Double Harness loop ( ABoK#1420)

[X11]

An end-of-line loop based upon the beautiful Double Harness bend ( ABoK#1420). ( See the attached pictures).
( If we use the “Double Harness bend with parallel ends” (ABoK#1421), we get the loop shown at (1). If we use the Rusty s bend-ABoK#1450, we get the loop shown at (2). We may also use the Single Harness bend ( ABoK#1474)(less complex), or the Barrel knot - Blood Knot (ABoK#1413)(more complex)).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=19.msg21148#msg21148
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3962.msg23527#msg23527

---

[Dan_Lehman]

An end-of-line loop based upon the beautiful Double Harness bend ( ABoK#1420)

Rather --most strongly–, the eyeknot corresponding to …
by the simple construction rule of the tail (extended) as the
2nd SPart of the end-2-end knot in making the knot. (I.e.,
form the first half and then tie the tail into it as though
completing the end-2-end knot --but you’ll have formed an eye.)
This is I think commonly regarded as the usual relation between
eye knots & corresponding end-2-end knots (such as the bowline
& sheet bend, Flemish bend & fig.8 eyeknot); the butterfly
takes a different rule in correspondence to the butterfly/strait bend .

I’m reminded of one zeppelin-knot lover’s revulsion to such
a corresponding eyeknot, and think that in this case the favor
should be as much found wanting if not more so. There are
other rules for correspondence between end-2-end & eye knots,
and the twinning-one-side-&-fusing-tails method gives a
nicer result here, and especially for the blood knot (Barnes
came close to showing this, in showing bight ends & a “lead”
so joined! [His image is what spawned the idea in my mind.]).

One might have completed the harness bend’s eye derivation
with a “proper collar” (and maybe gotten what Hansel & Gretel
called the “twist bowline”). I would like to see the eye knot’s
SPart bite more than a single strand, even if that’s indirect. Also,
note that the harness bend’s opposed tails could swap places
–i.e., each tucked closer to its own SPart, which I think helps a
little in this particularly formed eye knot (in better clamping the tail).

–dl*

[X11]

@Dan_Lehman post:2

I’m reminded of one Zeppelin-knot lover’s revulsion to such a corresponding eyeknot, and think that in this case the favour should be as much found wanting if not more so.

Your remember very well, and I will repeat the same thing here : The so-called “Zeppelin loop” is a disgrace for the most symmetric and beautiful Zeppelin bend - and the fact that it is a secure loop, can not hide this !
Perhaps I have not stressed AGAIN the fact that all the bowline-like end-of-line loops I had referred to, are NOT “corresponding” to interlocked overhand bends, as the poor, ugly so-called “Zeppelin loop”- i.e., they will disappear from the line as soon as the “collar structure” is pulled off the “nipping structure” tied on the standing part. I have said this simple, self evident thing so many times, that sometimes I believe I have said it all the times !

@Dan_Lehman post:2

One might have completed the harness bend’s eye derivation with a “proper collar”

Then it would “correspond” more to the Single Harness loop ( ABoK#1474), than the Double, is nt it that so ?

@Dan_Lehman post:2

I would like to see the eye knot’s SPart bite more than a single strand, even if that’s indirect. Also,
note that the harness bend’s opposed tails could swap places --i.e., each tucked closer to its own SPart, which I think helps a little in this particularly formed eye knot (in better clamping the tail).

Me too - although this form of the Double Harness bend is a most secure bend iff kept under constant tension ( long tails would help, too). Moreover, I admit I will always prefer the more symmetric form of the ABoK#1420 from the one of the ABoK#1421 - and I have transferred this biased preference even here, where the initial symmetry is broken ! You are right, the ABoK#1421, especially in its “Short” form (1), would probably be a more compact, tighter, firmer, better solution.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2851

[X11]

@Dan_Lehman post:2

One might have completed the harness bend’s eye derivation
with a “proper collar” (and maybe gotten what Hansel & Gretel
called the “twist bowline”).

By reductio ad absurdum, I conclude that the above mentioned “twist bowline” might not be anything else than one of the two forms of the “crossing knot bowline”, shown at (1), and at the attached pictures.
The nipping potential of the crossing knot “nipping structure” has been greatly diminished here, due to the “twist”. Therefore, the second leg of a “proper” collar would probably be nipped inadequately - so it would offer no advantage in relation to the double harness bowline ( and it might even be a much less effective, inferior way to secure the tail, than the way of the double harness bend/loop ) .

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3467.msg20144#msg20144

---

[agent_smith]

Hello X1,

The so-called ‘crossing knot bowline’ to which you refer (with images) is to my eye non other than Mike Karash’s version of a Bowline.

He called it the ‘double karash loop’ - and tied it from a standard F8 loop ("ABoK #1047) and then employed a backflip maneuver similar to “ABoK #1085”. He did not tie [his] knot in the traditional way of forming a Bowline as depicted in Ashley’s “ABoK #1010”.

I later demonstrated that the so-called Karash double loop could be tied just like a traditional Bowline on a Bight (“ABoK #1080”) - and also as per “ABoK #1010” for a single connective eye-loop version. Photos are in the ‘What defines a Bowline’ thread…

My view is that Mike Karash did not realise that his knot could be tied in the same way as a traditional #1010 and #1080 Bowline - and therefore never thought of his ‘creation’ as a Bowline variant…

It is because of Mike’s method of tying it from “ABoK #1047” (F8 loop) that its relationship to a Bowline was overlooked…

Mark

[X11]

@agent_smith post:5

The so-called ‘crossing knot bowline’ to which you refer (with images) is to my eye non other than Mike Karash’s version of a Bowline.

You mean, HALF of the Karash double bowline… Which is not a version of the bowline, but a version of a double loop bowline.
Just because this one-half of the Karash bowline is a bowline, indeed - albeit an inferior one, as I have explained -, we may call this loop " a bowline ".
If part of a knot is a bowline, the whole knot remains a bowline - albeit a more complex one.
As part of the Karash loop is a bowline indeed, the whole double loop remains a bowline. Completing a knot can not erase a previously tied part of it, so, if a knot was a bowline, at one stage of its tying, it will remain a bowline, even after one adds some new parts on it. ( Reply#10)
The advantages or disadvantages of the Karash double loop do not depend on its one-half, of course. It was designed and meant to be a double loop just from the start, and serve for rescue purposes - as Karash himself describes in his presentation. We should not compare different things ! The common single or double the bowline should be compared only with :

1. Single loop end-of-line loops that can be completely untied when the “collar structure” is pulled off the “nipping structure”.
2. One collar bowlines - the existence of a second collar is a great advantage as well as a complication, so the double collar loops should be compared only with double collar loops !
   My intention was to search for ways that would help us we can improve the single loop, single collar bowline at first. Then we can proceed to more complex and secure loops, on the base of what we have already found for the single loop, single collar cases. The Double Harness (ABoK#1420) bowline, the double nipping loops bowline, and all the crossing knot end-of-line loop variations explored at (1), should be compared with the standard common or “Eskimo” bowlines, not with more complex loops - like the Karash double loop.

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3467

[Dan_Lehman]

@agent_smith post:5

The so-called ‘crossing knot bowline’ to which you refer (with images) is to my eye non other than Mike Karash’s version of a Bowline.

“Hansel&Gretel’s” Encyclopedia of Knots & Fancy Ropework
was published before Mike Karash was born. Call it what you
will, as they did.

To my mind, it’s a crossing-knot-based eyeknot,
and (so) not a bowline. (YMMV) As we can see with
the Ashley “Carrick Loop”, there are knots that can
cross this imposed/arbitrary definitional boundary with
particular settings/loadings (!). What to do … ?!
(adopt some “canonical” conditions)

[TMCD]

Regarding the Double Harness Bend that you described as beautiful, I fully agree! It’s simplicity and symmetry is gorgeous. I may start using the Double Harness Bend as my general utility bend when I’m fishing, working etc., instead of the Double Sheetbend I typically utilize.

I wonder how secure the DHB is, Ashley reports the Single Harness Bend as being more secure than the Double Sheetbend. I guess we could assume the DHB is closer to the Carrick Bend in security? It’s a beauty of a bend and I’ve really only recently paid it any attention. The loop is neat too.

[X11]

@TMCD post:8

I wonder how secure the DHB is, Ashley reports the Single Harness Bend as being more secure than the Double Sheet bend. I guess we could assume the DHB is closer to the Carrick Bend in security?

I wish I knew… Ashley also reports that the Double Harness bend with parallel ends ( ABoK#1421) “appears to be preferable” from its more symmetric relative, the ABoK#1420. And there are two versions of the ABoK#1421, according to the way the legs are crossed before they exit the knot s nub (1). The only thing that I can probably say is that the former appears to be preferable from the later in the cases where we have alternating loadings.
I do not like the Double Sheet bend, for the same reason that I do not like the Single one…I do not see ANY reason a bend need NOT be symmetric, and MANY reasons for why it should be.
The more bends I learn, the more I appreciate the simplicity of the (3) Double Harness bends. However, if you want the acme, the pinnacle of the most simple symmetric bends, try the symmetric Sheet bend - but do not stop trying it, until you will become a master of it, and be able to tie it with closed eyes or behind your back !

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2851

[Dan_Lehman]

@TMCD post:8

I wonder how secure the DHB is, Ashley reports the Single Harness Bend
as being more secure than the Double Sheet bend.
I guess we could assume the DHB is closer to the Carrick Bend in security?

The DHB should be more secure, esp. when slack (i.e.,
when set well and then jiggled around in slack line) ; it is
just a wrap or few further and one is into the blood knot long
favored by anglers and secure in nylon monofilament line
(maybe also in HMPE gel-spun line, but weak, there?).

I don’t look to the carrick bend as a model of security
–in contrast to the interlocked-overhands end-2-end knots,
which can be seen to be derivative to the former (for better
nipping of tails).

What I’ve found nice in resorting to the (single/double) harness
bend is that it’s formed by simple wrapping of the tail around
two parallel parts and then tucking it between them ; this at
least is easily done for ONE side, though sometimes I’ve
resorted to the “single” form for ease of finishing the knot,
where a 2nd wrapping & tuck was more difficult --now needing
to tuck between some OVAL opening rather than the wide
“V” of diverging parts for the initial tail-tuck placement.
–this being in small, fiddly stuff, hard to work with with
fat fumbly fingers.

Ashley also reports that the [i]Double Harness bend[/i] with parallel ends ( ABoK#1421) "[i]appears to be preferable[/i]" from its more symmetric relative, the [i]ABoK#1420.[/i]

One reason for preference (not articulated by Ashley) would
be that the adjacent/same-direction tails can be jointly cut
and will protrude on only one side, leaving the other side
clean for flow over surfaces, etc., where opp-direction
tails protruding might cause some difficulties. (Although,
I’ve found blood knots tied asymmetrically so as to
have the opposite results --i.e., an extra half-turn in one
tail-wrap so to have it emerge in opposition to the other.
I think that it is natural & easier to start the knots with
an orientation leading to --in symmetry-- same-side tails.)

I do not like the [i]Double Sheet bend, [/i]for the same reason that I do not like the [i]Single[/i] one : I do not see ANY reason a bend need NOT be symmetric, and MANY reasons for why it should be.

???
This is a quite limited vision (or maybe a hint at how you define
“bend”!?), as an obvious need (or rationale) is that one’s joined
ends are asymmetric --of non-equal nature (in size, material,
construction (or color ;D ) ! So why would one expect to bend
one stiff old material in ways that well suit a new flexible rope?
An asymmetric end-2-end knot might be just the right solution
to this simple rope problem. (Above, I show one reason I came
to an asymmetric harness bend solution --tying difficulty.)

Re “definition of ‘bend’”, I have some sense of seeing the sheet
bend and similar as “bight hitches”. But I recommend to you
the reverse sheet bend aka “Lapp bend” with an extra wrap
around the SPart & that-side-of-bight part (not both bight legs!)
as a wonderful substitution for the sheet bend in that it
is slack-secure, looks amply strong, and has a seemingly good
“forcible untying” method : pulle bight legs apart to draw
some hitching SPart through, and enable loosening of the
bight tail.

–dl*

[TMCD]

Ashley refers to the Harness Bend and Double Harness Bend as drawing bends, what exactly is he refering to when he says drawing bend?? He also shows several bends using the Bowline at one end and either bending to it with two HH or bending to it using the common Sheetbend. He refers to these as drawing bends as well and elaborates that wagoners and such utilized them in the early 1900’s or so.

We don’t talk much about these types of bends here on IGKT but they do seem to have merit. A cool bend that’s in Budworth’s Encyclopedia of Knots is called the Twin Bowline Bend. It’s a beautiful bend with perfect symmetry and Budworth calls it a better bend than the normal Bowline Bend.

If simplicity, ease of tying and symmetry are the KEY factors of creating a secure and strong bend, then the Zeppelin Bend would be very hard to beat IMO. Of course the Ashley Bend is right there as well. Great topic!

[X11]

@Dan_Lehman post:10

I do not like the [i]Double Sheet bend, [/i]for the same reason that I do not like the [i]Single[/i] one : I do not see ANY reason a bend need NOT be symmetric, and MANY reasons for why it should be.

??? This is a quite limited vision (or maybe a hint at how you define "bend"!?), as an obvious need (or rationale) is that one's joined ends are *asymmetric* --of non-equal nature (in size, material, construction (or color ;D ) ! So why would one expect to bend one stiff old material in ways that well suit a new flexible rope? An asymmetric end-2-end knot might be just the right solution to this simple rope problem.

Correct : I see a “bend” as the means of joining two lengths of the same cord or rope together - or, at least, of two lengths of similar - in diameter, surface characteristics, stifness - materials.
When the material of the two links are of a greatly different nature, regarding all those essential characteristics, I immediately think of the need for two interlinked hitches - which might be, or might be not, of the same form/structure. Hitch is a means that helps us attach a piece of rope to another object, is nt it that so ? It should be expected that different materials should be connected together by a different finish - knot or whatever- at their adjacent areas, if we wish the optimum solution regarding security, strength, easiness of attaching and separating the two parts, etc.

[Dan_Lehman]

@TMCD post:11

Ashley refers to the Harness Bend and Double Harness Bend as drawing bends,
what exactly is he refering to when he says drawing bend??

It would be great if he defined this, wouldn’t it?!! >:(
(He did go to the intriguing trouble of capitalizing the term
–which to my scrutiny has a null index value in pg. “340”).

My surmise is that he means that one can draw the
joined lines tight in tying these structures.

A cool bend that's in Budworth's [u][i][Ultimate!] Encyclopedia of Knots[/i][/u] is called the [i]Twin Bowline Bend.[/i] It's a beautiful bend with perfect symmetry and Budworth calls it a better bend than the normal [i]Bowline Bend.[/i]

It’s Ashley’s #1454. My revision of this bend is to
reeve their tails back through the nipping loops,
which should further secure & strengthen the joint.
“Twin ” makes for a neat category, but I’m
realizing now that it’s in a way not necessarily “twin” :
e.g., that one side’s bowline could contribute its
tail to the other side’s fig.8 eyeknot and vice versa.
(One need be mindful of adjustments of lengths from
loading, but you get the idea.)

If simplicity, ease of tying, and symmetry are the KEY factors of creating a secure and strong bend, then the [i]Zeppelin Bend[/i] would be very hard to beat IMO. Of course the [i]Ashley Bend[/i] is right there as well. Great topic!

But why should they be (esp. the first two)?
And those end-2-end knots are readily beaten in tests
by the grapevine bend , to name one.

–dl*

[X11]

@Dan_Lehman post:13

@TMCD post:11

A cool bend that’s in Budworth’s [Ultimate!] Encyclopedia of Knots
is called the Twin Bowline Bend. It’s a beautiful bend with perfect symmetry and Budworth calls it a better bend than the normal Bowline Bend.

It’s Ashley’s #1454. My revision of this bend is to reeve their tails back through the nipping loops, which should further secure & strengthen the joint.
“Twin ” makes for a neat category

Another revision is to merge the two bowlines together, as shown in (1)(2)(3).(See the attached pictures, for two variations of this knot).
The resulting bend is no more an inter-linked bend, as the ABoK#1454, but an inter-penetrating bend - like the single/double/triple fisherman s knot. However, we should probably distinguish two broad categories of those bends : the bend being loaded, the nipping structures of the two links can be pulled apart ( as it happens in the case of the bowline B bend), or pushed towards each other ( as it happens in the case of the fisherman s knots).

1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2871.msg17177#msg17177
2. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2871.msg18410#msg18410
3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2871.msg22235#msg22235

---

[X11]

@Dan_Lehman post:10

the (single/double) harness bend is that it’s formed by simple wrapping of the tail around two parallel parts and then tucking it between them ;
this at least is easily done for ONE side, though sometimes I’ve resorted to the “single” form for ease of finishing the knot, where a 2nd wrapping & tuck was more difficult --now needing to tuck between some OVAL opening rather than the wide “V” of diverging parts for the initial tail-tuck placement. --this being in small, fiddly stuff, hard to work with with fat fumble fingers.

It is as easily done for one side as it is for two...Just [i]"jiggle"[/i] and tuck both tails through the parallel standing parts, so/while the two collars are at some distance the one from the other. Then, grasp and hold the two tails AND the one standing end in the palm of your one hand, and grasp and pull the other standing end in the palm of your other hand ( no individual fingers involved !  :) ). Slide the two links along the parallel inter-penetrating standing parts, until the two tails kiss each other and you do not need to hold them any longer.

[Dan_Lehman]

@X1 post:15

It is as easily done for one side as it is for two... .

In your dreams, perhaps.
In certain practical situations as I hinted, it is quite not so easy.

–dl*

[TMCD]

Dan,
I’ve kind of got the impression you don’t like the Carrick Bend, any particular reasons for that or am I wrong in that assumption? I don’t use it because in the field it’s a pain in the butt to tie correctly and it almost seems to untie to easily if that makes sense. Are you a Carrick Bend fan?

Regarding symmetry, I don’t think a bend needs symmetry to be secure and strong but it certainly is more pleasing to the human eye.

[X11]

@TMCD post:17

I don’t think a bend needs symmetry to be secure and strong but it certainly is more pleasing to the human eye.

Symmetry assures that the distribution of tensile forces into the knot would be equalized, so, within each link of the bend, the strength limits would be reached at almost the same time. Otherwise, there would be a weak and a strong link, one would break much earlier than the moment the other would approach its strength limit - not an optimum situation. Of course, I am always talking about bends tied on the same, or on a similar material.

@Dan_Lehman post:16

@X1 post:15

It is as easily done for one side as it is for two... .

In your dreams, perhaps.
In certain practical situations as I hinted, it is quite not so easy.

I have not described any particular practical situation - neither did you… Anybody that has, or will, tie a Double Harness bend, would see who is dreaming ! The two links of the Double Harness bend(s) can, very easily, tied apart the one from the other, and then they can, also very easily, be forced to slide on their two interpenetrating standing parts, until the tails kiss each other.
I can’t imagine why you do not see this!?

[Dan_Lehman]

@TMCD post:17

Dan,
I’ve kind of got the impression you don’t like the Carrick Bend, any particular reasons for that or am I wrong in that assumption?
I don’t use it because in the field it’s a pain in the butt to tie correctly and it almost seems to untie to easily if that makes sense.
Are you a Carrick Bend fan?

I don’t use the carrick bend so much, but have noted its
apparent calling for the hardy crabbers out of Alaska who’ve
been featured in the t.v. series Deadliest Catch --and noted
that they were shown tying it by means of forming one end
into final form and reeving the other into it (a more error-prone
method than what I call --and is commonly presented-- “the
lattice form with capsizing”)!? It wasn’t clear whether they
took any precaution in further securing the tails (although
I believe that tucking the tails through the lay isn’t an option,
as the rope is too hard-laid for that). The one aspect of the
capsizing-the-lattice-form method that is problematic sometimes
is preventing the tails from slipping out or some uneven
capsizing with unequal ropes (stiffer joining more flexible).
(Otherwise, I find that method fairly failsafe for formation,
and pretty easily constructed, even though the capsizing
might take some minding.)

Regarding symmetry, I don't think a bend needs symmetry to be secure and strong but it certainly is more pleasing to the human eye.

And this thinking I mostly concur in, and so have marveled
at the popularity of the butterfly (“strait”) bend vs. #1408
& #1452 !? Given that in joining ends one has no need
for the butterfly’s TIB ability, why not take advantage of
that condition and tie a symmetric knot?
But so it goes!

–dl*

[X11]

@Dan_Lehman post:19

@TMCD post:17

Regarding symmetry, I don’t think a bend needs symmetry to be secure and strong but it certainly is more pleasing to the human eye.

And this thinking I mostly concur in

" [Symmetric] bends have the following advantages.
(I) There is less chance of mis-tying an SB, since any asymmetry is usually immediately apparent…Moreover, there is more likely to be an easily memorazable method of tying it, often symmetric itself.
(II) SB s are usually strong, since neither end is the weaker. That is, both cords in an SB have the same “strength”, unlike asymmetric bends, for which inevitably one of the cords is the weaker, and hense the first to rupture under increasing load or tension. Hense, in general, SB a may be expected to be “stronger”…
On these grounds one might claim that the “best” bends are symmetric."

Roger E. Miles, Symmetric Bends ( How to Join Two Lengths of Cord )