Long time reader, first time poster here -
I’ve been climbing on the EBSB for 8 yrs or so and have recently been doing much more alpine, multi-pitch climbs and have begun to think about ring loading. Has anyone done any testing on the effect of ring loading on:
a) the EBSB
b) the EBSB tied as a 1034.5
Thanks
Hello ‘altclimb’.
As a general rule, Bowline ‘eye knots’ are not optimal in a transverse loading profile. In the specific case of the EBSB Bowline, it is resistant to transverse eye loading but it is not invulnerable to transverse eye loading.
In life critical applications, knot stability and security are of paramount importance. Transverse loading profiles can trigger instability.
Interestingly, ‘anti’ Bowlines are (as a general rule) optimal in transverse loading profiles - but not optimal in axial loading profiles.
The EBSB is stable and secure when tied from the simple (#1010) Bowline and also when tied from #1034 1/2 (tail outside simple Bowline).
It is known that #1034 1/2 (tail outside) Bowline is more resistant to transverse loading relative to #1010 (tail inside) Bowline - but its not invulnerable.
Therefore, it is factual to make a claim that an EBSB Bowline tied from #1034 1/2 is more resistant to transverse loading relative to the #1010 version.
I have not shown the ‘anti’ EBSB Bowline - but it is optimal in a transverse loading profile (but not optimal in an axial loading profile). The Eskimo/Cossack/Boas Bowline is an example of an ‘anti’ Bowline.
General public disclaimer:
Facts don’t care about feelings. If you are a person who is easily offended by words, and holds an ideology that words can cause harm, you should not read and/or respond to my posts. I hold the view that in order to fully engage with someone, you must be willing to risk being offended. A disagreement about technical matters does not constitute hate speech - it is simply a pathway to finding truth and meaning. Feelings are subjective, and anyone can make a claim they are offended or have been harmed - but that does not make it objectively true. People who claim to be harmed by words/speech do not qualify their harm with a time frame. For example, is their ‘harm’ permanent, irreversible, and lifelong? Or is it short duration / fleeting? Some ideologies are performative in nature - the person who claims to be harmed is performing an overt act in order to validate their ideology at the expense of their perceived opponent.
@altclimb for the uninitiated (me and I’m sure others), what is an EBSB? I did a web search and it wasn’t obvious what EBSB refers to. I’m presuming it’s a version of the bowline?
Thanks, Agent_Smith - didn’t expect an answer so quickly nor from the likes of yyou - much appreciated
1
End Bound Single Bowline (EBSB)
The End-Bound (Tail-loop’d) Dbl. BWL looks amply
secure vs. ring-loading. (Did you choose not this but
the single version for its extension of tucking the Tail
out through the collar?)
–dl*
==== - - - *
For a Cowboy Bowline (#1034.5), I like a mid-bound (MB) wrap instead of an end-bound (EB) wrap. I first saw this in a Canadian Scout Fieldbook, 1990 where it was called a Locking Bowline.
If you want to add an extra tuck (as Mark Gommers always does for his EBSB), then I would avoid a Yosemite Tuck because it tends to pull out of the nipping loop. You could do Scott’s Locking Tuck.
But my favorite way is to simply pull the free end back and up under the wrap and the collar on the other side of the standing part. This knot takes a transverse load very well.
While I like the looks of this last one, it does have some potential to jam. Adding the Scott’s Locking Tuck is much less likely to jam
The EBDB always felt a bit clunky for me in practical applications, just a preference in the end.
So interestingly, I was debating on now to tie the EBSB as a 1034.5 and did something like this rather than the image posted above by @agent_smith. The main difference was that I tended to wrap the Yosemite finish clockwise on the loop rather than clockwise.
Hello again ‘altclimb’.
So interestingly, I was debating on now to tie the EBSB as a 1034.5
This depends on how you choose to define Ashley #1034 1/2.
Strictly and technically speaking, you actually aren’t beginning from the baseline of Ashley #1034 1/2 (tail outside simple Bowline).
We’re getting into potentially dangerous territory here - because I am disagreeing with your underlying premise. This risks causing offense and there are some who might view technical disagreements as causing harm (ie words can cause harm).
So I might leave it there - PM me to discuss privately.
PS - Be careful with other variants offered in this topic thread- not all will be ‘inherently secure’. It appears that you are a climber (like I am) - we need knots that are secure and stable (eg absolutely resistant to slack shaking and cyclic loading profiles, etc). Not everyone on this IGKT forum uses knots in life critical applications - where death is a real possibility if a knot works loose.
NOTE: This is not to slander or offend those who contribute their ideas - rather, its simply pointing out that not everyone uses knots in the same way that you and I do… eg My life depends on me making correct choices and decisions in applying knots within their ‘flight envelope’ (per the ‘flight ‘envelope’ of an aircraft - exceeding it means inflight breakup, and death).
