Author Topic: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?  (Read 430 times)

JRB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« on: January 03, 2022, 08:14:10 AM »
Friends,
For several months, I have been trying to find the published name of this Bull Hitch variant, if one exists.  See attached images of both sides. I found some discussions on Bull Hitch variations in the IGKT archives, but not this exact variation, nor a name.  I took the liberty of calling it the "Buffalo Hitch" in the attached video.  I am happy to change that reference in future videos (on its usage) if it has a published name.  Thank you.

Features:
1. Like the Bull Hitch, it is tied in the bight, and can be tied on a ring in the bight. 
2. Like the Bull Hitch, it is either end loadable.
3. When loading only one strand, and in comparison to the Scaffold knot in a side by side test, the jamming point for the Scaffold (where it can't be untied with finger strength) is reached before that of the Buffalo Hitch.
4. Once cinched, even without a load, it holds its grasp around the host nicely.  This has some useful applications. 

Video highlights:
1. I introduce it at minute 2:00
2. I explain and tie the Bull Hitch at 13:30
3. At 16:43, I begin the discussion on the 'Buffalo Hitch"


Thank you in advance for your consideration and time.

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2022, 10:47:42 PM »
I am familiar with this hitch, but never had need of it.
The transformation steps going from Girth to Bull to Buffalo can be eliminated, going directly to the Buffalo Hitch from just two coils around a hand. A bight is first passed through the ring, then the coils (1S+1Z) are formed using one hand only (the other hand holds the standing ends with the ring floating between the hands). Finally, take the ring and pass both coils over it. With practice you'll find that dressing the hitch takes minimal effort with this method.
It should be obvious that you can also make versions of this hitch using two S coils or two Z coils. 

JRB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
Re: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2022, 12:41:12 AM »
I am familiar with this hitch, but never had need of it.
The transformation steps going from Girth to Bull to Buffalo can be eliminated, going directly to the Buffalo Hitch from just two coils around a hand. A bight is first passed through the ring, then the coils (1S+1Z) are formed using one hand only (the other hand holds the standing ends with the ring floating between the hands). Finally, take the ring and pass both coils over it. With practice you'll find that dressing the hitch takes minimal effort with this method.
It should be obvious that you can also make versions of this hitch using two S coils or two Z coils.

Thank you.  Yes, I do have another way to tie it, and it sounds like what you are describing.

Would you agree that I am correct in calling this a Bull Hitch Variant?  And are you aware that it has a name?
I prefer not to call it a "Bull Hitch Variant" because I already used that term when I designed a Garda Hitch Footloop (using a different variant), and don't want to confuse my team with 2 different variants of the Bull Hitch.  If it had a published name, I would simply use that. 

I do have an application for it, where it performs better than the standard Bull Hitch.
I also plan to do some strength testing on it, for example vs the Scaffold Knot.  I already determined that it jams less.  But I am not aware of how the strength profiles compare.


KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2022, 09:19:32 AM »
i've informally called this simply a Dbl.Bull around net, Buffalo works okay tho.
i find it a bit over done in actual use.
Also find as we use Bulls, trade more strength for less grip as either/or w/single turn on host.
Remedied by RT on host to Bull, but perhaps a bit overdone on that too.
until such a point of grip where essentially 4 legs of support from to carabiner, rather than just normal 2, and other 2 just for seam that disrupts the normal 2 of support to quantity X.
.
To me, much of this we do is L-earning mechanix in general,
Except the exercises are all translated into rope language/expressions etc.
>> but translates into just about anything else as well.
Over and again facing fave quote of all time: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
.
The idea to me is to keep the 'holy sanctity' of the SPart(s) as a support column pristine.
Have choice to shear across the support column of the SPart like Samson @90o deflection
or to pull more along the SPart support column at 0o deflection; more like a splice or Cat's Paw.
Rather than, shearing across the support column more disruptively at Samson angle with a Half Hitch, Cow or eye2eye, and dual support legs too of simple choke/Girth etc.
.
Backhand Turn class like Cow have a counter torque in 2nd turn that other multiple turn of Round or Crossed Turns simply don't have.
Thus, Clove will walk/roll in it's continuous direction deployment almost as much as RT, even in Taut Line form of 2down/2up, let alone simpler 1/1 of classic Clove.
Scaffold has more feel of grip along, than shear across SPart to me.  Is harder untie but can be slipped off end, as is not seized so much on host as SPart.
.
A single  1x180o Turn to me is a pull,
A fuller   2x180o Round as a grip;
together 3x180o Round Turn then expands grip to more 2D type architecture like VT.
More turns just extending the 2D framework.
Because no ross-axis resistance in flexibles; i don't seek 3D.
.
i think have found that a (single) Bull has the grip to convert from a single Turn around SParts to a gripping, pulling along.
The doubled 'Buffalo' form just extension off of that, not sure the further tweak is as great an upgrade as before all the Bull !
i don't think it could save the day as much like classic Cat's Paw shearing 1 leg thru the arc gauntlets and still holding until weight taken off tho.
.
ANY way that traps rope/sling onto carabiner so doesn't simply disarm/fall off if high steps leg thru gate needs looked at tho :

.
The extension of the Bull single or even more so double/Buffalo flags a high step thru the gate more.

(getting olde, from my blue towel period, around Y2K before fading to black background, started out with our small group on ISA bbs in 90's before such called forums, it's closing spawning TreeBuzz etc. later this forum showed in bluz background)
Another (d)effect to watch here would be the sling does not automatically rotate wear positions, as like just a simple sling on carabiner free ranging.  Nor does it self adjust the leg lengths to the carabiner as well loaded with angle changes, thus carrying more on 1 leg than balanced, in very static material perhaps carrying solely single leg, elastic can allow compensation to carry partially on secondary leg.
.
i think not as much strength increase, for at single Bull level is already NOT shearing across the SParts with a single pull at Samson angle against the support column.
The double just extends that framework to me, rather than such a great jump from no Bull to single Bull.
.
The eye2eye sling, Running Bowline type choke also gives only a 1D framework for right angle work from host only, where the rope parts more or less in straight line across host against load.
A round sling or Girth by contrast gives double bearing on host of more 1D structure at same right angle to host, but pulled 'lengthwise'(ABoK exclusive Chpater_22) gives some 2D framework accessibility that the eye2eye single turn can't so much.
Dbl.Ring from lesson#1126 i still see as sliding up the SPart to host to shear across more at 90o deflection.
.
But again with single Turn on host we have choice between this weaker structure at more grip on host;
or to use like a Bull version of more strength/efficient usage of tensile strength but now less grip on host, as Bull pulls away from host more on seam side to grip less on host as pulls away from host some to not shear across SPart as harshly in trade.
As the choices work both ends of the geometry spectrum 0o and 90o pulls along or across own support column(s) of SPart(s).
.
i would try to not to twist to get the effect of less back pressure torque from 'seam side' to SPart side.
.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2022, 11:04:53 AM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

alpineer

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2022, 09:56:36 PM »
Would you agree that I am correct in calling this a Bull Hitch Variant?  And are you aware that it has a name?
I prefer not to call it a "Bull Hitch Variant" because I already used that term when I designed a Garda Hitch Footloop (using a different variant), and don't want to confuse my team with 2 different variants of the Bull Hitch.  If it had a published name, I would simply use that. 

I do have an application for it, where it performs better than the standard Bull Hitch.
I also plan to do some strength testing on it, for example vs the Scaffold Knot.  I already determined that it jams less.  But I am not aware of how the strength profiles compare.

I'm not aware of any prior documentation describing this hitch and what it might be used for. In keeping with the bovine theme, Buffalo Hitch seems an appropriate name. I'm happy to refer to it as such.

Yes, it can be considered a variant of the Bull Hitch, or an extension of, or a modification of.

Kost_Greg

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 273
Re: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2022, 03:19:46 PM »
Hi JRB

This a very nice almost symmetrical design around the Sparts, with very good grip, and a very good progression from girth to buffallo, demonstrated in TIB tying fashion.

Provided that you have included the clove hitch as well in your presentation, and if i was to broaden the "bull clan" of hitching knots, i would certainly include Xarax's bull clove hitch, with a clove component that binds firmly the Sparts for more gripping power.

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4748.msg30673#msg30673

Last but not least, another bull-like hitching design by the same creator, the bull pretzel hitch.

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5250.msg34395#msg34395
Going knots

JRB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
Re: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2022, 09:10:45 AM »
Team,
Thank you for all the useful feedback and references.  I am certain that I lack the kind of experience and education that many of you in all matters knotting.  But I am also fairly certain my creativity and passion is on par with your own. Let me relay a story: long before I knew of the IGKT, long before I had a copy of Ashley's book, and was simply a novice and self trained rope climber, using just a handful of knots out of a book, then another book, then another, well, on more than one occasion, I thought I might have invented a knot.  In fact, the Bull Hitch was one of those.  I devised a Bull Hitch, not knowing its name, was impressed by its advantage of over the Girth Hitch and Clove hitch for certain applications, and started surfing.  I discovered it somewhere, and didn't feel disappointed; I felt relieved that such a simple knot had a name.  Years later, I also fabricated Xarax's bull-clove hitch and with some surfing, stumbled onto the IGKT forums and that very post from Xarax.  And so it's nice to see the journey come full circle.  Let's stay on that hitch for a moment.  That thread is from 2014!  And that is a useful knot.  It's benefit is lost here on the forum archives.  Let's put it in a place where others can find it and tie it and USE it!!! 

Unless such a resource already exists, I am suggesting that if the IGKT is the entity responsible for determining if a knot is novel and unique and deserved of a unique name...  well, why don't we also have the collective responsibility to maintain a IGKT MASTER KNOT LIST?  Once created and published, we would inform the websites which publish knot details of the existence of the list.  So that everybody is looking at the same place. 

Lucky for us, Sir Ashley has done most of the work already... we start with ABOK, and simply take all the knots in the index and put them in a list. It's not a violation of copyright to cite the name and number. We don't need to have every detail about every knot... we don't need to have tying instructions.   Simply a list.  Perhaps the name, a description, a photo, and a reference to where to find more info, with ABOK references for most of them.  We can always add more attributes later.... the inventor... the year... checkbox for attributes... TIB knots.... loop knots.... double loop knots... friction hitches.... you get the idea... there could be a hundred attributes for all I know, but that is not the priority.  A name and a description and photo will get us started.  And of course, that list will have knots that were devised after the publication of ABOK.  Blakes hitch for example.  The Bull Hitch.  The Clove-Bull Hitch.  The Buffalo Hitch... And whatever other creations are buried in this forum. As you are likely aware, I have a few recent entries here.... and I have a few more in progress.  Lets get them and yours, and after appropriate review and approval, get them on the list. 

As far as I know, it was not Ashley's job to create the book.  It was his initiative.  And it has served us well... But if he was reading this forum, wouldn't he agree that his work needs to be continued?  So who is picking up the slack?  Who is maintaining the updated list? With technology, that chore is so much easier than it was for Sir Ashley.  All the info could simply be a new tab on this site.  Click here and imagine there was a surfable, searchable knot index.  That would be fantastic!!

/https://www.igkt.net/

Pls let me know if something exists or if anybody wants to work on it ... I sure don't have much spare time, but I can help.  I am aware of some WEB based enablers that could help us collaborate privately via the before anything is published.  Secure web based file sharing.... Google Sheets... Confluence.... and others.  And while I am on my 'soapbox', somebody call Agent Smith ... and let him know he's missed. 



KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 417
Re: Bull Hitch Variant : Buffalo Hitch?
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2022, 01:06:49 PM »
To my eye,  Pretzel shears more ACROSS primary support columns like Half Hitch(HH)as like Samson across support column at most disruptive angle.
.
The Bull/Buffalo forms pull more properly ALONG the rope primary support. column as like a splice/rack by extreme contrast.  More towards a friction hitch of not deforming primary support column to make lock and rigid framework as  Bowline must, but rather even as or approaching no deformation plus another support leg...
.
Of the 3 basic forms of more working class basic forms of 3x180arcs:
>> Uncrossed RT
>> Crossed on host: Crossed Turn (Clove w/o final crossing after 3rd 180arc)
>> Crossed off host / around SPart : Backhand Turn counter torque (1st 3 arcs of Cow/Muenter)
Would favor only uncrossed forms for this pull along rather than across.
Leaning away from even the Clove form shown as still more a shear across than pull along.
Clove sits as Half Hitch(HH) w/backup to me.
.
The Bull cross of self to me force more towards the JRB types of gauntlet of arcs slightly bending SPart as pulls along it's length as rack of SPart as a support column.  Buffalo as an extension of this architecture i think.
Clove is different utility mechanic than nonCrossed by comparison to me, as shown in basic 3 forms of 3x180arcs and here pulled as a HH.
.
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~