[ / q u o t e ]
(Although, to some extent, the torquer <<=== of what some
have called the "twirly flop" method leads to an orientation of the eye legs that
might have benefit.)
If I understand you correctly Dan, by "orientation of the eye legs"
(whether the legs are oriented crossed or parallel to themselves),
you can actually change the orientation through 360 deg. by rotating the wrist
in either direction when you pull the eye loop and let the rope run through the other hand.
Alpineer, you should EDIT your prior post to add in the '[/quote]' end to my words,
and, while you're at it, correct my typo in 'torquer'--which I just did in original.
I don't think that rotation is so free, but one can arrange the cross to be
with legs on either side, in addition to abutting. This is likely going to
come with torsion, one way or the other; but given some method(s),
torsion leads the orientation to be just so--YMMV on circumstance.
As your method has the eye-bight just drawn up through the loops
from a presumably untorsioned free-hanging state, it will naturally
form the *abutted* version; in the "twirly-flop" method, the twisting
can build and induce a crossed-legs version (and maybe the only
reason Wright & Magowan specified that was in recognition of it
and a go-with-the-flow rationale vs. ending up with torsion in the
eye!? How well, or whether, the legs will remain so crossed, if ...,
can hinge on the exact form and loading and thus whether the
S.Part draws to hold it vs. undo it.
--dl*
====
ps: Good luck w/car & computer --I'm too well & recently familiar with such things.