Ever seen this "knot"?

General Discussion
1

Saw this one “in the wild” where a young tree is tied to a stake in the ground.

Looks like the rope makes a simple loop, then around the tree, then forms another simple loop through the first loop.

Top view (standing part comes in from the left, tree is on the right):

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/tree1b.jpg

Right side (standing part comes in from the left, tree is on the right):

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/tree2b.jpg

Left side (standing part comes in from the right, tree is on the left):

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/tree3b.jpg

Bottom view:

http://www.layhands.com/Knots/tree4b.jpg

This “knot” apparently accomplishes its purpose, it just seems rather unusual!

Dave

Is it a "bowline" ?
2

Dave,
Can it be this knot?:

http://knopen.ismijnhobby.nl/diverse/single_carrick.gif

(This picture is to show the knot, not as instructions to tie it.)

If so, I would call it a single carrick bend.
I always get confused by Ashleys drawings but it is one of the carricks on page 263, (#1440?)

It used to be used in the days of hemp rope but it is almost always unreliable in modern rope.

Willeke

3

DaveRoot!

Thank you!!

That’s a neat knot, frugal and attractive! I can’t help the feeling I’ve seen it before, but can’t find where just now.

As I continue to look, please tell me if I have the construction right. If I do, this is how I’d describe tying it:

Use the Standing Part (SPart - ABOK#28 ) to take a Single Turn (ABOK#40) over your Right hand, turning the SPart toward the fingers. Lead (guide, pass, reeve, take) the End around the “object” or make a “long enough” loop (ABOK#32) with the End. Lead the End directly through the first Turn, from fingers to palm. Turn the End around the doubled section of the first Turn, leading the End back through the first Turn and turning away from the subject loop. Hold the End & remove the fingers, hauling on the SPart to set the first Turn, the End to set the second, then tighten the Knot.

I would think this to be a “beginning” knot, as I’d rather take up the slack (i.e. tighten the rigging) on the “Bitter End”…

Corrections, please?? I like this knot & want to share it.

Thank you again!

Jimbo

4

Hi Dave,

It is one of two almost identical variations of the same knot.

The first is the collapsed Granny knot, the second is a ‘quick to tie’ fixing which is good when you have to tie hundreds of loops that are going to be sustained under tension.

Despite them both having a very Carrick like look about them, they are most definately NOT Carrick bends. All three knots have an overs index of 8 but the Carrick is fully ‘saturated’, that is, every time the cord crosses another, it changes its position from above to under or from under to above. The collapsed Granny and its close sister by contrast have an overs index of 8 but are only half saturated. Whereas the Carrick has 16 changes of position, these two knots only have eight. The difference is significant and the Carrick could never collapse to the knot you have depicted.

The problem with the collapsed Granny is that the end comes out on the loop side of the knot. This allows it to act as a bearing surface and movement causes the knot to roll up the loop.

Your photos are very detailed and I believe that this knot is the ‘fast hitch’ used to make simple loops intended to stay under tension.

Start as if you are going to make a bowline ‘the proper way’ - place the end on the Spart and twist to form a loop with the end coming up through the loop. Take the end over the loop crossover point, down and back up through the loop, but make sure that the end comes up through the loop on the Spart side of the loop - it could come up either to the right or the left of the end already coming through the loop. If it comes up the loop side of the hole it will be the collapsed Granny, if it comes up the Spart side of the hole it will be the ‘quick loop knot’.

I am right handed and when I tie this knot it is a mirror image of the one you show. When I tie it left handed, it is an exact match. I have tried, but I cannot find a way to tie the Granny so that it will colapse to this configuration.

5

Hi Dave,

I believe that Jimbo and Willeke are right and I am going to weigh in on the side of a Single Carrick Bend (ABOK #1445) which Ashley calls the “the worst Single Carrick Bend” (p. 263) of the Carrick Bends. ABOK also includes Du Clairbois’ (claimed) Single Carrick Bend (#1442), which Ashley describes as a Granny Knot (#80). Clearly, your photos have the tail projecting below the loop part instead of above, as happens when you tie the Granny Knot. Thanks for some interesting photos!

Lindsey

6

Ooops! Almost forgot - the unusual part that I see is that, in a Single Carrick Bend, standing parts and tails are normally acting together on both sides of the knot, and therefore should both be loaded (perhaps by seizing) whereas here only one SPart/WEnd are working in opposite directions around the loop of the other SPart, where that other SPart is part of the loop around the tree, while the last WEnd does nothing but hang in mid-air! Is that what you saw also?

Lindsey

7
Dave, Can it be this knot?:

http://knopen.ismijnhobby.nl/diverse/single_carrick.gif

Yep, that's it! I did a horizontal flip of your picture, and if we imagine the black Working End coming around and becoming the red Working End then the result is the same as in the pictures I posted.
As I continue to look, please tell me if I have the construction right. If I do, this is how I'd describe tying it:

Use the Standing Part (SPart - ABOK#28 ) to take a Single Turn (ABOK#40) over your Right hand, turning the SPart toward the fingers. Lead (guide, pass, reeve, take) the End around the “object” or make a “long enough” loop (ABOK#32) with the End. Lead the End directly through the first Turn, from fingers to palm. Turn the End around the doubled section of the first Turn, leading the End back through the first Turn and turning away from the subject loop. Hold the End & remove the fingers, hauling on the SPart to set the first Turn, the End to set the second, then tighten the Knot.


Yep, that’s it! As long as the Working End turns around the doubled section of the first Turn in such a way that the Working End exits the first Turn closer to your right pinky finger (rather than your thumb), then the result is the same as in the pictures I posted. I suspect that’s what you meant by, “turning away from the subject loop.”

Start as if you are going to make a bowline 'the proper way' - place the end on the Spart and twist to form a loop with the end coming up through the loop. Take the end over the loop crossover point, down and back up through the loop, but make sure that the end comes up through the loop on the Spart side of the loop - it could come up either to the right or the left of the end already coming through the loop. If it comes up the loop side of the hole it will be the collapsed Granny, if it comes up the Spart side of the hole it will be the 'quick loop knot'.

I am right handed and when I tie this knot it is a mirror image of the one you show. When I tie it left handed, it is an exact match. I have tried, but I cannot find a way to tie the Granny so that it will colapse to this configuration.


Yep, that’s it! When I use your Bowline method, I end up with a mirror-image of the knot in my pictures, just as you did. I see what you mean about the collapsed Granny, and it doesn’t quite collapse to the same configuration as in my pictures (as you pointed out).

Your photos are very detailed and I believe that this knot is the 'fast hitch' used to make simple loops intended to stay under tension.
Yes, it looks like it was a quick-tie knot which was intended to stay under tension. The tree is a crepe myrtle which blew over a bit in some high winds several years ago, and the roots were partially exposed. A yard crew drove a metal stake into the ground and tied the tree to the stake with the knot shown in my pictures. In fact, the knot held just fine when Hurricane Rita came to Houston last year!
the unusual part that I see is that, in a Single Carrick Bend, standing parts and tails are normally acting together on both sides of the knot, and therefore should both be loaded (perhaps by seizing) whereas here only one SPart/WEnd are working in opposite directions around the loop of the other SPart, where that other SPart is part of the loop around the tree, while the last WEnd does nothing but hang in mid-air! Is that what you saw also?
That's right. If we snip the loop and then un-collapse the knot, it can be worked into a Carrick-like configuration as in Willeke's pictures (above). But the way that it is used in my pictures, the last Working End just sticks out in mid-air.

Dave

8

Dave,

The more I tie this knot, the more I like it.

I have not seen it listed anywhere or named, so I propose that until someone comes forward with an existing name, that we name the knot here on this forum for inclusion in the Wiki Index.

Here are some suggestions;

The Quick Lash
The Rita Lash
Dave Roots Quick Fix
The Tree Stay

Any other suggestions?

As you have ‘found’ this knot Dave, would you do the honours please and choose a name for use in the Index.

9
The more I tie this knot, the more I like it.
Good! That means I'm not the only one! ;D Especially if I take the time to heave all the parts down nice & tight.
Any other suggestions?

How about:

[]The Crepe Bowline[]The Frugal Splayed Loopknot[*]The Double Crossing Turns {Loopknot || Bend}
For the “leavers”, the knots we have to leave behind (as on a bush or trellis or some such), this one is sweet! To me, it looks like it only eats about 8 diameters per turn, plus the End. If I must leave cordage behind, let it please be as little as possible, which means this knot, now. IMO, of course…

(Of course, in my opinion, every statement ever uttered by anyone must be prefaced by “In My Opinion”…)

Thanks again! ;D

10

I described the knot to my wife, and I said that “Double Interlocked Crossing Turns Knot” was descriptive but too much of a mouthful.

Without missing a beat she said, “Double-Cross Knot.”

Kinda has a ring to it, while still being somewhat descriptive! 8)

Good? Not so good? Keep looking?

Dave

11

Uuummm - and why is it not the Single Carrick Bend still? I don’t get it - just because it is tied around something differently, does it not still have the same number of overs and unders? I would really like to know why this is not the Single Carrick Bend still - what am I missing?

Puzzled…

12

Takes on the form of a nice little Bowline Hitch ABook #1716 but with out the loop end going back in on itself. Which then brings me to a name of Bowline Bend Hitch.

Giving the fact in the picture that it has 2 bends and in order for it to sustain that hitch it would have to be kept under tension at a consistant value. At least that’s what I am seeing in the picture. I am most likely wrong though. :wink:

13
Uuummm - and why is it not the Single Carrick Bend still? I don't get it - just because it is tied around something differently, does it not still have the same number of overs and unders? I would really like to know why this is not the Single Carrick Bend still - what am I missing?
I'm not able to check ABOK at the moment, but if the knot in my pictures truly has a Single Carrick configuration then it would seem reasonable to call it a Single Carrick Loop. Derek seems certain that it's not a Single Carrick, but I'm not able to verify that one way or the other at the moment...
Takes on the form of a nice little Bowline Hitch ABook #1716 but with out the loop end going back in on itself. Which then brings me to a name of Bowline Bend Hitch.
After reading Derek's description of tying this knot by starting with the beginnings of a Bowline, I toyed with some Bowline-esque names for the knot. However, there have been some discussions on this board about the huge number of knots with "Bowline" in their names, many of which are not necessarily Bowline-y enough to warrant the name. Therefore, it seemed best not to go in that direction unless this knot actually has enough Bowline-like properties to justify a "Bowline" name. Still, it might be a moot point if Lindsey and Willeke are right that it is essentially a Single Carrick Loop.

Dave

14
if the knot in my pictures truly has a Single Carrick configuration then it would seem reasonable to call it a Single Carrick Loop. Derek seems certain that it's not a Single Carrick, ...
Rather, Derek said (unqualified) "carrick", and must mean the usual one popularized by that name--Ashley's #1439, "Full Carrick Bend". As others have noted/confirmed, the knot structure matches #1445, *A* Single Carrick--emphasis for "one of several". So naming the knot after that similarity begs the question Which S.C.?

Yes, there are a great many bogus “bowline” names; but, here, we have grounds IMHO
for using it: the loopknot has a binding/nipping loop–what I regard as the Bowline’s
essence, it’s determining characteristic (as such a simple knot, what else is there?!).

“Quick Bowline” comes to mind. To Google, this is a method for tying the Bwl.
Maybe “Bightless Bwl” (which could no doubt be heard and reiterated as “Toothless
Bwl” :stuck_out_tongue: ).

This knot seems less stable than the “Bollard Loop” shown in km83:33 (which
is this same knot but the end’s reentry to the knot being where this knot’s end
exits & vice versa). I regard that other loopknot as an “anti-bowline” in that it
has the nipping turn but the end reenters from the opposite side.
(And which would equally lay claim to “Double Cross…”.)

–dl*

15

I went ahead and looked at G&H 4th edition. On page 36 Fig. 201: They mention “The Clinch Bowline”. In looking at the picture of the tied knot, it looks like the knot we have been discussing here. I could be wrong. So if some one else has G&H 4th edition, please take a look also. :slight_smile:

16

The ‘Double Cross Knot’ does it for me, but for more than just because it describes what it looks like.

This little knot just gets cleverer and cleverer.

At first sight, it has a main part and a locking part, but look closer and you see that these two parts are identical.

Take any two ajacent legs coming out of the knot and one of the remaining two will be the correct Spart line - you have the dblx.

Work around the knot taking every ajacent pair in turn and you will see that it again makes a perfect dblx. Its simplicity belies its perfection.

Take any two ajacent legs, haul on one of the remaining two and you have the dblx, but haul on the other and you have a distinctly bowline-esque type of form. However, I do not believe that a knot as simple, perfect in symetry, clever and easy to tie should be reduced to being named as a sub faction of some other primary knot, Carrick or otherwise (rather - they should be named afer it), (and yes Dan, I did mean the 1439 when I said it was not a Carrick - but that is another story)

IMO I now have a ‘new’ knot to teach to my grandaughter and to send my friends into polite spasms of yawning, and if Dave agrees, I will be more than happy to call it the dblx.

(PS, I also think of it as the Hermaphrodite knot, because it does unto itself that which is done unto it - by itself - if you sort of know what I mean)

17
Yes, there are a great many bogus "bowline" names; but, here, we have grounds IMHO for using it: the loopknot has a binding/nipping loop--what I regard as the Bowline's essence, it's determining characteristic (as such a simple knot, what else is there?!).
Perhaps "Double Cross Bowline"?

Dave

18

the one shown by Willeke

Encyclopedia of Knots, Graumont and Hensel
page 31, #161 it is the knot im thinkin…
with working ends whipped to standing ends.

19
Perhaps "Double Cross Bowline"?

Dave

Actually (props to your Good Wife), I made some effort to avoid the use of the phrase "Double Cross", although that was the "400 pound gorilla in the room".

If you’re going to make Yet Another BWL, I do like the “Crepe” bit, as it was found on a Crepe Myrtle. “Looky h’year, Mizz Myrtle! Jimbo done tied a Crepe Bowline in that there tomato cord!!”

But “Double Crossed Splayed Loop” (there, I’ve said it) sure fits, as do most of the others. For me, it’s going to be “That neat loopknot I just tied, you wanna learn how to tie it? Watch this…”

20
This little knot just gets cleverer and cleverer.

…

Take any two ajacent legs …


Now DerekSmith, think of the children…

;D

But seriously, I’m not sure if this is what you meant, but if I leave “this” slightly loose & jerk on the SPart & it’s leg of the loop, that Turn spills slightly (“just enough”, to me) to allow constrained loop-size adjustment, then re-setting the knot puts the Double Cross back, which nips well enough if you keep your legs loaded equally…

Cleverer and cleverer…

With this wee beauty and that "Slipped Loop With Nipping Bight we discussed last year, (plus Springtime in the Southeastern USA!!!), it’s about time to go CAMPING!!!..