Hi
I have used this knot to tie in when climbing for quite a long time now but have never known it as anything other than the competition knot ( because it was the preferred knot for competition rock climbers to use when it became a competitive sport. Later the UIAA decided the rethreaded Figure 8 would be the standard tie in knot.
Anyone confirm it’s correct nomenclature please?
I too have heard it called the Competition Knot, although that is a fairly vague name, unfortunately. The loop doesn’t seem like it get used much.
Loading one leg of the loop at a time, you can see either a Water Knot load path or a European Death Knot load path, although it generally acts more like a European Death Knot with its resistance to jamming. And since it carries itself loosely, it does have a tendency to shake apart faster than other typical life-support knots.
A more secure jam-resistant loop also composed of two overhand loops would be a Zeppelin Loop.
Hitches can also be used. The simple Gnat Hitch lends itself nicely to life support due to its high security and good inspectability. It is also highly jam resistant.
Thanks for your question Aoraki (Mt Cook New Zealand)…
Virtually every ‘bend’ has a corresponding ‘eye knot’.
In this case, #1410 (Offset overhand bend) has a corresponding eye knot that is none other than your knot depicted in your video and post on this forum.
To go back a step - one of the simplest ‘eye knots’ known is found at illustration #1009 (Ashley Book of Knots) and is the Overhand eye knot. Please note that Clifford Ashley used the descriptor ‘loop knot’ instead of ‘eye knot’ to describe #1009. He simply called it a ‘loop knot’. I prefer to use the term ‘eye’ instead of ‘loop’ - think of ‘eye bolts’ and ‘eye splices’. You wouldn’t call an eye bolt a loop bolt…imagine walking into your local hardware store and asking the sales staff for a “loop bolt”. They would probably think you were a bit loopy. The same concept applies to eye splices…they are not known as loop splices.
The name ‘competition knot’ is silly in my view - someone probably couldn’t quantify what they were looking at and scratched their head and then had a eureka moment and thought; “I’ll call it a competition knot…that will give it some intrigue and credibility”.
So the technical name ought to be 'Offset overhand eye knot" - because its corresponding ‘bend’ is #1410 Offset over bend.
The simple eye knot (#1009) is vulnerable to jamming - which is why some climbers experimented with ways to improve its jam resistance - and likely stumbled upon the trick of tying it in a sort of reversed orientation. Simplicity was what climbers were looking for.
For me personally, I dont like it..preferring instead one of the secure Bowlines. Scott Safier invented one of the simplest secure Bowlines on planet Earth - known as ‘Scotts locked Bowline’ (named after him).
Mark G
per roo:
Hitches can also be used. The simple Gnat Hitch lends itself nicely to life support due to its high security and good inspectability.
I dispute roo’s assertion that the gnat ‘hitch’ can be employed as a harness tie-in knot for rock climbing applications.
The original posters application is for climbing (ie rock climbing - either indoors on artificial surfaces or outdoors).
Furthermore, I dispute his assertion that it can be used in ‘life support’ applications involving rock climbing harnesses.
On this forum roo is safe from litigation under the law of negligent advice since he is not under contract and no proximate relationship has been established between roo and the OP.
In the first instance, the gnat hitch acts like a noose - in that it cinches tightly up against the object through which it is formed. This immediately renders it totally unsuitable as a tie-in knot for climbing. What you need is an ‘eye knot’ that is fixed. That is, the ‘eye’ is not a noose - it does not slip and remains of fixed dimensions. This shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about the type of knots that are suitable for climbing. By far the most commonly used tie-in ‘eye knots’ are #1047 (Figure 8 eye knot) and #1010 derived secure Bowlines. Indeed, your original post depicting the offset overhand eye knot (aka competition knot) has a fixed ‘eye’…it does not act like a noose.
The second assertion by roo is by way of his reference to “life support” applications. This strongly implies absolute security - and that a person can trust their life to the gnat hitch as a tie-in knot for climbing. This assertion is bordering on negligent advice - but, as I stated - roo is somewhat immune from litigation on this forum. I have been involved in the climbing industry since 1983 in a professional capacity and I know of no training agency that would recommend the gnat hitch as a tie-in knot to a climbing harness. As stated, the principal reason for this is the fact that the hitch acts like noose - it will cinch tight on application of load (such as during the force of a fall). This will generate considerable heat from friction as the rope runs around and crushes the harness material - causing significant stress to the textile material in the harness.
I am 100% certain roo will vigorously challenge my assertions - and post a reply in an attempt to contradict and cast doubt on my advice. You can check my warnings about the noose and cinching effect for yourself - tie the gnat hitch to your rock climbing harness and then vigorously jerk on the standing part. Note what happens.
EDIT NOTE: Clarified that the original posters intended application is rock climbing (not tree climbing - arborists). Rock climbing harnesses are constructed from textile materials - and rope attachment points are entirely textile (not metal) - there is no metal ‘D ring’ attachment point. In contrast, full body industrial harnesses typically have metal ‘D rings’ as hard attachment points. Recreational rock climbing harnesses are designed to be very lightweight - since weight is a crucial factor in rock climbing.
What a short memory. I believe you yourself mentioned the widespread use of another noose-like hitch (Scaffold Knot) in mission critical applications:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5882.msg39742#msg39742
But then you quickly clammed up when actual data collided with your arrogance regarding how much superior it was to the Gnat Hitch.
A secure hitch can be a viable option for many harnesses that have good single point tie-in location or a good carabiner interface.
From experience I would dispute this as set well I have never had cause to need to manage this between tying in to my harness and untying after a climb.
I do appreciate that people were able to identify it for me. Thanks.
It will depend on how stiff and slippery your rope is as well as how much motion or flogging it sees. I don’t doubt that under your typical circumstances your loop held up fine.
roo, i am happy for you to fall on your sword on this occasion.
As I predicted, you have replied and you have attempted to cast doubt on my assertions and warnings.
What a short memory. I believe you yourself mentioned the widespread use of another noose-like hitch (Scaffold Knot) in mission critical applications:
ABoK #409 (Poachers noose) amd ABoK #1120 (Scaffold noose) both function as a noose.
They belong to a class of knots known as ‘termination’ knots.
They are used extensively by rope access technicians to create ‘cows tails’ - which are used in life support applications. Cows tails are employed as ‘lanyards’ primarily for aid progression and secondly for maintaining 2 points of contact while maneuvering at height.
However, these terminations knots are not used as a tie-in knot to a climbing harness.. You have made a serious error here - and you are trying to defend yourself by digging up poorly old posts that actually are ill conceived - you didn’t do your home work.
Your assertion that I may have advised the use of ‘termination knots’ such as ABoK #409 or #1120 as a tie-in knot is manifestly false and I ask that you withdraw that assertion.
The reason why I am replying (again) is that your post is bordering on negligent advice to the public at large. However, I believe that you are safe from litigation in this forum due to the complexities of establishing a link between your advice and an actual user.
You again assert that a ‘hitch’ can be used as a tie-in knot for climbing applications. This is false.
The gnat hitch acts like a noose. You cannot tie any ‘knot’ directly to a climbing harness if it cinches tight because it will cause frictional damage to the textile harness material. You can only use knots that dont slip - eye knots that have a fixed eye.
Your assertion that ABoK #409 and #1120 is used for life support is correct but - these noose structures are located at the carabiner end of the lanyard - and NOT at the harness. At the harness end - they are attached by a fixed eye knot. Again, this demonstrates that your knowledge is deficient in the subject area of climbing and rope access.
The last segment of your post mentions a carabiner - and this is also misleading.
A single carabiner attachment directly to a harness is also dangerous and has caused several accidents in Australia and elsewhere. A single clip-in to a harness using a carabiner+hitch is considered dangerous. Carabiners can ‘roll-out’ of a harness - and they can also become misaligned - both events can lead to catastrophic failure.
Some climbing gyms use a special dual clip-in system but, they are are triple-action locking gates with captive eyes - so they are resistant to misalignment and/or roll-out.
roo - you should cease and desist in any further posts or attempts to cast doubt on my advice. You are digging yourself into a hole from which you cannot escape.
Also, I think if this continues, the forum moderators will shut this thread down.
Rubbish. Your Scaffold Knot should be failing left and right based on this fanciful notion. By far the hardest sliding forces are on its standing part right as it enters the knot. Likewise, a double or triple fisherman’s knot also compresses under load with its strangling parts slightly sliding on the standing part during this compression, and yet your imaginary team of lawyers :
ready to sue over all the melted, failed rope has yet to materialize.
P.S. I merely posted a link to your own words in my earlier post. What is there to misconstrue? Everyone can read the full content and context. And carabiner selection is drifting a bit far off topic.
update: The nylon-melting theory is debunked in testing: http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=6081.msg40871#msg40871
You have to laugh at the way social media works - and how a person can just type away on their key boards with virtual impunity.
roo - you a person who has to have the last word - and you will fight to the bitter end no matter what the cost.
I considered ignoring you but, this is an issue that has serious safety implications.
I believe one of 2 things has occurred here:
This is sadly all getting off topic.
But, to try to steer this back to some rational conclusion - I have attached 2 images.
First image is showing a ‘cows tail’ lanyard integrated into a rope access type industrial harness. This is standard across the entire world rope access community. Note the use of #409 poachers noose as a termination knot. The termination knot is linked to a carabiner and not textile harness material.
Example link: https://www.high-q.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ICOP-March-2013.pdf (see figures 2.2 page 32 and 2.3 page 33)
The second image shows a tie-in knot for a climbing harness. It is #1047 F8 eye knot - this type of knot has a fixed eye (it is not a noose).
In rock climbing applications - there is always the risk of a free-fall (eg in lead climbing). Lead climbing can be conducted indoors on artificial surfaces or outdoors on natural stone.
The dynamic climbing rope is tied in direct contact to the harness material - there is no carabiner. The tie-in knot must have a fixed ‘eye’ - it cannot be a noose.
Your attempts to try to discredit me have failed.
You need to cease and desist and admit that you are wrong.
Roo - we all make mistakes - that is part of being human. There is nothing to be gained by fighting to the last man - what will you gain from persisting on this self-destructive path?
I think the forum moderators should step in and close this thread.
The most heavily-loaded, most friction-affected portion during loading (as I stated earlier) is the the textile standing part of the noose itself. You seem to be missing this.
Therefore, if loading doesn’t melt the standing part and cause it to fail (and it won’t), it doesn’t make sense to claim heat damage and melting for other parts.
As a secondary point, it’s helpful to note that a nooselike hitch, snugged down, behaves a lot like a loop. The legs spread out making motion difficult, and the contained object helps to balance forces further.
And IMO you’re right.
You might prefer, however, to do a similar tying
with a figure 8 base vice the overhand --it gets
a slightly better/larger/more-knotted structure.
And there are various variations on this theme (of
bringing the tail in from the away side of the knot)
in which the knot is able to be formed completely
after threading through the harness --though I find
these variation less appealing, though adequate.
One could also tie with a long enough tail to take
through the harness and back through the knot, too,
for that much added security and material in the knot
(to compress).
.:. It’s a knot deserving much more publicity than
it gets (both : overhand & fig.8 bases)!
As I’ve noted previously, there are various ways
of “corresponding” to and end2end knot for an eye
knot. (No one seems to notice a difference in getting
the end2end “butterfly” knot from the better known
mid-line eye knot!)
And the offset water knot is asymmetric, so there are
two possible/different SParts for it.
The name 'competition knot' is silly in my viewNicely refreshing, IMO. But mysterious vs. descriptive. (How descriptive if "grapevine" or "strangle" or "clove", though, never mind "sheepshank"!?)
So the technical name ought to be 'Offset overhand eye knot" - because its corresponding 'bend' is #1410 Offset over bend.There's a mouthful! And what if --like the [i]butterfly[/i]-- the eye knot had come first (with a name) :: how, then, to offset that nominal inequity ... ?
Whether he is, I certainly am. On what do you
base this assertion about physical properties?
How does one get all that compressive, frictional
force around the noose’s SPart without affecting
what is upstream of that --namely, the passage
of the tension-bearing SPart down around the
harness tie-in points.
IIRC, yes, it was quite surprising IMO that in one
test of >>8mm Bluewater II rope<< strangle-noosed
to a 'biner that the noose-SPart, not the strangle-SPart,
was what broke. BUT that was with metal at the
highly loaded U-turn point for this SPart, and it
was the ultimate results, not something very bad
going on en route to that --which running across
nylon would be, on the lead-up.
(AND, IIRC, testing of thicker rope --arborist rope–
by Paolo Baravesco [<-sp!?] indicated that the
breakage of a strangle noose came elsewhere.
(It’s been a while since I considered those results … .) )
NB : in this case, parts are moving against moving
parts, no stuck-in-one-place-tie-in loop situation.
And IIRC the grapevine breaks in its SPart near
where it U-turns & wraps (but in nylon monofilament,
Barnes’ found that the blood knot --with a sharp,
1dia wrap at each end-- broke in the center, where the
SPart’s crossed on opposite sides of the pinched perpendicular
tails (!) --and had delivered sufficient force to the wraps to
make impressions of pressure on the SParts they wrapped!
Again, though, this was monofilament fish line, not rope.
I’m not arguing that no force is transmitted around the object, merely that the 100% load at the standing part gets reduced to something below 100% past the entry point.
This becomes especially evident when you consider what happens to a Gnat Hitch when it is pre-snugged around an object, causing the legs to spread. This is most easily seen by tying the hitch around a large test fixture and see at what leg angle the hitch stops contracting in free air and starts acting like a standard loop. It’s usually just shy of about 90 degrees.
So in an actual snug condition, instead of free air, we’d expect this balance point to occur even sooner. And indeed, in high load testing of such hitches, it’s not at all unusual to see the knot body to lift off the object and leave a gap, much like a loop.
The original issue of the gnat hitch (noose) being used as a tie-in knot for climbing applications is being obfuscated and lost-in-translation.
The gnat hitch must not be used as a tie-in knot to a climbers harness - despite any assertion that a gnat hitch will reach a balance point (equilibrium) and stop cinching like a noose.
When tied into a climbing harness, the gnat hitch will act like a noose and cinch up tight - and so during the violent force of a free-fall, significant friction and resultant heat stress will occur to the harness textile material. The impact force of a fall is dynamic - and not a steady acting force - it is a sudden shock load.
Tie-in knots for climbing must be eye knots that do not collapse or tighten like a noose. The eye must be fixed.
The use of #409 (Poachers noose) and #1120 (scaffold noose) as termination knots for cows tails lanyard is used extensively in the rope access industry (see my previous link to IRATA code of practice). The noose is formed on a metal carabiner - not a textile harness.
The attached photos:
In photos 2 and 3, the eyes are fixed (they do not collapse and cinch tight like a noose).
Mark G
Gee, I thought the point of dynamic rope was to reduce sudden shock loads to modest loads that a human can endure.
Anyway, you’re descending beyond silliness with your grim reaper cartoons. Instead of spending your time doodling, why not try to prove your assertions by dropping some weights and taking pictures of all the melted nylon?
Most knot forms have some parts squeezing or compressing past other parts during load and survive quite easily. I think we’ll be waiting a long time for the pictures as my tests are unable to produce even a slight warming.
I debated for a while whether I should reply any further to this nonsense.
But then I thought, okay - one last reply for any visitors to this forum who want a laugh.
Look - roo, its evident to me that you are not knowledgeable about climbing and how things generally work in climbing (and working at height) activities.
And that’s fine - we can’t be experts in all fields of endeavor.
Some people are expert in decorative knots (I’m certainly not).
Others have expertise in sailing related knot applications - and that’s also fine.
But, it is plainly evident to me that you simply don’t have the depth and breadth of experience to comment on knots that are used in fall-arrest applications for climbing and/or working at height.
So given that this is plainly evident - why should I waste my time educating you?
Normally I give advice under paid contract - so I would be happy to invoice you for my time if you wish to learn about climbing and general work-at-height.
Found some spare time to snap a few photos of ‘offset overhand bend’ (aka offset ring bend) and some corresponding eye knots.
I haven’t shown all possible variations - just 3 to compare.
Please note that all photos are showing knots loosely dressed for ease of examination.
Mark G
