Author Topic: Based on Lee's Link (myrtle)  (Read 2310 times)


  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Based on Lee's Link (myrtle)
« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2020, 07:50:57 AM »
Actually, I might be totally wrong  here.
It is true that, on my first proposition, there is only the tail to prevent the nipping loop from capsizing (as opposed to the tail AND the returning leg which definitely prevents capsizing on other knots).
On this knot, although capsizing does not seem to occur under manual/normal strain, it might present a weekness there that would reveal under mechanical tension, like in the case of a controlled test. I think I just don't know yet.


  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
Re: Based on Lee's Link (myrtle)
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2021, 03:48:50 PM »
Hello Jecot,
Thanks for your presentation.
I'm late to the table here...but, I have some feedback (although you may not like it).
Everything I write is in good faith and is simply my view and is not in any way intended to diminish your efforts.

Your creation at your opening post is not inherently secure.
I tied it in several different types of dynamic rope and it works loose with cyclic loading and slack shaking.
When I compared it to Lees link Bowline,, the EBSB and Scotts locked Bowline I could not get those knots to loosen in the same ropes applying the same tests.
It is partly caused by the 360 turn that you made with the tail so that it exists inside the 'eye'. In some EN892 dynamic ropes, this acts like a 'coiled spring', and wants to open.

In your second presentation (which is not original and has been tied before) - I see the same 360 degree turn to force the tail into the 'eye'.
This knot is also not secure.

Having declared my personal views - I hope this doesn't discourage you?
I would encourage you to keep exploring because you might discover a new inherently secure 'Bowline' - and become famous like Xarax.