variation of the highwaymans hitch...New knot?

[roo]

  I really hope that it is recognized as a new hitch.

As I mentioned before, it's really more of a loop (bellringer's) with a backup for stability.  Its non-sliding/non-collapsing form argues against the "hitch" moniker.

[tmayhew]

As I mentioned before, it's really more of a loop (bellringer's) with a backup for stability.  Its non-sliding/non-collapsing form argues against the "hitch" moniker.
[/quote]

Thanks for the feedback Roo,
Could you give me your definition of a "hitch" so that I can understand why it doesn't meet that standard. 

I have read that a hitch is a type of knot used for binding rope to an object.  I admit that it has a loop component to it but the action of the knot is a hitch.

[roo]

Thanks for the feedback Roo,
Could you give me your definition of a "hitch" so that I can understand why it doesn't meet that standard. 

Hitch --n. A knot form that anchors a rope to an object and usually collapses to form to the shape of the object or has such potential.

In the knot you show, the tightening must occur through a strategic working of a fixed knot form rather than mere pulling.  While exceptions occur throughout knot terminology, a knot so dependent on the form and function of the bellringers knot/loop will be favorably disposed to a similar description.

[DerekSmith]

Our Knotting Lexicon is so steeped in history and covers so many trades (who rarely talked to one another) that it can at best be described as archaic and vague.  Ashley attempted to rationalise our lexicon, but he was so bound by the 'current usage' of the time, he largely failed.

As a consequence today we see massive discussions such as the Loop vs Eye controversy.  Such discussion though are important.  They must be had at some point in order to rationalise the mishmash we have inherited.

I believe though, it is important that we apply a degree of clear rational logic as we rationalise the mess.

For me, the key element of a hitch is that it is a knot which would cease to exist in its desired form if the non cordage element (NCE) were to be removed.

There are a multitude of knots which are made to include a non cordage element, but for example a Bowline made snug around a bar is no different to a Bowline thrown over a bollard.  Even though the result is the line 'hitched' to an object, neither are (for me) hitches because they both would retain their intended form even after the removal of the non cord element.

On that basis, this knot, which would cease to exist if the NCE were to be removed, is clearly a Hitch.

Derek

[roo]

On that basis, this knot, which would cease to exist if the NCE were to be removed, is clearly a Hitch.

Huh?  If the object is removed, the bellringer's knot/loop with a backup is still there.

[DerekSmith]

Hi Roo,  is it cordage dependent?  The cord I tied it in simply fell away to nothing...  I will try in something with a bit more 'memory'.

[Dan_Lehman]

Here are several replies to issues raised in the recent discussion.

0) "Unfortunately when I tightened the trucker's hitch on one side,
the highwayman's hitch capsized on the other side."
!! BINGO!  Roo & I some decade? back raised the warning
about this vulnerability of the highwayman's hitch
--which was probably never used in reality, just in legend.
And I simply reversed the ins/outs of those first two bights.

1) "Where did you come across it?" "In my hands."
I've become captive again to knots fiddling and in
the process pulled a few old pages of slipi-free fiddlings
and --voila-- there is this knot., viz., #20000515m14:04  <--edit
(or something w/diff. day-time suffix).

2) "this simple variation transforms the value of this knot tremendously."
How so?  You've read (and can here re-read) my notes
of problems with this knot.  However, I'll share w/all
that on the above old sketch I've given the knot my
*stamp of glory* --a commercial fishing-boat stamp
(impressor?) that my (unseen by me) grandfather had.
I must've been impressed hy the sure feeling of the
nipping turn, yet unaware of the very turn's downside
vis-a-vis releasing.

3) It's a bird, it's a plane, no it's ... !
Is it a *hitch*?
Well, as Roo is emphasizing, and as I also remarked,
it is well possible for the knot's pulled release end to
render the knot a bellringer's (eye) knot --i.e., the
twisted initially place bight (of the SPart) will effect
a nip on the bight it encompasses just as a sheepshank's
turNip can do, and ... no release (unless one can haul
hard enough to pull out the nipped bight around the
object, which is not necessarily practical).

Given that this knot's SPart has a nipping turn,
it's fair enough to see it as an eye knot, even
though it is applied much like a hitch.  (And,
one might consider the simple larkshead /
girth/cow hitch when loaded : to some degree
it's operating somewhat as a twin eye, although
there's scant *knotting* to cite, absent the object!

4) "NCE" : IMO, not to the point, where "object" is.
There are many well-known hitches to cordage
--all those "friction hitches" climbers tree/caves/rock
use.

5) "... cease to exist when the NCE (<-object) is removed ..."
By this reasoning, a groundline hitch, anchor bend,
& timber hitch are not hitches --SOMEthing remains,
bereft the object.
Now, Derek did further write "in its desired form",
which extends the issue into finer delineations.

It's a tricky thing to define.  At least, for me, I exclude
the common round turn & 2 HHitches" as being a
"noose hitch" and among "nooses", which I classify NOT
by form purely irrespective of performance (as the latter
is materials/forces dependent.

6) "Hi Roo,  is it cordage dependent?  The cord I tied
it in simply fell away to nothing... I will try in something
with a bit more 'memory'. "
As I explained above, and repeated here, YMMV per
conditions.  Esp. if one has out much rope , hanging,
and has hitched around something frictive (a handy
tree, e.g.).  It isn't "memory" but firmness/stiffness
of the material, friction vs. the object, and force
upon the SPart (which might be just that of a lot
of hanging rope, waiting to be released).

But this discussion regards what remains after
(an incomplete) release; that with Derek regards
after physically (or mentally) removing the object.
THIS slip-free hitch (I think of it thusly, w/o getting
mired in philosophical points) can exist in full form
supporing a hook, e.g., with ample *EYES* --and
that of course puts '"hitch" out of the picture!
(Try it : replace a pile with a spar with a ring
to the same physical knot.)

7) "[A] Bowline made snug around a bar is no different
 to a Bowline thrown over a bollard.  ...  they both would
retain their intended form after the removal of the object."
Here, too, one can find issues.  Rockclimbers used to tie-in
with a "bowline on a coil" which could much seem like
a hitch, in the tying.
And one can snug a bowline pretty well to a relatively
large object and get significantly/practically different
loading provile --at equal angles of 120deg of SPart to
each eye leg, forces are equal, no longer the canonical
eye's 50% + 50% vs. 100%.  Will an eye knot
behave in the same across the range of such angles?

I know that your point is different in a stricter sense
of "knot class", but this is an aspect of things that
can intrude into some definitional exercises!


--dl*
====

[Dan_Lehman]

There is one key problem to face, maybe solve,
with slipped knots :: enabling the slip-bight to be
pulled clear of the frame & what it toggles.  With
stiff cordage (and it needn't be all so stiff), it's
difficult to make rope bend back on itself,
for the *bulb* bight tip to fit through a mere
2-diameter space!

I see that a simple solution is to make a sort
of minimal timber hitch nipping of the slip-bight
--if tying a spar or pile hitch, which give adequate
real estate for the bight to be open (and not compressed
in knotting around a ring)-- will do this.  But most of the
knots I've seen (& fiddled) do not.

As for the OP's knot, I see that I've discovered it
TWICE --2003 in a slightly different orientation
than here & my 2005 finding.

Among the many things fiddled in the attached photo,
you'll see some in which the knotting comes well away
from the tied-to object --clearly in the *loop* vs *hitch*
realm. I do NOT mean for this small image to convey
the individual knots --only to show that there are many.
(All for a purpose I have nearly as much trouble stating
as for a sheepshank --for which I also have many knots.!


--dl*
====

[tmayhew]

Thank you all for your feedback.  I thought this variant was novel and more secure than the Highwaymans Hitch.  I find it sad that someone has tied something similar so long ago and found it had no merit to be passed on to others.     

[Dan_Lehman]

I thought this variant was novel and more secure than the Highwaymans Hitch.
I find it sad that someone has tied something similar so long ago and found it had no merit to be passed on to others.     

Don't be sad.  I'm happy that someonElse assessed
the High.h. and found ti wanting, as had some of us
--but not those writing knots books!--,
and set about improving it.  Bravo!  And it is pretty
novel.

But my critique of the knot stands.  And I've opened up
the general issue of how to avoid too-tight binding on
a slip-bight toggle.  .:. look so some arrangement to
avoid that problem.  --because a lot of cordage doesn't
want to fold into a 2-diameter width.

I fiddle knots variously motivated, and by number alone
there's the implication that only so much time gets spent
with any one (depending ...), and things can be missed.
As I missed in 2005 that I'd done much the same thing
in 2003;
as I found the much-liked Gleipnir wanting (for I tied
it around a comparatively small-diameter object and it just
did not work well (at getting tightness into its nipping turn),
but others have much liked it; and I have used it, and have
sought improvements to it --call it the bright star of the decade
or more!

It is sad, though, that our knotting literature --for general knots,
as opposed to climbing or fishing knots-- is so removed from what
actually goes on; research for such books seems to come from just
prior books, not In-The-Wild observation.


--dl*
====

[tmayhew]

"avoid too-tight binding on a slip-bight toggle."

Does the statement above apply to the bowline? A bowline is a slipped bight thru a toggle with the standing end going thru the slipped bight. 

TM

[Dan_Lehman]

"avoid too-tight binding on a slip-bight toggle."

Does the statement above apply to the bowline?
A bowline is a slipped bight
thru a toggle with the standing end going thru the slipped bight. 

TM

"slip-bight" is the term --a bight serving to slip something.
And The bowline is the marriage of a bight + loop,
but the loop isn't a *toggle* (if anything, a *frame*),
and the bight isn't here for slipping.  (One might perhaps
see the sheepshank as having something more
of the slip (sans toggle!) aspect, hoping it doesn't.

Now, there have been presentations of a slipped bowline,
where the tail is folded back, for supposed easy/easier
untying (for a knot known to be easily untied!).  This
would show the problem I point to where the line is
tensioned, and then one attempts to pull out the tail,
in some moderately firm rope.


--dl*
====

[tmayhew]

"because a lot of cordage doesn't want to fold into a 2-diameter width."

But the bowline uses the 2-diameter width.

[Dan_Lehman]

"because a lot of cordage doesn't want to fold into a 2-diameter width."

But the bowline uses the 2-diameter width.

?!
It turns around the 2 diameters of the bight/collar,
but that part doesn't turn around the SPart all so
snugly (unless it's been *SS369'd*  ).

Are you not understanding the problem : that it is hard
to pull out a bight that is so tightly squeezed?!  These
questions are well beside that point.

--dl*
====