First, I am climber so I mostly interested in secure knots, especially inherently secure bowlines, like the ones portrayed in the Analysis of the Structure of Bowlines by Mark Gommers (thanks for that).
As soon as I figured out how to tie Lee’s Link, I was charmed by it’s properties. But I’d rather have the tail inside the loop. Also, and I might be wrong here, I notice a constricting element in it, when just after making the nipping loop, you come from underneath up through it and then coming back in from behind. Those 2 loops are rather intricate and, at least it seems to me, can tie up pretty hard. So I was looking for a way to soften that up a bit.
Please let me know what the name of this might be (it has probably been found already) and anything else that might make it better.
Note that I haven’t tried to TIB it and I’m not sure if it is even possible.
The level of complexity and difficulty of execution is going to make for a high barrier for users to even want to consider it. Even if a simplifying trick is someday found for execution, the complexity of the final product is still going to make it difficult to inspect the correctness of the final product, assuming it has good properties for the types of intended rope usage.
Hum, but is it that complex, really? I didn’t realize…
I know folks already have a relatively hard time with Lee’s Link but I mean, you guys are pros, right? Meaning that you are more familiar than the rest of us with those types of knots. But I am only assuming here.
So what would help you understand the final product? A written description, maybe? A spoken explanation of what’s going on while I am executing it?
I am really curious about the legitimacy of that knot for a tie-in use in climbing, for instance. I’ve tried it, worked fine but you know, you only need one fail. I’ve shaken it hard until it loosens and it still holds pretty well.
Anyway, If you’re intrigued by this knot, please let me know your thoughts.
What you have offered may be a ?new? knot or has been tied and undocumented in the public arena, but that said, Thanks for throwing it in.
What are you looking for?
There are many eye knots that are and can be suitable for tying into a harness used in recreational climbing or rescue work where someone?s life is actually on a line.
Being able to verify that a knot is tied correctly or the best way can be a challenge for others or for oneself if somehow not at their best. Tired, injured, etc.
I am an avid climber and use knots regularly in my work. I personally have a favorite eye knot that I haven?t failed to date.
I have tested (mine) with many different ropes, cords and cables through quite a few scenarios. Going over the side of some awesome cliffs using it I have confidence in it or I wouldn?t use it.
I suggest that you safely test yours every way into Sunday, in every scenario you can think of, with as many different media you can lay your hands on.
Security is the main issue with life critical knots, in my opinion. If there is even a tiny element of doubt, consider not using it.
Your video is good, but maybe you?d supply a tying sequence of pictures. Not for me though, but for the interested readers.
I really like your use of the word ‘charmed,’ because I was as well when first introduced to Lee’s Link. I think the reason is it’s a combination of two of my favorite knots, the Bowline and Zeppelin Bend. I’m also an esthetics guy and although the tail extending 90 degrees from the knot is slightly annoying, yours extending right down into the middle of the eye is worse, to my eye.
@ Jecot,
This is my point, anyone invented a knot, no problem for him to tie the knot anytime
he want to, even if he is very tired, not complicate for him at all, as long as frequently
practice the knot. (We are not building a rocket here) and also because you are having
“interest” with it and “you love it”.
I tie your knot and just by looking at it, it is a very well secure knot.
Just wonder if you have climb with your knot before, If it’s easy to untie after the climb.
I never see this knot before, If it is easy to untie, you are confident with it, just use it .
and name it what ever you want to. 謝謝 alanleeknots.
If the knot is left to its penultimate state, (before the final tucking, in a two end side by side configuration), it is tiable in the bight, (TIB), but it does not appear to be very secure and stable, as the nipping loop has the tedency to open and obtain a helical form under loading.
That leads me to believe, that this type of myrtle component, is not the best stabilizer for the nipping loop.
However, the final tucking, appears to fix that problem with the insertion of a third rope diameter inside the nipping loop, but i thought to mention this observation, because the knot in question, is intended for use in life critical application.
I understand that the presence of the working end inside the eye, might be an unwanted factor for climbers?
@alanleeknots
Thanks a lot for taking time to evaluate this. The knot is indeed pretty easy to untie, you just pull simultaneously on both the nipping loop and the collar, in opposite directions, and it just comes apart. Same thing for Lee’s Link, I believe. I’d have to come up with a name for it but I’d first take hints from some of you master knotters here. Let’s see how descriptive of a name we can come up with.
@tsik_lestat
Good to know it is partly tiable in the bight, I’d be interested in finding out exactly how. I’m not that familiar with TIB methods.
Also, you are absolutely right about the security of it and thanks for mentionning it; the final tucking in the eye IS indeed mandatory. That is why it was designed for in the first place. Otherwise, it is just an incomplete knot and I don’t think it would be usable even for non critical applications. Tucking is necessary.
|And for my part, I’d rather having the tail in the eye as a climber and not having it dangling loosely towards the wall and holds while I’m am it. Otherwise, i’d just use Scott’s Locked (as I sometimes do). But it might just be a preference, not sure about other climbers.
@jecot,
I am sorry, is my bad, see it wrongly, Lee’s Link bowline is my knot ( actually is one of my knot modify by Master Xarax )
I automatically thought that you add your final truck to Lee’s Link bowline. make it little more complicated, it is still fine, you still have the
the proper bowline nipping loop.
tsik_lestat Thanks for sharp eye, point out it is not "bowline nipping loop".
I am sorry, Have to said NO !!! NO!!! NO!!! for rocking climbing. 謝謝 alanleeknots
It IS a bowline nipping loop, but the returning eye leg
takes a circuitous path to make it so --but at 0:20 that end
as gone in on the SPart side (the bottom strand at crossing
point), and then collared (bight-wise U part, not the Myrtle’s
in-&-in-same-way loop closure) the SPart to go on to its
further tucking.
There’s no good reason to remove non-BWL nipping
loops from climbing (where mostly it is the Fig.8 as the
base, anyway) --plenty of options!
IMO, though, this knot has a lot of travel for no
advantage over many others. But I would take
fall upon it; it seems reasonably easy to untie.
Rather than take that returning eye leg’s end
around and then into the nipping loop,
go there directly, and make a loop to form
the inferior Myrtle (false M. ?) and then
collar the SPart,
and bring the tail out within both of those
loops. Alan Lee has also shown this but
making the 2nd loop in the tail’s path not
earlier as the returning eye leg --a bit of a
plus, I suppose, in some theoretical security
(as the tail unwraps into common BWL thus,
whereas in my case the tail & collar evaporate
on losing last tuck, and you then have that
“inferior Myrtle”). (One could of course tie
the proper Myrtle but that sort of messes up
the central nipping turn’s geometry,
which looks quite nice in the described version.)
<blockquote>1)1) It IS a bowline nipping loop, but the returning eye leg
takes a circuitous path to make it so --but at 0:20 that end
as gone in on the SPart side (the bottom strand at crossing
point), and then collared (bight-wise U part, not the Myrtle’s
in-&-in-same-way loop closure) the SPart to go on to its
further tucking.
See the first photo, this is proper bowline nipping loop. 50% load on the in going
eye leg prevent the nipping loop capsize, also maintain the proper nipping action.
Second photo, the standing part, out going eye leg and in coming eye leg, they are all
working together tying their best to capsize the white nipping loop and straight
white nipping loop.
Third photo, free access for white nipping loop to capsize.
<blockquote>2) There's no good reason to remove non-BWL nipping
loops from climbing (where mostly it is the Fig.8 as the
base, anyway) --plenty of options!
I DIDN’T SAID to remove non-BWL nipping loops from climbing.
Any similar white nipping loop in second and third photos, to me I have to said
not suitable for lifting human, because it is not a positive nipping loop, have the
tendency to capsize and straighten white nipping loop. when all this thing happening,
mean creating a self destruction force on the white nipping loop.
謝謝 alanleeknots
@alanleeknot yes, i know Lee’s Link is your knot And no, this knot here is not just your Link (awkward to say it that way, right?) with the tail end in the nipping loop. It is different altogether. Same same but different. And once the knot is dressed properly and tightened up, it is pretty robust.
@Dan_Lehman
I think you understand what the knot I presented here is. Like you said answering to Alan, the final tucking makes the nipping loop capsizing pretty much impossible.
And then you suggested something else; instead of starting with a turn around and coming in the loop from behind, you suggested just skipping the first turn to go straight in. Well how about that:
Almost same as previous one but shortening the trajectory a little. Instead of going around and then in the nipping loop, we go straight in. And to avoid a sharp turn, we go around the back of the SPart just before tucking in the tail end.
Hello Jecot, i like this approach much better, and i’m not saying this because it is half of another bowline structure I’ve come across, when i was exploring the tibness in EBSB .
I believe, that the capture of nipping loop’s crossing point, with a myrtle turn like this, may be more stable.
You may finish this with a Yosemite tie off, where your WE, takes a turn around itself and comes back through the myrtle turn and the collar, in a side by side parallel two end configuration.
The concept of “one good turn deserves another one”, advanced by Dan Lehman, applies to this case too.
Besides the tibness of the final product, one would have to weigh the complexity of the collar component, possibly capable of affecting its jam resistance.
Of course, by no means, this approach is promoted as being superior to EBSB, it’s just adding the tibness property in the equation (and pushing the tail out of the eye area).
@tsik_lestat
Many rightful observations here, especially about the EBSB. EBSB, which, btw, follows a relatively long trajectory and still makes for a nice and secure knot, just like Butler’s Yosemite.
So in the end, I still prefer my first proposition over this second one. This one is more direct, to the point and raw, a bit like Lee’s Yosemite and Scott’s Lock but both of those 2 seems to me far superior. They’re close to perfect, imho.
My first proposition travels a bit more, yes, but feels more sturdy in my hand, feels tighter. And is more esthetic, more balanced, which pleases me.
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.
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.
And no, this knot here is not just your Link (awkward to say it that way, right?) with the tail end in the nipping loop. It is different altogether. Same same but different. And once the knot is dressed properly and tightened up, it is pretty robust.