A simpler method of tying the Carrick Bend

Practical Knots
1

Hi everyone, I’m Geren.

I started knotting about a year ago, after retiring, hoping to advance my knowledge from granny knots to something a bit more useful for gardening and whatever. I soon started wandering around the house and garden with ropes and cords, being chased by the cat which thinks I’ve grown a tail, with a rapidly growing appetite for a new knot every day. I sympathise with the others on this forum who have described a similar process of addiction, but I accept that I am now happily incurable.

I got curious about paracord projects, and realised that they often include a Carrick Bend, usually as the precursor to a Lanyard/Diamond knot, mainly because it’s quite decorative. But the methods described for tying it seemed rather complex, so I have worked out a way to tie the Carrick Bend which I think is simpler and faster than anything I have found on the web.

My method is similar to Ettrick Thomson’s method for tying the Zeppelin Bend (aka Poor Man’s Pride) as shown in Geoffrey Budworth’s The Knot Book (fig 87). The two ropes start parallel with working ends hanging side-by-side. Once tied, separating the two standing lines ‘unfolds’ and reveals the completed knot.

I have attached two instruction sheets showing the precise method. One is for people familiar with rope knot terms, and the other is for people who may prefer a less technical description.

I have searched Ashley’s Book, the web, Youtube, and lots of forums to see if anything like this method is already known, but not found anything yet. Does anyone know if this method has been described before?

Thanks

Update 2020-08-11

Sorry, but attachments removed due to the inability of Dan_Lehman and agent_smith to allow any rational discussion of this matter.
Attachments removed due to

2

Hi, Geren. Welcome to the club!

IMO, some of the tying methods advanced for
interlocking-overhands knots are too clever by
half --they require some careful preparation
and then have their whiz-bang completions.
For ME, I prefer to tie one overhand and then
reeve the other end through it appropriate
for whichever knot I want. (I’m abashed to
admit that sometimes I get something else.)

To your final question, the commercial crab fishermen
out of Alaska I have heard actually use the carrick
bend (I’ve never found one In The Wild),
and in one fleeting moment of Deadliest Catch
television show I saw it tied by TWO : one man
formed a crossing knot in one line, and another
man reeved the other line into this appropriately
(and if my calculations are right, there are four
–if not more-- ways to do it, just ONE of which
is the desired way!). Their cordage is stiff (and
sometimes I think they’ll tape the tails together
–another fleeting image).
But there’s a direction for you to further search.
(I just updated this Practical Knots debut thread
–“In the Wild”–with some URLs to com.fish. video.)

(I’d like to see those crabbers try the zeppelin
joint --assuming they’ve no issue with untaped
tails.)

Oh, here’s one :
https://www.reddit.com/r/knots/comments/doyjq0/crabbers_carrick_bend/

(Oh, goody, more fun stuff (re carrick bend, see pg.14 fig.13):

)

The bridle is made with two pieces of 1/2-inch diameter soft laid polypropylene , 13 feet long. The lines are tied to each front comer, crossed , and tied just forward of center to each side of the frame. They a re adjusted to about 15 inches above the front center of the trap with long loops extended and an overhand knot tied in the loops. The double loops provide the becket for attaching the trap gangion. The gangion is a 5-foot piece of 1/2-inch diameter soft laid polypropylene which is secured to the becket with the opposing end secured to a snap hook (Fig. 9). In 2 yr of test fishing no trap losses occurred from using the snap hook and connection shown.

Cheers,
–dl*

3

Hello Geren and welcome.

I’m impressed by your photography - you have obviously put a lot of effort in with regard to production quality.
Its hard capture high quality images of knots…

With the #1429 Carrick bend - not sure if you realise that the end state you show is only transient?
As soon as you apply load to each respective Standing Part (ie SPart) - it capsizes into a different geometry.

The final energy stable state is actually the union of two Crossing hitches (or ‘Munter’ hitches if you are a climber).

Its actually possible to tie a Carrick bend directly by first forming a crossing hitch, and then interlinking a second crossing hitch (provided they are of the same chirality).
I note in your photo sequence that you ended up with 2 loops with right-handed chirality.
Interestingly, Ashley (ABoK) depicts left-handed chirality in his book at illustration #1439.

Keep up the good work :slight_smile:

4

Hi there. Thanks for the comments.

I tried tying the Carrick Bend the way they describe in Fish Facts 7, and it worked right first time! The only sad thing is that the knot didn’t go through the pretty shape on its way to being capsized. It must be a tough life for the people at sea to miss the pretty bit. At least the capsizing was more precisely controlled in their case. I do watch Deadliest Catch occasionally, mainly for the scare factor when they bring up the alien monsters, but they usually have specialised equipment instead of clever knots. I’ll watch it a bit more for the knots.

As for the matter of chirality, while Ashley showed the knot one way, Geoffrey Budworth appears to have reversed it in his The Book Of Knots in figure 28B. Also, the Wikipedia entry for Carrick Bend follows Mr Budworth’s book, while referencing ABoK 1439. When I was learning the best way to tie the knot in paracord, I found that the paracorders tied it either way round. They don’t worry about chirality or capsizing the knot, they just go straight on to turning it into a Lanyard knot.

If you’ve not seen the kind of methods paracorders use for Lanyard knots, these videos are worth watching - they cause my hand to cramp up if I’m not careful!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKLLolTlvKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je5nq4HtyCU

Cheers
Geren

5

Hi Geren,

With regard to all the knot book authors and images of #1439 Carrick (in its transient dressing state) - there appears to be no definitive concept of chirality.
As far as I can determine, Harry Asher was the first knot book author to publish the concept of ‘handedness’ (chirality). Even to this day, when we see knots illustrated in knot books, it seems to be random as to whether the author shows left or right handed chirality. I think most aren’t even aware of one form or the other - and just ‘assume’ their way is ‘correct’?

You’ll see the same think with the #1010 Simple Bowline - which is usually depicted with right-handed chirality.
It is just as valid to tie in left-handed chirality.

Clifford Ashley shows left-handed chirality and as you indicated, Budworth shows right-handed chirality.
A Swiss coat of arms shows left-handed chirality (see attached image).
At this link, they show right-handed chirality: https://www.animatedknots.com/carrick-bend-knot
And at this link https://www.netknots.com/rope_knots/carrick-bend they show left-handed chirality…
This link http://knots3d.com/knots/en_us/23/carrick-bend is right-handed.
And this one http://www.handymariner.com/carrick-bend/ is left-handed ?

When forming the Carrick bend directly from a Crossing hitch (#206) it opens up interesting ways to explore the union of these two hitches (eg try rotating one of the crossing hitches)…because you can visualize the geometry easier (in my view).

EDIT NOTE:

Oh, here's one : https://www.reddit.com/r/knots/comments/doyjq0/crabbers_carrick_bend/
The person ties with left-handed chirality in the video.
(Oh, goody, more fun stuff (re carrick bend, see pg.14 fig.13): https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy-pdfs/fishfact07.pdf
Something is rather odd with the tying illustration. I have attached an extract... The #1439 Carrick bend should be tied with 2 crossing hitches of the [i]same [/i]chirality (ie can be S/S or Z/Z).

NOTE:
*** Its hard to provide a definitive confirmation that your particular tying method is new or novel. The Carrick bend has been tied by others for centuries. The digital age has only appeared in relative recent history - so we have no way of knowing all the ancient or pre-modern era tying methods. I’m not sure anyone can provide you with a definitive yes or no answer as to your claim of originality (and this is just stating the facts - it is not intended to be insulting).

Carrick-bend_1439_Switzerland_Bressauc-Jura.jpg

6

And I think that your luv of spouting “chirality”
is mostly an indulgence in irrelevance & misconception.
“Handedness” comes out in various ways for various
knots in the literature. History & Science of Knots
has some surely contradictory indications of what it
might be (cf. pp.46-9). Egadz.

You would do well to not type that word again
until you’ve had a good long think about the BWL
–lonnnng tail & SPart tied off on poles so not able
to be used :: now, what “chirality” is this BWL??
R U SURE?!
How is your BWL’s tail oriented to the eye, btw?
AND,
however it develops, it should be “handedness” for Practical Knots,
“(a(mphi))ch(e)irality” for the mathematical things.
And we need workable, meaningful-re-behavior senses
in the former, purity in the latter.

[b]Something is rather odd with the tying illustration[/b]. I have attached an extract... The #1439 Carrick bend should be tied with 2 crossing hitches of the [i]same [/i]chirality (ie can be S/S or Z/Z).
[b]Excellent catch!!![/b]

Tying via the formed-crossing_knots method
opens up many possibilities:
There are two sides to the waiting-to-be-tied-to
one half, and two ways the reeved-into-this half
the other half can take → 2 x 2, 4 knots!

Working backwards from your found, er, novelty,
one sees, when trying to put into “lattice”/open form,
that there is this gratuitous twisting!!

Ah, the complexities of “simple” knots . . . .

Thanks --the benefit of Other Eyes on things!

–dl*

7

Hi guys,

Anyone got an answer to the original question? Or am I just a genius inventor? 8)

To solve any chirality issue, I retied the knot, having swapped my hands and looking in the mirror. And, as I said, the flat version is normally required by paracorders instead of the capsized version because it’s really difficult to make a lanyard/diamond knot from the capsized version. I mean, really difficult. ;D

Look what I made while reading your posts.

Cheers

CarrickDoodle.jpg

8
Hi guys,

Anyone got an answer to the original question? Or am I just a genius inventor?


Its a good question!
However, a tying method only arrives at the same destination - which is #1439 Carrick bend.
The tying method isn’t what is “new” - rather, it is the final knot that you create.
You can see the various tying methods that I posted previously - and the video link found by Dan Lehman - all having some variation.
But, they all arrive at the same knot in the end.

What gets recorded as a discovery is the final knot that is created - not the tying method.

Of interest, note the myriad of ways of tying the #1053 Butterfly knot - there is entire topic thread on that alone.
Each poster announces yet another alleged ‘easier method’ of arriving at the Butterfly.
Every knot tyer has different skill levels while being left or right handed (or ambidextrous!). What is easy for one may be difficult for the other…

9

per Dan Lehman:

And I think that your luv of spouting "chirality" is mostly an indulgence in irrelevance & misconception.
? Wow. And I think this comment reveals your ignorance of its reality.
Quote 
Something is rather odd with the tying illustration.
I have attached an extract...
The #1439 Carrick bend should be tied with 2 crossing hitches of the same chirality (ie can be S/S or Z/Z).

Excellent catch!!!


This ‘catch’ was made on the basis of chirality!
But, by your understanding, such a “catch” must be an irrelevant misconception that isn’t real?

10

[quote author=agent_smith link=topic=6780.msg44669#msg44669 date=1589147156]

However, a tying method only arrives at the [i]same destination[/i] - which is #1439 Carrick bend. The tying method isn't what is "new" - rather, it is the final knot that you create.

I suspect you’re having trouble with this because you’re reading something that isn’t in the question.

When I asked if anyone knew if this method had been described before, that is actually what I meant. I did not claim the method was new, and I did not claim it produced a new knot (which is why I did not post it in “New Knots”).

I hoped someone in the forum might know if this method had been described before. That’s what I meant. I didn’t mean anything else.

If you don’t want to discuss the merits or advantages of knot tying methods, perhaps you should leave such matters to others who understand the word “Practical”. When people tie knots, they can choose several ways to tie the knot. As long as the final result is the correctly formed knot, all of those methods are valid, but some may be more practical than others. That is what I asked about. Is the method I have discovered already known? If it’s not known, it might be of advantage to people who seek a practical way to tie the knot considering the situation in which the knot is being tied. Remember that a knot is just a knot, but it takes a person to tie it, and all people are different.

Reading through your and Dan_Lehman’s posts, I can see that you have personal problems with each other, and are unlikely to be able to break off from them to help me. Perhaps I should leave you you two to carry on with your childish taunting and ranting at each other. I notice that no other forum members have joined in, and suspect there is a good reason for this.

Goodbye

11
I suspect you're having trouble with this because you're reading something that isn't in the question.
? This is a little bit of an over-reaction. There is nothing sinister in my posts to you. I'm just pointing out that there are lots of tying methods - and I stated that your production values were excellent.
I hoped someone in the forum might know if this method had been described before. That's what I meant. I didn't mean anything else.
As I tried to point out in reasonable way - its very hard to state with certainty that any one method is unique or novel. This is not meant to be read as insulting or not caring or anything else. Its simply a statement of fact. There is no malice attached to my words. I'll say it again to be clear - your presentation is [u]excellent [/u]- and it is very much appreciated. Your actual tying method is very hard to pinpoint with certainty in terms of it being 'original'. This is not an offensive remark - its just reality. Think of the hundreds of years that people have been tying the Carrick bend. The digital age has only arrived in relative recent times...so records of exact tying methods are not well documented.
Reading through your and Dan_Lehman's posts, I can see that you have personal problems with each other, and are unlikely to be able to break off from them to help me.
NO - this is wrong. I have no personal problem with Dan Lehman! Read carefully again please! You will see it is Dan who typically makes off nominal remarks - not me! He makes harsh remarks about chirality - please read and you will see this for yourself. I simply reply as best I can - without resorting to the same innuendo.
Perhaps I should leave you you two to carry on with your childish taunting and ranting at each other.
Please check and you will see that it is Dan Lehman who typically initiates this behavior (not me). Please be fair and balanced in this regard :) I have no ill will or malice to Dan Lehman.

And again, I appreciate the time and effort you have made with your work.
If you take the time to read my posts carefully, I have always been reasonable and fair - and tried to provide accurate commentary.

EDIT NOTE:
I would reinforce that tying methods are not always ‘documented’ - eg documented in digital form.
There are lots of people who ‘fiddle’ and play around with knots.
They likely would not record their methods - in the sense of having a published method on record.
I know that I have played around with various tying methods of the Carrick bend - and I recall my original instructor showing a group of us various tying methods.
This was all done visually - while seated in a circle.
I would say that accurate digital records of multiple knot tying methods likely didn’t occur until the advent of the internet and youtube…now, anyone can upload their tying methods.
I wish that I could offer you something more substantial than this but, its going to be really difficult to establish if any one particular tying method is original.

12

Hello Geren.

I’m sorry that I did not get into this before now.
Your method that you had shared and removed has been the method that I have used in my decorative knot tying days.Where I learned eludes me now, just too much cord down the road and way too many books on the shelf…
Please don’t take offense at the goings on in the Forum. We’re mostly a helpful bunch, just sometimes there is some ribbing and poking that happens amongst friends of a feather.
Mostly forum members, of the majority of forums, have to have thick-ish skins. The written word doesn’t always convey enough of the communication and how it is meant. No facial expressions, body language or intonations to supply additional information.
Sometimes language provides challenges too.

Consider staying in and contributing again. All is welcome.

SS369

13

Geren,

In relation to SS369 commentary…

I just wanted to let you know that my ribs often hurt from all the poking from Dan :slight_smile:

He hasn’t managed to break any of my ribs (yet)… !

PS I’ve dug a little further into your claim of originality in the tying method of your Carrick bend…
I keep running into blind alleyways because there is no sure method of determining if your tying method is original.
There are many claims of originality made - and many simply get refuted in the fullness of time.
One only has to look at the infamous ‘Hunters bend’ - which actually led to the formation of the IGKT.
This bend also has a myriad of tying methods…

14

Yes, amid confounding implications. Now, towards
resolving that, do please consider my (so-far unanswered)
question --repeated:

You would do well to not type that word again until you've had a good long think about the BWL --lonnnng tail & SPart tied off on poles so not able to be used :: now, what "chirality" is this BWL?? R U SURE?! How is your BWL's tail oriented to the eye, btw?
Excellent catch!!!
This 'catch' was made on the basis of [b]chirality[/b]! But, by your understanding, such a "catch" must be an [i]irrelevant misconception[/i] that isn't real?
Yes, and a good one. But that doesn't imply a particular regard/definition of practical-knots' handedness (but an enthusiast's eye via such attention).

–dl*

15

In reply to Nobody,

Update 2020-08-11 -------------------------- Sorry, but attachments removed due to the inability of Dan_Lehman and agent_smith to allow any rational discussion of this matter. Attachments removed due to ? Last Edit: Today at 12:37:13 AM by GerenMoor ?
I was first Reply and IMO helpful, pointing out that actual users (com.fishing) employ tying methods not shown (maybe in anything I've seen, 'til now) in books. And I provided a couple of URLinks into that world of the seas.

Removing the questioned method prevents any
non-DL/AS viewers from opining; it’s hardly a
helpful thing.

–dl*

16

Helpful, yes in a way.
I surmise that Nobody did not want a lengthy answer with links at the first. Just to get an answer if anyone had seen the method of tying before.
So, I further surmise that the poster got offended quickly and decided not to play further, taking his offering with them.
Happens in the playgrounds all the time. :wink:

17

It is a little odd that ‘Nobody’ took offense and disappeared - despite the fact that his question and later posits were answered in detail.
Oh well.
But, the ongoing pokes in the ribs from Dan isn’t 100% helpful in my view - and people get caught in the crossfire.

…

And this is where the discussion should probably move to a different topic thread on loops and chirality.

Link is here: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6753.0
Dan, you could post your propositions and arguments in that topic thread - and I will be happy to reply … but without the unnecessary rib poking :slight_smile:

Quote 
Quote

    Excellent catch!!!

This 'catch' was made on the basis of chirality!
But, by your understanding, such a "catch" must be an irrelevant misconception that isn't real?

Yes, and a good one. But that doesn’t imply
a particular regard/definition of practical-knots’
handedness (but an enthusiast’s eye via such
attention).


Very briefly to give the right of reply:
The inescapable fact is that chirality is a reality. And it is interesting how some people default to one tying method or the other.
The Carrick bend does appear in what appears to be a totally random mix of left-handed Vs right-handed orientations.
I’m not in any way stating that this is ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ - rather, I personally find it very interesting.
I am of the view that many hobbyist knot tyers probably don’t realize they’re defaulting to left or right handedness - its just what they have learnt and they have formed long-term memory for following that pattern.
I see the same thing with the simple #1010 Bowline - which appears predominantly in right-handed ‘Z’ form.
And yet, the left-handed (S) form is just as valid.

I would also comment that loop chirality plays a crucial role in the symmetric end-to-end joining knots - and understanding this opens many interesting doors.

I’ll leave it at that because further discussion would best occur in a different topic thread.

…

In conclusion, I think answers have been provided to ‘Nobody’, and much more.
He may not like how the answers were delivered - but in fairness, there was only good intentions to genuinely assist - and not to offend.