Bends derived from enhanced Bowlines that work for different-sized ropes

Except that the change of direction here has lost the
nipping loop of the Larkshead.

–dl*

Dan,

All of the nipping structures in reply 19 involve multiple loops (as does the Round Turn Bowline #1013). When you pull hard on both the standing part and the legs of the eye, the two loops in the Water Bowline and the Girth Hitch Bowline tend to pull apart a little. When the directions of the two loops are reversed, the two loops tend to pull together (and this also happens in the Round Turn Bowline). This might cause jamming in these bowlines, and so I am not very fond of the Buntline Bowline and the Lobster Buoy Bowline (and they are not easy to tie). But I do like the fact that this may be more secure in the Sheet Bend version (and they are easier to tie since you have access to the free end).

Remember the intent of this discussion was to find bends that work well with two ropes of different sizes. It is OK is they are merely inspired by bowline-like knots that might not fully meet the strict criteria of the bowline family.

But they cease to be loops, was my point --to something pear-shaped.

–dl*

Dan,

I still see two loops around the legs of the collar in both the Buntline Bowline and the Lobster Buoy Bowline. It helps to tighten the Clove Hitch and the Girth Hitch first to still see these. Then the loops get quite distorted when you tighten the whole knot. Again, I am not very fond of these creations, and I doubt it they become popular. Still, I do believe that they both technically satisfy Mark’s criteria for a nipping structure. I do like the Sheet Bend versions.


Buntline Bowline, Lobster Buoy Bowline.png

You can draw them --in a quite unloaded state–
to be loopish, but as noted they don’t load qua loop
(you note : “distorted”) --no rounded/surrounding nipping.
No, the loading pulls on the would-be “loop”
in the opposite direction to that of #1010 & BWLs.

Now, hmmm, the 2nd/outgoing Eye Leg nipping
IS rather more loopish, in the version with S.Part
pulling over-top the OELeg, not under it!?

–dl*