Hello, sorry for my ugly and poor and partially Google translated english.
I don’t have a car, but equally i was curious to search for some knots useful to towing a vehicle.
I’m italian,and searching with Google using my language,i found this document,
which is a part of a series of tutorials of fire department of the italian ministry of the Interior:
on page 71 there is a loop called"Nodo da Traino Semplice"(Knot for Tow Simple).
At first it seemed to me a Carrick Loop,but it is not:is a loop version of ABOK #1443,
a bend marked dangerous with skull and bones symbol in the Ashley Book of Knots.
At first I thought a crass error in tying illustration,but after i found this page at the italian fire department site:
is the same knot(a mirror version of the former).
The old style drawing of this second picture suggests to me that this knot has been used for decades and more
(and probably not only by italian fire department).
Assuming however that fire departments today normally use other tools for towing a vehicle,
like rigid bars or steel cables,i believe,and assuming that anyhow fire departments know what they do,
I ask you members of this forum an estimation in respect of the use of this knot.
Maybe being not a bend but a loop, when it is under strain the forces acting in a manner that the knot will not slip?
(anyhow shaking and tearing the loop and the standing part with the only strength of my arms the knot sometimes is slipped)
A stopper/backup knot solves many problems,but it would be better to use a true Full Carrick Loop,
or some better loop or hitch for this purpose?
Can happen that someone is in trouble using this knot without a stopper/backup knot after viewing these files?
On page 55 the title of the section on knots of fire department tutorial says"nodi con corde in canapa"(knots with hemp ropes),
maybe this loop results more"secure" tied in a old twisted strands hemp rope? This type of rope is still used by fire departments?
Thanks you all for your possible attention about these questions
Regards to you all
Luca
P.S.
Sorry,but actually i’m on a O.S. called “Puppy Linux” because of problems with my graphics card and I can’ t post active links as i did when I used windows
I don’t read Italian and do not know what the text says, but I can think of better knot(s) to use for towing. Depending on what you have for tie points will determine what is best practice concerning the knot(s) employed. Hopefully you will use a suitable rope with breaking strength that exceeds your use (including the weak point - the knot).
A sling would be my choice arrangement if there is sufficient rope and suitable places to attach it.
I am attaching the page you referenced for others to see.
I’ve pulled out several Ford F250 work vans out of some deep and muddy ruts using a slipped Buntline Hitch on both ends. I had to bend two ropes together using the Zeppelin Bend in these two cases. The first time I towed one of my work trucks I made the mistake of tying a regular Buntline Hitch and I learned right then and there that the slipped version is a must in a towing scenario.
The loop in your link looks way to complicated for the task at hand. I can’t imagine a fireman or other rescue person trying to work their way through that knot. Keep it simple by tying a bowline or double bowline IMO. Simple knots such as the bowline are perfect for towing a car IMO.
Were your Slipped Buntlines difficult to untie? According to one user on this site, jamming is a possibility even if a Buntline is slipped. I have never jammed a Slipped Buntline, but apparently it can happen.
Would you consider using a Round Turn and Two Half Hitches, or a Girth Hitch secured by using a Bowline, or just a straight Bowline? These knots don’t require a slip and are highly unlikely to jam.
Yet yesterday I read it with pleasure,but at that moment I not had time to replicate.
Unfortunately, regarding the use of the sling I do not fully understand(i believe because indeed I did not practice of these situations),
but in any case this is not important for me.
I want to thank you too TMCD and knot4u for your suggestions,but in reality the core of my curiosity is maybe another question,
i am interested more than anything to know the opinion of you experts of this very attractive forum in regard of the reason why it is proposed
this loop by the authors of this tutorial:
in the page that you gently have posted ,the text above does not specify the support to which the loop is anchored,
only i understand that is anchored at the center of front or back of the vehicle,in contrast with the knot on page 72,
which is used for attaching at two points furthest from the center.
The basis of this knot is a regular Bowline,which provides a decent security;the tying of former knot begins like a bowline,
but is finished in another manner,which in my opinion is weaker.
This reminds me, a little ,the same situation between a Reef and a Granny Knot:same beginning in tying ,but the one is good ,the other is weak.
In conclusion ,i could be curious for this:assumed that none of us would use tihs loop for tow,
why,in your opinions, for the one knot is proposed a Bowline and for the other is proposed another weaker loop?
I sincerely hope that reading my poor English will not cause too much inconvenience ...
Again I thank you SS369,and TMCD,and knot4,and salute you all of the Forum
I am really puzzled by the inclusions in the knot book. The knot you point out is in my opinion not as good as a bowline, and there is also a possibility that it would jam, which has been addressed in the instruction, by suggesting to introduce a conical piece of wood in the knot to be driven out with a hammer when it is to be untied. There is no hint of exactly where to put that piece of wood, and to my knowledge, such pieces of wood (round conical) are not standard equipment in the fire corps. It is akin to the rigger’s implement a “fid”, although it is maybe properly called a “toggle” when used like this.
(Io capisco italiano.) Reading through the document, I find the Eskimo Bowline Dutch Bowline at page 59, a knot that has almost the same tying pattern, but is easier to remember and a far better knot for these purposes. The Eskimo Dutch Bowline is said to be utilised for any type of anchoring, which is indeed the same purpose as the knot at page 71. I cannot understand why one would need to memorise two almost identically tied knots, where one would need a fid inserted in order to untie it easily, while the other does not need such an implement. In my opinion, the Eskimo Bowline is a better knot, and in the book it is shown in one of the applications where it is superior, when tying around a large object, as it won’t capsize by ring loading. One of the virtues mentioned is that it may be used for tying around a point that you cannot reach, by throwing the line around the anchorage point, which actually is not different from many other single loop knots, including the one at page 71 and the usual bowline, which does not work quite as well with ring loading.
I would have excluded the knot that you point out.
Post edit: As pointed out by Luca, I made a mistake here. The knot referred to at page 59 is not the Eskimo bowline, but a Dutch/Cowboy Bowline. Sorry folks.
Ciao Inkanyezi e grazie!
i know the Eskimo Bowline, is a reversed version of the Bowline, but pointing at page 59 in the document posted by me,i found a Fisherman/Englishman Knot.
I want to better respond to your reply tomorrow if you excuse me ,because unfortunately is time to me to go to sleep,
excuse me and stai bene!
I don’t actually speak Italian, but my second language, after Swedish, is Spanish, which is rather similar.
I referred to the pagination. The page with the Eskimo Bowline (post edit: Dutch Bowline) has “59” in the lower right corner, but I see that it is the 69:th page in the PDF.
The header is: 7.4.4 Fibbia Semplice Fissa o Gassa d’Amante (Simple Fixed Loop or Lover’s Loop)
[tr]
[td]Caratteristiche Caracteristics[/td][td]E’ un nodo che si scioglie facilmente,
ha il pregio di non essere scorsoio
e di non stringersi troppo
anche quando la cima e bagnata
It is a knot that is easily untied,
has the virtue of not slipping
and not drawing up too tightly
even when wet
[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Utilizzo Utilisation[/td][td]Per ogni tipo ancoraggio For any type of anchorage
[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Difficolta di Esecuzione Difficulty of tying[/td][td]media medium
[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Note[/td][td]E’ uno dei nodi piu utilizzato dai vigili del fuoco.
Uno dei pregi di questo nodo, e la possibilita
di assicurare una fune ad un punto di attaco
non a portata di mano (lanciando la fune)
It is one of the most used knots in the fire corps.
A valuable feature of this knot is the possibility
to secure a line to an attachment point
that cannot be reached (by throwing the line)
[/td]
[/tr]
(The forum does not accept diacritics.)
And I really like Puppy Linux, it runs fast even on an old 386 with no more than 128 MB of memory. Moreover it seems to use just any piece of hardware. On my home computer I run Ubuntu, but when away and using someone else’s box, I have Puppy on a stick and start my own system from USB without touching the host machine’s disks.
No they weren’t hard to untie but I’m a big man at 6-5 285lbs. I just gave them a hard yank and they came free on the second yank I believe it was. Now the only way to get the regular Buntline untied was with a screwdriver…I don’t have a fid.
I wouldn’t be afraid to use a round turn and two half hitches either or for that matter a bowline with a fairly long working end. A regular bowline has probably proven itself more than any knot in history, but most folks only talk about beefing it up because they’re worried about it slipping. I’ve seen so many fancy bowlines on the internet and it’s kind of funny to me because I’d say a double bowline with a double overhand stopper is about as safe as it gets…yet we see these exotic bowlines.
Quote from: Inkanyezi on May 13, 2012, 08:31:00 PM
and there is also a possibility that it would jam, which has been addressed in the instruction, by suggesting to introduce a conical piece of wood in the knot to be driven out with a hammer when it is to be untied. There is no hint of exactly where to put that piece of wood, and to my knowledge, such pieces of wood (round conical) are not standard equipment in the fire corps. It is akin to the rigger’s implement a “fid”, although it is maybe properly called a “toggle” when used like this.
I too have read the notes you quote,but i had not given their importance,perhaps because they imply that this conical piece of wood is often used, but not always.
Also they points at the utlity of this tool in respect of the ease in untying the knot after work,not its safety.
But your quote regarding this respect of knot’s usage inspired me to explore.
And perhaps i understand that a part of the answer to my questions was already in front of my eyes:
in my little worn rope usually i break this knot by pulling with my hands on the standing part and on the part of loop which corresponds
to other pull in the bend version(ABOK #1443),but if before i put a pen in the central hole of the loose knot,i can’t do more.
And if i do the same in the corresponding hole of a loose
Bowline,i break the knot.
using the tool it seems that the two knots interchange their properties!
Although I have not the means to test the security acquired by the knot used with this tool inserted, at least now i can imagine that someone who decides,providing a great strain work,and consequent difficulties in untying,to use this knot, which provides the advantage of this tool,instead of a Bowline can not do.
Please,excuse me for the mistake of document’s page,effectively i referred to my pdf copy,
but the knot to which you really refer resembles to me a Dutch/Cowboy Bowline.
In my person for towing a car i would tend to prefer the use of a hitch,instead of a loop,because i think it better to preserve the health
of rope,I think I would opt for an Anchor Hitch(/Bend)
Sorry, my bad, a real brain fart, dunno what I was thinking of but I didn’t smoke anything…
i have no excuse, but I made a mistake, and of course you are right. It is the Dutch/Cowboy bowline.
Nevertheless, it is in my opinion a better knot than the “simple” one for towing, and maybe the Eskimo variant would be better, although not quite as easily opened.
If I’m doing something like towing or holding somebody’s body weight, I’m going to go with a reliable, boring knot that I tie and test a lot. The knot in the original doesn’t fall into that category for me or for anybody who has written on this thread. So, it would be a no-go for me. For towing and other critical activities, it’s not the time to figure out, “Darn, that’s not such a good knot after all.”
Thanks to SS369 for capturing the relevant page into easy
viewing --when I looked at the 2nd reference, the illustration
wasn’t so clear to me and I was mis-led into some abomination.
Now, there is too much forgetfulness in this forum: we
discussed this knot not so long ago! (See below.)
Luca, this is a great eyeknot for heavy loads; it should be
tied with the reeving of the tail left rather loose (as I opine
in the quoted post to the earlier thread, below). The knot
resists jamming & capsizing better than the bowline
of which it can be seen as a variation. As you have noted,
the loading of an eyeknot differs from that of an end-2-end
knot (end-A1 vs. end-A2+end-B1 || end-A1 vs. end-B1);
the behavior will also differ.
Can you translate what the document says for this knot?
Why do they present it?
ps: Touche’ re the slipped buntline comments.
I still fear that the binding of such a knot will overcome
the supposed slipped benefits. What sort of rope were
you using, TMCD (size, construction, condition)?
[tr]
[td]Characteristics[/td][td]It is a knot that draws up well,
but is easily untied
[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Utilisation[/td][td]Recommended for towing of vehicles
[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Difficulty of tying[/td][td]medium-difficult
[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Notes[/td][td]To avoid that the knot draws up too hard,
making untying more difficult, before the knot draws up,
a conical piece of wood is inserted into the knot,
which in the phase of untying is expelled with a hammer
[/td]
[/tr]
Thanks!
“expelled with a hammer” is an expression to mull over!
This sort of double-speak can be found regarding the bowline, where in one place it’s defined as a knot
that cannot jam, and then some variation of it (such
as the water bowline) is presented as less likely to jam
(less than 0% chance!). I have seen enough of capsized bowlines to wonder at the first claim, despite also having
no jamming experience myself, and reading of break tests
where an unbroken bowline (where knots were at both
ends of a test specimen) could be easily untied. “YMMV”
In the case of mooring lines of the fishing trawlers in
Cape May, I think that this OP’s eyeknot would resist
the capsizing --but acknowledge that I don’t understand
how that came to be.
But do note that the version of this knot that I favor is
shown in finished (or nearly so) form by the image in
my post --NOT drawn up (much) further : no, leave it
so that the bowlinesque central nipping loop is just
that, and not drawn into a crossing-knot / Munter=
hitch form. And, as such, it isn’t a great knot for
tying and forgetting, unless perhaps one seizes the
tail somehow; but I take “towing a vehicle” to be
an operation that will see the knot put in at the time,
loaded under observation, and untied afterwards.
The document though still begs the obvious question
as to why this and not some of even its own other
presented knots --the various bowlines, some with
half-hitch workings in a long eye, and multiple turns
around the connected-to object!?
First of all I want to thank you for your direct answer to this question.
And however…at the end the knot is good for the purpose!
In my person i thought,slipping the knot by pulling on the favorable part of the loop,
this behavior was sufficient to refuse his use ,but in facts,by pulling on"the end"of the loop,
as occurs during the towing,I can’t slip the knot.
And however a part of my mind said to me it was strange that a fire department proposed a knot which seemed to me weak in his tutorial.
Perhaps from here the main of my curiosity.
“All is well that ends well”,as we say in Italy,and i’m glad that italian fire department in facts proposes a good knot.
At the end(if anyone of you still wants to spend a little of his time for me,and thank you for the time you have already spent)
still remain in my mind a couple of questions:
Your words address me to believe that this knot requires some cares,which is secured by someone who knows what he does(like a fireman).
It’s really so?
And,in any case,this knot is suitable for average people?
Proceeding with my second question:
This knot in the document is called"Knot for Tow with Variable(or Changeable)Pull".
The text above the pictures says:
Caracteristics:Allows for varying the direction of the pull,keeping the load distribution in the two branches
Utilisation:Towing of vehicles with connection at two points
(this time I hope I have done my job, rather than have it done to other people.I apologize to you,SS369 and Inkanyezi)
The basis of this knot is a standard Bowline.Why, in your opinion,it’s not used the previous knot as a basis for this version"with variable pull"?
The previous knot,If i vary the direction of pull from right to left,basically follows the direction that i do, and the forces inside the knot don’t changes
(at least under ideal conditions, for example using a vertical smooth handle with a round section ,i think).
If i do the same using the knot shown above, attached at two points furthest from the center of front/back of a vehicle,
I noticed that the branch closest to the direction in which I pull,is more in tension than the other.
Thinking about the behavior of the bend version of knot discussed in this thread(maybe my obsession in regard of this topic),
i wonder if the use of a Bowline instead of knot discussed is related to this.Or is it another reason?
Hello again to all.
Only another little curiosity:
Hi Inkanyezi,
I’m sorry that i made the occasion of your little mistake, but i would not call it a brain fart,
but simply a slip of the tongue,at that time you only have interchanged the names(lapsus),
it happens sometimes!
However, your words about the Eskimo Bowline pushed me to go to revisit this loop on the Wikipedia page,
where i had learned.
At that time,in order to learn the knot,i focused my attention on the picture on the left of this page,
without giving attention to the picture on the right.
Now i observe that the loop shown in this picture is not exactly the same:
in this loop the end of rope,before being returned back to finish the knot,
when it crosses the starting loop,pass under/over(the standing part)/under.
The loop on the left is not a mirror version of the other,to be it,the end of rope should pass
over/under/over,but it pass over/under/under.
Seems to me that the regular Lapp Knot, which i understand to be the basis of this loop,
is this second way.
These are both two recognized versions of the Eskimo Bowline?
The one provides some advantage over other,and vice-versa,a little as it happens between the standard Bowline
and the Dutch version?
Good eye! I’ve not played around so much with the so-called “Eskimo bowline” to prefer one form or another, but it seems
that the eye-knot’s mechanics are different enough so that
the weakness of the bad version of the Lapp knot doesn’t
obtain in the eyeknot. AnyonElse find one or the other preferable?
(I tend to tie it so that it would match the [u]tail-outside (“cowboy”)
bowline --I find that this form facilitates making extensions
(adding further wraps & tucks).)
[b]"Knot for Tow [u]with Variable(or Changeable)Pull[/u]"[/b].
The text above the pictures says:
Characteristics : Allows for varying the direction of the pull,
keeping the load distribution in the two branches
Utilisation : Towing of vehicles with connection at two points
Okay, I can see that this suggests that a i bowline[/i]
might capsize upon imbalanced loading of the eye legs --possibly
part of the mechanism acting on those trawler mooring lines
I see, and of a chopped capsized bowline I found while cycling
out in the country!? I do see that if the subject knot is finished
in the crossing-knot-base form (which I argued against!), it does
have some good resistance to deformation no matter which eye
leg might be isolated for loading. (Note that this is quite contrary
to the wording “keeping the load distribution in the two branches”
–which suggests some kind of (impossible!) equalization going on.
Your words address me to believe that this knot requires some cares
Yes, there are various ways it can be dressed,
to serve different purposes.
which is secured by someone who knows what he does(like a fireman).
Perhaps they will know, perhaps not.
–dl*
ps: Luca, you might care to Edit your prior msg.s to get
the QUOTEs adjusted --there should be the [ q u o t e ]
& ending [ / q u o t e ] (spaced to avoid being acted upon here)
markers on either end of the quoted text. Your posts have
something different which seems odd.
Thanks again for your patience to reply to my little questions ,after deciphering my"No English".
Unfortunately(always my English)I did not fully understand a few things:
I’m not entirely sure if you referred to the inverted Cowboy Bowline(as i thing resembles to me,but I’m not sure), or if you referred
to this"Cowboy"version of the Eskimo(inverted standard Bowline)in the picture on the right of Wikipedia’s page.
In this case maybe the problem is not only my English,but my ignorance about the terms of classification of knots.
I can imagine that the term"crossing-knot-base form", it might mean that a Bowline begins with a Simple Knot ,
which after is crossed by passing the end of rope through,but it’s just a guess,actually I did not really understand.
If it was as i say, you speak of the fact that is repeated the pass to finish the Bowline, which is the base of this knot,
but in the opposite direction?
I post the link to this knot again for convenience:
I thank you in advance if you answer me (and i renew my thanks if you can not find the time),
because, unless happens something interesting in regard of the original topic ,i think it will be my last post in this thread
