down on the other eye leg and the nub pivots the other direction.

In secure Bowlines based on #1010 - this pivoting is trivial to insignificant.

Try it yourself and you will see the effect.

Climbers generally don't like tie-in eye knots that exhibit peculiar side-effects under certain loading profiles.

I concur with Scott - in that I don't like to use anti-Bowlines as a tie-in knot for rock climbing applications.

[Dan_Lehman]

It would seem to have at least one advantage over the 1010, in that it has a lesser tendency to come untied.

...

Of course it is true that a secured standard bowline is better than unsecured Eskimo bowline,
but I suspect that a suitable securing method could be found for the Eskimo bowline,
if one were to put forth a similar effort to that which has been spent on the bowline.\
Am I wrong about that?

No, but then you've lost your orginal point
--that "It would seem to have at least one advantage over the 1010,
in that it has a lesser tendency to come untied".  If you're going
to the extent of adding security, then you don't need to start by
deviating from the commonly known base.

And I've yet to get a quick way of casting the Eskimo bwl.
--the reach-with-tail-and-with-simple-loop-put-turNip-into-SPart
maneuvre--, whereas one can do it very quickly with the bowline
(and preferably with the opposite orientation to how it has been
presented --shown & parroted-- throughout history!  ::>> have
the crossing point on the top face not below!).

But I'm remiss in not noting that in fact I like --seem to prefer--
the simple "Janus"ing of the Eskimo bwl. over the identical
structure but for what *ends* are loaded that would be a (non-"anti-_
bowline.  (I.e., the change from one to the other can come
by connecting the returning eye leg to the tail of itself, to become
the other.)
((This, btw, is a way to discover *new* knots ::
 to start with one and then reconnect its parts.))


--dl*
====

[alanleeknots]

Hi All, 
         I have this Lee's Eskimo 8 bowline quiet few year now , Xarax  like it, I test it and proof it can handle heavy load,
         well secure, easy to untie after heavy loading. no sure how how hard to tie it.
         I know nothing about climbing, I have no said, You guys are climber, see if it worth while to talk about it.
         
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hpjLU_XHlk

          謝謝 alan lee.