Cf. also p.8 of
www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcNews/media/u_content/File/climbing_walls/BMC%20Climbing%20Wall%20Directory%202012.pdf
There’s another question, though, that ought to arise in us ::
Why are there no reports of untied fig.8 eyeknots? !!
–i.e., where the user reports or is known to have favored
that knot? Because non-tying any knot is the same no
matter the intent; yet despite commonality of esp. the
fig.8 eyeknot I’m unaware of reported non-tyings
(Now, the dead might keep a secret, but for friends’
testimoy, or an incompleted knot where the base ‘8’
remains.)
And then comments like, "complicated".Yeah, that one is striking, for a knot that is a simple marriage of [i]loop & bight[/i] !! --which, as I've asserted many times previously, likely arises from the [b]gosh-darned boneheaded copycat stOOpid presentation of the knot's backside obscuring the [i]turNip's[/i] crossing point![/b] (If Xarax & I agree on this --we do-- then it must be right. :P )
And, yes, that kN fellow does have keen vision! ;D
Were there one agreed way to extend the bowline it might
be possible for the climbing (et al.) community to give it a
name and happy use it --one can must about the “Yosemite
bowline” being this (but aka “mountaineer’s bowline” as well).
For the fig.8 eyeknot also has a less fully engaged form
where the tail makes less than an ‘8’, just a ‘U’/bight finish
(Ashley has this ; but I don’t have [u]ABoK w/me now);
yet that’s not well known or named and so there’s no stopping
there to bemoan it if it’s found wanting, then seeing the fig.8
as an extension to it (with a “Yosemite finish” one could say!).
But “bowline” does stop at the minimum, and come myriad
extensions, or adding a stopper (and both).
Interesting (“telling” ?!) that DAV’s recommendation for an
extension of the common knot isn’t brought up more often.
.
.
. (out of time)