I can’t seem to find any pics or explanation of these two mentioned bowline variants. Anyone care to elaborate or post a link?
Hi Mike,
In house you can have a look at http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4480.0
Dan Lehman is the originator of the EBDB bowline and agent_smith is the originator of the EBSB bowline.
This pdf certainly helped me with understanding certain styles of knots and their purposes: http://www.paci.com.au/downloads_public/knots/01_Knots.pdf and shows the EBSB bowline.
Cheers,
mobius
The second link isn’t working.
Hi Mike,
Try this link here. http://www.torontobrigantine.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Few-Good-Knots.pdf
謝謝 alan lee
Hmmm… all the PACI links I used to use seem wrong now.
This one worked. Thanks guys.
Whoa, this is simplistic. Dan Lehman discovered (and not very
soon in his long examination of things knotty!) the simple
“end-binding” of wrapping the tail back around parts of
the knot. And that is a finish/extension that can be applied
to many knots, and various ways. (And I applied it, but didn’t
advocate it, around single bowlines as well.) E.g., one
could try it around the (set like clove hitch) water bowline.
–dl*
Has anyone tested these Bowline variations under heavy load? Which one resists jamming the best under heavy load? So far I’m liking the “Lees Locked Bowline”
Hi All,
Mike I have a couple simple test on Lee’s lock bowline, see Re: Monsoon Bowline vs WaterBowline w/Yosemite tuck
Reply #11 http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5050.msg33475#msg33475
A few test just not enough,I am planing to build a hydraulic testing unit, when I got it build.
I will do more test on some of my knots.
.謝謝 alan lee.
I suspect I missed the discussion where the ‘tag’ EBDB was applied to a class of knots that exhibit the ‘end bound double bowline’ quality. I have always thought of EBDB Bowline as a knot name only, one that was solely attributed to Dan as a particular knot geometry.
Similarly, I probably have misrepresented Mark’s knot.
Cheers,
mobius
Here are a few images for your viewing pleasure.
I routinely use the Bowline #1010 EBSB variant as a direct rope-to-harness tie in for lead climbing.
After 5 years of trialling and lots of big air time (ie one or big falls) - I apparently am still alive (this has to be true because I am writing this post at IGKT - unless its my ghost who is tapping the key board).
The tail in my EBSB variant is securely gripped - the structure is very secure and stable.
On the other hand, I would not use Dan’s Bowline #1013 EBDB variant as a tie-in knot for lead climbing.
This is not intended as an attack against Dan or his creation - rather, it is simply pointing out my view that the structure is not as secure and stable relative to my EBSB variant.
It is true to say that Dan’s EBDB variant is more secure and stable relative to #1013. However, that by itself is not sufficient to tip the balance in favor of it being used as a tie-in knot for lead climbing.
The stiffness of the rope will play an important role in how secure Dan’s EBDB can be achieved. In comparison, my EBSB will still function well even with stiff rope.
Having said all that, in fairness to Dan - I dont believe he intended his EBDB to be used as a tie-in knot for lead climbing. Whereas I was specifically looking for a Bowline variant that could function exceedingly well as a tie-in knot for lead climbing. Dan may have simply been looking for an enhancement to #1013?
Mark G
Have you ever tried the “lee’s locked” bowline? If so what are your thoughts on how it compares to your EBSB in stiffer static rope like you have pictured?
Hi Mark,
Would you mind expanding on what you call ‘stable’. I see from your ERT document you wrote: “Stability refers to the degree that a knot can maintain its form and structure when subjected to an off-nominal loading event”.
When I trial knots at home I often do stability tests like loading a ‘yobo’ bowline end to end to see what fate awaits it, or other end loading, or ring loading. For me, cyclic loading gets done almost by default in some cases, using the same length of rope and loop in several trials takes care of that. Presumably, here you are much more interested in knot deformation under high load, cyclic loading, shock loading and ring loading as stability tests. Right?
FWIW, here is what I call a stable knot under ring loading:
-
Has been cyclic loaded at least a dozen times up to 500kg. It looks like I originally tied it, it is not jammed.
-
The same knot loaded to 200kg. Considering the load, the nub has not deformed beyond recognition as far as I am concerned.
-
United form after load with no obvious deformation from where the knot started.
The trial above is actually a secondary one. The first involved tying the loop in 3mm poly braid cord and testing it to 50% MBS. The above knot did not collapse, or jam, under ring loading in that material either.
Cheers,
mobius
Edit: The last image is from a 50% MBS trial, the knot untied easily afterwards
I should have mentioned this last post:
My understanding was that stiff rope likes gradual turns, and that seems borne out by some of the trials I have conducted in what I consider very stiff marine quality pe/pp braid. Tying knots in my 6mm marine rope material is sometimes not easy, just because some turns are tight and my material is stiff. Leaving a loose turn is a worry. If the knot cannot be snugged properly then the knot is likely not going to be secure.
With that in mind, why is Dan’s EBDB harder to make secure than your EBSB one? His are all gradual turns while the EBSB has it’s final tuck as a loop around one diameter. I dislike a loop around one diameter, just because stiff rope might not like it 
Cheers,
mobius
If I appear to post ad hoc, its because i am currently undergoing life-changing experiences in trying to regain control over my paci.com.au domain.
Things are starting to look a little brighter - for instance - I can see a tiny speck of light appearing down the end of a very long tunnel. AuDA domain authority are responding to me pleas that I have been the victim of cyber crime and that I am no longer in control of my website…
Have you ever tried the "lee's locked" bowline? If so what are your thoughts on how it compares to your EBSB in stiffer static rope like you have pictured?Yes. I use it - but not as a direct tie-in knot for lead climbing or mountaineering.
I still favor the Bowline #1010 variant ‘EBSB’.
I prefer the tail to exit the nub/core in parallel and pointing in the same direction as the origin of the SPart (ie SPart enters the nub, and the tail exits the nub parallel to but going 180 degrees opposite direction).
Notice the similarity with the transformed #1080 compared to #1010 EBSB? (Note: I said ‘similarity’ and not identical)
The reason for my preference includes:
- Gravity… while in the act of climbing, the tail should point ‘down’ - gravity acts to keep the tail pulling away from the nub/core (admittedly, the benefits of which may be difficult to measure but nevertheless logic suggests that it should provide some effect)
- It facilitates another tail securing maneuver - eg by ‘strangling’ the tail around the SPart.
Would you mind expanding on what you call 'stable'.
I have expanded the concept of ‘stability’ to include resistance to spilling/capsizing/flyping events.
Example: The Offset structures ability to remain stable up to a certain load threshold (which will be a probability load - and not a precisely defined load - sort of like uncertainty in quantum mechanics - eg we cant precisely define the location of an electron or a photon but, we can say where it is likely to be).
So, with an Offset structure such as #1410, we must know that it is stable up to a certain load probability - otherwise, if it weren’t stable, there would be more deaths in climbing.
The Munter/Italian/Crossing hitch is also an interesting structure to apply the concept of ‘stability’. The ‘munter’ can capsize from one form to another and yet, it remains functional as a belay hitch. We can argue that it is unstable…but, it remains functional as a belay hitch. Depending on which direction load enters the Munter hitch, it capsizes to re-orient according to load direction.
However, in the case of an Offset structure such as #1410, as load increases, we will see the structure undergo change and it will re-form itself into another geometry (which progressively becomes more unstable with the passage of time and increasing load till eventually, the continued structural change leads to catastrophic failure (ie tails eventually pull through).
Resistance to ring loading is another metric we can apply - particularly to eye knots (I like to use the term ‘eye knot’ to describe all knots that will be used to form a connection - eg a Butterfly eye knot, a Figure 8 eye knot and a Bowline eye knot - of which we know there are many different classes of bowlines).
Keep in mind that my angle is with respect to human life support applications which are ‘mission critical’ (eg climbing/mountaineering) - where knot failure could lead to death.
Mark
Hi Mark,
it seems to me that Lee’s lock (the photo in previous post) is used on simple bowline (#1010). There is now an interesting question: if this lock can be used on double bowline (#1013). Of course, it can - but is it good lock?
Regards,
ZZ
Hi All,
zoranz. here is the links and the article about Lee’s locked apply to the double bowline by Braco015
https://www.reddit.com/r/climbing/comments/2ioyvb/pdf_everything_you_could_want_to_know_about/
http://imgur.com/a/GUvvq
謝謝 alan lee.
There is now an interesting question: if this lock can be used on double bowline (#1013). Of course, it can - but is it good lock?
There is no reason in principle why it can’t.
However, the ‘stiffness’ of a particular rope will play a significant role in how well the Lee’s locking maneuver will function. Xarax has elaborated on his dislike of sharp turns of the tail - eg making a sharp U turn or round turn around a single diameter (use the search function to research his views). I largely agree with him in-so-far-as making forceful U turns around a single rope diameter - particularly with stiff rope - it may not be effective.
For lead climbing applications, I personally prefer knot structures where the tail exits the nub/core of the knot parallel to the SPart (going in the opposite direction). This means the tail will point downwards while in the act of climbing - and so gravity will act to inhibit tail slippage/movement caused by slack shaking and cyclic loading.
Furthermore, some climbers prefer to undertake further tail securing maneuvers to increase security - eg by ‘strangling’ the tail around the SPart (generally known as ‘adding a stopper knot’ or ‘locking off’). So if the tail is adjacent to the SPart, it will facilitate such a locking maneuver.
Mark G
… after the EBDB?!
The stiffness of the rope will play an important role in how secure Dan's EBDB can be achieved. In comparison, my EBSB will still function well even with stiff rope.Which is an interesting remark, as Dan (I) ..
Having said all that, in fairness to Dan - I dont believe he intended his EBDB to be used as a tie-in knot for lead climbing. Whereas I was specifically looking for a Bowline variant that could function exceedingly well as a tie-in knot for lead climbing.... had the same design goal --and, i.p., re stiffness, wanted/wants those [u]three[/u] diameters with both the S.Part's AND the "end-binding's" turns thus softened (and hence my rejection of the [i]"EBSB"[/i]'s harder turns).
Now, in fairness (and alert to readers) to Agent_Smith, we must
note that his looseness w/knot-naming has let the seemingly
part-of-the-series “EBSB” stand for what ought to be known
as “<that_knot> + Yosemite finish” --that extended further
tail wrap & tuck out through the collar (which could also be
done for … a great many knots, incl. EBDB).
Dan may have simply been looking for an enhancement to #1013??! Which is itself an enhancement to #1010, ... . !?