Here is a picture of the breakaway open. It looks the same as a buckle but the side pieces are rounded to allow the fastening to come undone if pulled. The breakaway is slightly curved to follow the contour of eg a bracelet buckle and the coin in the picture is 1" across exactly for comparison.
Barry
Did not see this technique mentioned in any of the other posts. I’ve been using the lanyard in the photos in this link for over a year. It’s adjustable and works well.
One of the safety police at work saw it and challenged me on it. I invited her to give it a pull, at which it broke away nicely. The “enforcer” handed it back & with a raised eye brow “Oh, I see;”, turned & walked away.
In slippery para cord it’s easy to re-extend the loop and reset. Using a loop as the tucked part, instead of just tucking the bitter end into the loop eliminates snagging that a fused bitter end invites.
Pretty slick, I like the concept. This is the first all-cord solution I would actually use. I agree that clamping down on an end (instead of a loop/bight) causes the end to get caught in the Scaffold.
I prefer the breakaway to be centered on the back of my neck. So, I modified your setup to make a smaller, simpler variation. Tie a Double Overhand Noose (ABOK #409) on one end and a bight on the other end. Use the Double Overhand Noose to clamp down on the bight. This works well in my testing. Alternatively, tie an Overhand Noose for a weaker breakaway and less security. I can use the cord near the gear at the bottom to make length adjustments (e.g., by tying a decorative knot).
Thanks, this is now my preferred setup for a breakaway. No O-rings are needed. Although it’s simple, I’m not surprised I didn’t think of it before. My mind is geared for making a knot more secure, not less secure.
Here are pics of the breakaway mentioned above, including a Double Overhand Noose (ABOK #409) clamped down on a bight.
http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd468/iq201/Public/2012-09-06-LanyardBreakaway001-1.jpg
http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd468/iq201/Public/2012-09-06-LanyardBreakaway002.jpg
http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd468/iq201/Public/2012-09-06-LanyardBreakaway003-1.jpg
http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd468/iq201/Public/2012-09-06-LanyardBreakaway004.jpg
Thanks for the pics knot4u - I’d come up with the same arrangement after reading SalyCracker’s post. A very clean and simple option.
Thanks of course to SaltyCracker as well for sharing the idea in the first place!
Russ
The basic idea is to whip one end of the cord around the other in such a way that there’s plenty of friction to hold the ends together in normal use, but no true knot tying the ends, so it will come apart under tension. Because whipping is tied very similarly to a hangman’s noose, and because of its anti-strangulation purpose, I call it an “unhangman’s knot”.
I like gutted paracord for EDC – it’s flat and comfortable – but the pics below show regular paracord for clarity. Measurements are approximate… like most paracord projects, you need to fiddle around a bit with lengths. I start off with enough cord to make the lanyard loop, plus 20 inches or so (less for smaller diameter cordage).
Step 1: Pinch one end of the cord about 12 inches from the end (less for smaller diameter cordage). Twist the end a number of times, until it really wants to kink. Double the twisted portion back into a bight. It will naturally twist together to form a spiral.
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/mink/img/s1.jpg
Step 2: Tie off the spiraled bight with an overhand knot. The ridges formed by the spiral will give the whipping a good grip surface.
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/mink/img/s2.jpg
Step 3: With the opposite end, tie an overhand keeper knot around the spiral. Leave 8 to 10 inches of cord to work with. Pull the keeper knot tight. (The position of the keeper knot – i.e., how much cord is left on the working side of this knot – will determine the final length of the lanyard, so test this before proceeding to the next step.)
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/mink/img/s3.jpg
Step 4: Make a bight of about 2 inches with the standing portion of cord, starting just under the keeper knot. Lay the bight alongside the spiral.
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/mink/img/s4.jpg
Step 5: Whip the working end around the spiral and the bight, 6 to 8 loops, keeping the whipping snug as you go. Put the end of the cord through the remaining exposed portion of the bight.
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/mink/img/s5.jpg
Step 6: Pull on the standing portion so that the bight slips back underneath the whipping, trapping the free end. Pull snug.
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/mink/img/s6.jpg
Step 7: Dress and trim.
http://www.rdwarf.com/users/mink/img/final.jpg
[Knot shown in paracord, gutted paracord, and type 1 accessory cord
Tension needed to release can be adjusted by varying the number of loops in the whipping as well how firmly the keeper knot and whipping are tightened. Tension can be tested by sliding the whipping up and down the spiral.
With paracord, it doesn’t seem to make a big difference whether the cord is wet or dry (it separates a bit more easilty when wet), but it will be important to see if this holds true for other types of cordage.
Hi,
I was reading this and thought to add that a knotless breakaway can be achieved simply by tacking the paracord together with heat: cut it in half (or as many pieces as you want), and heat each end under flame (holding them side by side, slightly apart), then stick the ends together and smooth out the seam before it cools. This bond is relatively sturdy, yet it breaks apart with a good tug (the force of which depends on how thouroughly the ends are melted together; I would go for a light tack though, sealing each end first and then reheating less so for the connection, i.e. not pushing them together too much). And for maximum breakaway potential, the lanyard can be made as a chain of interlocking loops (or as a straight series of breakpoints), each fused together this way.
Hi modularama and welcome to the Forum.
Good Idea! I have used the melted end to end joinery method to extend a cord’s length in a project or three when I have miscalculated or ran out.
Do you have a secret method to eliminate those pesky hard ridges that form at the melted connection?
I would find those uncomfortable in the extreme, on the skin of my neck!
SS
Just an idea, but you could try sand paper or duct tape around the joint
Oh yeah, I was thinking about putting another sheath around the whole thing, but that would defeat the purpose (duh). Although, it might work to cut sections of a millimeter larger paracord sheath (with the strands pulled out) and use fabric glue inside, around each breakpoint. This shouldn’t keep it from breaking apart, I’d think. Or, buffing the melted areas with a dremel tool might be simpler (as with the sanding suggested). That would give it a polished surface, and definitely would not reinforce it.
The problem with melting the ends is that if the breakaway is activated it may not be a convenient time/place to re-attach it (especially if made for someone else who may be unable to to do it.). I’ve used melted end joins to use 2 colours of paracord and the strength of the join is unpredictable though not usually strong enough to cause a problem it may be too weak - the only way to test it being destructive and therefore a bit pointless. An option to consider perhaps where a breakaway is needed for other than on a neck lanyard.
Barry
Oh, I didn’t get the impression that it was likely to be too weak, because I had to tack it together less thoroughly to make it break with a snap of the wrist. But it would require a lighter to reconnect, and then a repolishing later for comfort. An advantage of the chain link design would be that the loop could be rotated away from the rough part in that case. A disadvantage of loops could be rope on rope friction, but it does not seem like there would be intense enough movement between these surfaces for it to break down the sheath on a lanyard. I might have to make one and see if it works out though.
Okay, I fashioned a breakaway loop lanyard in about ten minutes, using scissors and a candle (the pic sould be attached). It is comfortable, and I did not notice any rough spots touching my skin, even though I would like to smooth them out later, at least to reduce potential wear and tear. I hooked up a stop watch with a mini carabiner, and tugged away at it. It did not break though. I had to really rap on it, like cracking a whip to snap the loop holding the carabiner! So I would say it functioned as a breakaway lanyard should. Pretty cool, so far…
Modularama,
Welcome, I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. This goes to show there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
I echo the problems Sweeney described about burning the ends. As for the chain, most people try to avoid cutting rope wherever possible. The chain concept eliminates the practical advantage of having one continuous rope and seems to be for decoration only.
However, if you find it to be a practical solution, then the chances are someone else will also. Can you explain the practicality of cutting up the rope into links? Note, there are ways to make a chain without cutting the rope and you can still have a breakaway. I’m wondering if, after trying other solutions in this thread, you would still implement your solutions. Again, thank you for your ideas.
Thanks, I like the other solutions too, using knots and various materials. Although, fusing the rope with heat is easy and minimal in my book. I think its result will be consistent in breaking under excessive force, while staying intact under ordinary use. It probably has a breaking range, depending on how thoroughly the ends are pushed together and smoothed over during melting. The chain I tested was fused pretty well, and I think it would be hard to make one that was too weak for typical usage, with the paracord I used anyway; I would have to barely touch those ends together to make the bond unreliable.
So I don’t see how cutting the rope is undesirable in constructing breakaways, given that it facilitates weakening the rope as desired. I want to have breakpoints all around the lanyard, because that eliminates the disadvantage of having continuous rope where it might not break when twisted a certain way. Only my weakest link (or the one under the most tension) should fail in the event of the lanyard getting caught up in any direction.
I could have made it in as many sections without loops, but the loops give me a wider contact area on the neck, which is less traumatic when the cord is snapped under excessive force. The links also give me more places to hang gear (similar to fishing and hunting lanyards), and would allow for reattachment in other ways (like tape) if the lanyard broke and the broken section was lost (while the rest of the lanyard would maintain its breakaway functionality). So I think it has practical uses beyond decoration.
Thanks, I first want say I don’t want you to feel like I’m ganging up on you. It’s just that any good solution must be able to stand up to criticism…
A good general rule is don’t cut a rope unless it’s absolutely necessary. For me, the chain link solution does not rise to that level of necessity.
One continuous rope is advantageous because the rope can be used for a multitude of other things besides a lanyard for holding stuff around your neck. For example, if you’re stranded and the only rope you have is the lanyard around your neck, then you can untie the lanyard and use the rope to bind stuff together, hitch stuff, make a snare to catch game, etc. You could also use the strands inside to go fishing if that’s all you have.
In contrast, when you cut the rope into little links, you make it unduly difficult to use the cord for other applications. Yes, you could tie a series of bends by using the links, but a knot always weakens a healthy rope. Also, that would be a huge pain compared to dealing with one continuous rope. Further, you can’t even use the links in this way without first breaking each bond you fused.
Having each link as a breakaway is an unnecessary feature. The chance of a breakaway on the back of your neck getting hung up is about 0%. Meanwhile, the disadvantages of the links are permanent. So, one breakaway on the back of the neck is sufficient. If you disagree that the chance of hanging up is 0%, then you can make one additional breakaway at the gear if you insist. However, 20 breakaways are about 19 breakaways too many.
Further, what happens when some kid, or whomever, starts playing around with your lanyard and thinks snapping each link is fun? If you have kids, you know that’s not a question of “if”, but a question of “when”. What do you do if you have no lighter with you? Do you tie a whole bunch of bends? These aren’t rhetorical questions.
As for having a wider contact, you can make a chain sinnet without cutting rope. For example…
http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd468/iq201/Public/Bind-CoilChain-ABOK1144.jpg
ABOK #1144
You could even double the thickness by doubling the line over (e.g., in a sling) and then tying ABOK #1144 by using the doubled rope. The Decorative Knots forum has many other techniques you can use to make the contact area wider without cutting the rope.
I’ve tried a slightly different arrangement: a sort of reversed (SP and WE exchanged) double overhand noose and the bight of the other end pushed inside the coils. (the size of the loops and ends is exaggerated in the picture). I’ve noticed the following positive qualities:
What do you guys think?
Have you tested the breaking force? In my testing, it’s too secure.
I prefer a breakaway to come apart immediately when the force reaches a certain amount. I don’t want or need the breakaway to hesitate. With other solutions in this thread, consistently setting the breakaway at the right force requires only a small amount of practice. It’s no big deal to practice multiple times if your breakaway knot is simple. Also, the breakaway force doesn’t have to be exact, just somewhere roughly between 5 and 20 pounds is good.
I have a problem with the loops in your solution. Something can get caught in those loops and cause your system to fail. You may argue that something getting caught wouldn’t cause a failure. However, eliminating the loops would eliminate the issue altogether.
Like I said, the links can be used to carry more gear, like extra rope (if you are wearing it as a survival necklace). I would not want to break a lanyard down for its rope, since its primary use is for carrying other things (each of which would have its own breakaway on my chain configuration). The rest I don’t really care to go back and forth on, because your discussion is getting pretty hypothetical.
Still, I have no problem with knots (other than them being cumbersome at times). But as far as the construction and practical purposes of breakaway lanyards go, I think a fused chain is fail-safe, multipurpose, comfortable (if not stylish), and simple to put together or repair with common items (usually one). So how is it easier to find more o-rings when they break? I can carry a lighter, tape, extra cord, etc., on my lanyard and it wouldn’t be an issue (although this could be overkill for daily use).
Your general rule of not cutting rope seems to be a technicality that is beyond the scope of this special case, in which breakability is the main requirement (while deconstructing the lanyard and reusing its relatively short rope for something other than carrying gear defeats the purpose of having one, especially when you could attach a more substantial amount of rope to it, as I was saying).
The critical concept here is that the chain is a redundant system, in which my having to reconnect it with a stronger binding (in a hurry) would not prevent the rest of it from working as a breakaway, and I don’t think this is over-engineering, because the links also function as points of attachment for various items, as well as distributing the impact of a breaking force over an area four-times broader than the cord itself (without adding bulkiness to the design). These may not be the attributes you want (and I am not saying that they have to be equalled by other examples), but they do have a purpose.
That’s a bit of a surprise, actually. I find that by not tightening the double overhand much I can make the whole structure as insecure as I want. I start very loose and tighten it in small increments all the time giving the other end a gentle pull to see how easily it slips. As soon as it reaches the desired amount of security I stop tightening.
I’ve tested it before without the weights, but I’ve tried with some weights now. In one round of tresting I’ve moderately tightened it and tried with the weights. It held 1kg weight, but slipped when loaded with a 2kg weight. Then I retied it and gave it a stronger tightening. Then it held (barely) 2kg and slipped immediately at 3kg. So we can estimate the breaking strength at about three pounds in one case and five in another. This is in a small-diameter kernmantle accessory cord, when I tried it in paracord I felt that I need to tighten even more to get the same amount of security. In fact this (security/insecurity) was the reason I’ve tried this structure: when I’ve tried your “noose choking a bight” structure I found it to be pretty secure and also - not exactly sure how to put it - “unpredictably secure”. With seemingly the same amount of tightening the whole structure seemed to require very different amounts of strength to pull apart. It seemed to me that the reason lies in the tight arc of the bight that was choked by the noose. Due to the high amount of curvature even small variations resulted in much larger variations in how the whole structure held. (I think that this effect is much more pronounced in a stiffer cordage that I use, less so in paracord, but still). So in this variation on the theme we have two opposing bights compressed by the coils of the double overhand. It seems that it’s much harder to accidentally make too secure.
I have a problem with the loops in your solution. Something can get caught in those loops and cause your system to fail. You may argue that something getting caught wouldn't cause a failure. However, eliminating the loops would eliminate the issue altogether.Loops are much smaller in real life. I've mention their size is exaggerated but I'll attach a photo of how they really look to this message. Even this is not a limit: you can make them as small as you want even after tying since all it requires is pulling on the free ends.