Janus Bowline or an equivalent secure bowline for climbing/rescue purposes

Practical Knots
21

I have seen various methods to bind the end: tucking through the lay OR BRAID (have some pics
of this w/8dble-strand CoExOlefins), electrical-taping it, and tucking it back through the SPart
(of which I thought–yet think–I have some photos, but …).
The common “Yosemite” wrapping requires flexible rope, and puts a Fig.8 in the end side;
a simpler like-tucking where the end passes around the other side of the particular leg
yields and Overhand there, and cannot deform as can the Yosemite way if the end it too
firmly set to an otherwise loose knot (which vulnerability was pointed out by Heinz Prohaska
in reference to the [u]On Rope (1st ed.) Ch.3 “Knots” cover image of such a misformed knot!).

2. Remember 'Ashley' was not referring to modern braided ropes - pinch points and sharp bends (bowline eye in a Karabiner) affect braided polyamide/polyester/polypropylene/polyethelene in a very different manner to three strand natural fibre ropes.
I don't follow this reference: the sharp bend around a 'biner/krab (of roughly equal diameter to common climbing-caving-SAR-canyoneering ropes) seems NOT to be the weak point in break tests--i.e., the break comes in the knot (and in the SPart for the Strangle noose-hitch in one test). Mariners who might employ eye splices--where the apex of the eye is fixed (i.e., the rope isn't variously re-spliced with different positioning, in contrast to re-tying an eyeknot--are advised to broaden this bend by use of a thimble or prudent choice of what the eye surrounds; but for the eye of a knot, there is the prior bending of rope in the knot that will be more severe. I'm of the belief that friction vs. relative lack of around smooth metal plays a big role in strrength/material-damage.

The revised/expanded pdf has obvious improvements, and of course retains yet the
“front”/“rear” problem in older images. Good job. You really should try the main other
version of the “Janus” I described, as it is more comfortable in your stiffish kernmantle.
One can further amend that with a roundturn before re-tucking the end.

Also, note the the EBDB’s looped end takes some firm hauling snug: upon loading,
when the nylon cordage lengthens & shrinks, a gap will actually open up between
this securing wrap and the double nipping loops! --not that that matters all so much,
for security under tension isn’t the issue; but it does show that the knot will not be
overtightened by loading: its tightening that secures it is manually controlled, and
hence the ability to manually untie it after loading (with the careful method previously
described–first bring some slack through the collar, for the prying apart is going to
draw that collar tight atop the SPart!).

Regarding 2: I'd give preference to a Water Bowline or Janus variant for being free of pre-fiddling as I mentioned before.

I don’t see how the Dbl.Bwl entails ANY “pre-fiddling”. It doesn’t accommodate the quick-tie
maneuvre which can be used even for the Water Bwl (though is rather awkward to my
experience there), but it is entirely tied after sizing/placing the eye.

... haven't done much testing on some the non-traditional variants. I think this is one point where you or your organization can work on investigating more thoroughly with various rope types.

It’s important to recognize that much of the “done” testing is not well investigated to see
how applicable it is to the intended cordage/use domain. The testing cited above by Dave
Richards does use materials of this particular domain of interest to Agent_Smith, though
even there, if used/older materials are in use in practice, those need to be considered
and not just new cordage. New will bring flexibility & slickness into test; old will in contrast
tend towards inflexibility and frictiveness, both of which aggravate setting a knot (but which
likely help a knot stay tied). It’s hard to conceive what one should expect of any surprise
in testing the EBDB vs. Dbl.Bwl, except maybe improved strength. But here there are such
variances in how the knot is set vis-a-vis the collar’s tightness (and hence guiding) on the
SPart that the testing would have to explicitly and wisely focus on this point, to be valuable.

–dl*

22

As I have mentioned earlier, the Double Bowline only halfway violates one of his requirements, and I don’t mean to indicate that it is a deal-breaker, but only that other candidates edge it out.

You may argue that the “fiddling” of producing the coils can be done after placing the rope with mild torsion being introduced into the line. While this may be, it is harder to do this while keeping hold of the end the rope, thus the partial violation, in my opinion.

23

???
"With mild torsion being introduced …" : what is the issue here? (At first I was reading “tension”. which is different.)
Both structures entail two turns (round turn of 720deg), so both can torque the line;
but I figure that this is seldom an issue, esp. in the context of the OP.

And, contrary my assertion above, the Dbl. Bwl CAN be tied w/a quick-tie method:
one operates on the SPart-side eye leg on for the 2nd turn vice the SPart again in Water Bwl.

–dl*
====]

24

If I’m holding the end of the rope with one hand as I form coils for the Double Bowline rather than forming the coils ahead of time, it’s mildly annoying to have the rope twist and kink from the coil making.

I’ll just say that I’m not particularly fond of the quick-tie twist method for the Double bowline. I find I have a tendency to make less than clean and clear coils.

25

But how is that any different than forming the two turns of a Clove H. for the Water Bwl ?
Depending how this is done, the torsion should be put into the SPart, and often dissipated
w/o much notice–if tying the knot facing the SPart-side, vs. the eye-side. Otherwise, the
SPart-side eye-leg will be torqued (facing eye); but, again, this is true for either case.
So how can you single out the Dble.Bwl vs. Water Bwl on this ground?

I'll just say that I'm not particularly fond of the quick-tie twist method for the Double bowline. I find I have a tendency to make less than clean and clear coils.
The method loses much of its swiftness (in my hands, anyway); but a key benefit to the method (for single, esp.) is the correct orientation of the end through the loop, irrespective of speed.

–dl*

26

There may be a couple reasons for the difference. First, with the Water Bowline, my right hand finger and thumb are actually conducting the end of the rope and can twist it as it’s being maneuvered. With the Double Bowline, I’m just trying to hold the end of the rope while I would focus on manipulating the coils separately.

Second, with the Water Bowline, the second twist manuever is somewhat isolated from the end of the rope by virtue of the first half hitch structure.

Of course, this is a fairly trivial issue.

27

i prefer th DBY; but this Round Turn version is best in more flexible lines (rope type being a consideration of choice of what is maximum. i like tying the Double (or Water) Bowline by the slip knot method, the dble rings give more of a complication to reeving rabbit around and thru, but in slip knot, the mountain comes to our lil’rabbit (Mohammed). This also works out well in some situations where can make (DBY using slip knot method) half way (as a slip knot), lay aside, hang or just hold on extended thumb, then seal the deal in a hurry when required(by reeving bitter thru to form eye (after it encompasses host/load/implemeant). It is easy enough for me to tie blindfolded, behind my back, upside down..

The configurations that allow strength (of line) retention are those that ease the deformity of the Standing; even if that is just by giving the same deformity over a longer distance (thus a less sharp/impacting change/deformity). The Round Turn of the Dble. does that, but not the Water IMLHO.

A krab in the eye divides the load of the system to 2 legs of line (the eye); their equal and opposite is the Standing, that is therefore double the loading of either leg of the eye(as is the parent device/krab)… So, i think the tendency would be not to break at the eye; except perhaps in some kind of line that the sharpness of that bend over ruled the half loading (per leg of eye compared to krab or Standing). Rope gets leveraged (as other things) only when they resist on the across/wide axis. Various rope materials, constructions, diameters and tensions, give that resistance(to sidewards/non inline forces) at different levels, loadings and occasions etc. Generally, we find rope to be a tension (not compression), inline (not leveraged) device, because mostly it only resists on inline axis of tension. Force being made up of distance and power; no resistance means all distance, therefore no power…

The ‘open’ , ‘clean’ eye of Yosemite type configurations is a good drawing point when loading devices in and out of that eye all day etc. Furthermore, for better part of or all day or more useability, i might go further and sieze down the bitter of the DBY with electrical tape (bright red or something that doubles as giving more visablity, and perhaps a different color on other eye/end for further easier identification.

28
I'll just note that the Double Bowline with the repeated finish approaches the rope length usage of the Figure 8 Loop,

Can you quantify this?
Probably not. But this is the sort of thing that we could collectively come to put into some
detailed quantification. Heinz Prohaska had done some of this sort of measuring, and I
undertook to do so for a few knots, too, to move beyond “seems …” to “is roughly ”;
I employed colored thread woven through at the ends of a knot, then untied and measured.
With a few folks taking such measurements over some misc. varieties of rope, we can build
useful reference data. (I’d say that manual setting would be the knot-state to use.) There is
some further consideration to be given beyond the pure consumption of material IN the knot
–how much is needed in order to tie the knot (some knots might need a more than
others, for formation): this quantity, however, seems much harder to define & measure.
And, for practical purposes, sizing for some applications will need to include a certain
amount of tail, for safety assurances (often more peace of mind than actual knot need).
((Now, to try to find that old back-of-pale-yellow-envelope (IIRC) list of measurements … !))

?! Rather, the YoBowl (or Dbl.Bwl w/YoTOff) is what really needs flexibility, as its finishing
tuck comes from a wrap of the end around a single diameter of rope. (This is an aspect not present
if the end is wrapped in the opposite direction, putting an Overhand vs. Fig.8 into itself.)

The configurations that allow strength (of line) retention are those that ease the deformity of the Standing; even if that is just by giving the same deformity over a longer distance (thus a less sharp/impacting change/deformity). The Round Turn of the Dble. does that, but not the Water IMLHO.
Absent testing, this is just speculation. I think that there might be an element of friction to be found in variations on what the SPart bends around, in the following sense: for the common Bwl, the SPart first draws against the end, and pulls it towards the collar and then a bit to one side; it then turns around the end-side eye-leg. In the first case, I think that varied loading will see movement that shifts the position of the end, as the end comes w/draw of SPart; whereas in the latter point the eye-leg holds its ground and will feel the SPart draw around it, frictionally. So, there might be some (probably slight) observable difference over the suffering of several sudden loadings between some knots & versions of knots given such differences in how the movement of the heavily loaded strand affects others it contacts--if they can move with it, then there will be less damage. Note that this is a result that will NOT show up in slow-pull testing, yet it could well be more practically significant (for a tow line, e.g., taking varied loading for hours).
The 'open' , 'clean' eye of Yosemite type configurations is a good drawing point when loading devices in and out of that eye all day etc.
If those devices can take it, the rope would prefer to be cast into twin eyes, to share the load. However, the added *width* of twin eyes will increase strain on something like a 'biner/krab, putting load onto a more leveraged point.

Btw, a simple enhancement to the Common Bwl is to reeve into it a 2nd eye, for tying-in for rockclimbing.
Even if the end slips out of the final tuck through the loop of such a twin-eye knot, one still has
two eyes w/some effect, and the base/initial Bwl is intact, with a pretty obvious dangling free end.
A lead climber’s Bwl will be oriented eye-upwards, and gravity might help pull the end out,
in contrast to a 2nd or top-rope climber, where the belay line runs upwards to a top anchor or belayer,
and gravity will be pulling the end into place more. For the lead climber, should the end come out
of final tuck, it should hang long & w/gravity-assist against pulling out of the penultimate tuck
(and still run back through the harness and then to the initial two tucks making a Bwl #1010).
Sadly, in true bonehead fashion, as the only twin-eye bowline climbers can bring to mind,
the 2nd eye is typically finished as though “re-weaving/-threading” a Bowline on a Bight,
rather than simply making a 2nd collar–and gaining 2 diameters of material through the loop!.
Moreover, the 2nd rabbit-out-of-hole-&-around-tree collaring can be dressed & set between
the central nipping, loop and the initial collar, and so thereby inhibit the loosening of the collar
with the end! Please don’t get “hung up”/enthralled by the potential of completely “re-threading”
the Bowline–it’s not a great result; it’s much better as just described, added a 2nd collar with
the redundant/twin eye.

–dl*

29

Have been hard at work and have uploaded another new and revised version of the Bowlines pdf file…

Grab the file at: www.paci.com.au/IGKT/Bowlines.pdf

Once again, it will only be available for a short period.

Having tied and played with all of the variations illustrated, I am leaning towards the last image - the 720 degree variant. Why? Because:
It has 3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops
It It has double loops acting to encircle and grip the bight
The collar describes a larger radius
The tail parallels the Spart leaving the eye clear
It is simply an extension of ABoK 1013 and improves upon it (in my view)
The structure exhibits a degree of symmetry and compactness and also appears to be secure and stable

I would of course welcome opinions/feedback…

agent smith

30

That’s nice, but be aware that you now have a loop that actually consumes more rope than the bulky old Figure Eight Loop. This may also have implications for how easy or hard it is to adjust loop size, position or excess.

Secondly, I’d be more concerned with what you think “3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops” and other simliar appearance-related attributes actually achieves, rather than striving toward appearance. If you find a loop that is more secure, even if it doesn’t look like it “should” be, it should obviously score higher in the security arena. Don’t judge a book by its cover or a knot by its topography.

31

:o ??? :o

Why? Because:
[1] It has 3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops
[2] It It has double loops acting to encircle and grip the bight
[3] The collar describes a larger radius
[4] The tail parallels the Spart leaving the eye clear
[5] It is simply an extension of ABoK 1013 and improves upon it (in my view)
[6] The structure exhibits a degree of symmetry and compactness and also appears to be secure and stable

I would of course welcome opinions/feedback…

I’m absolutely amazed/appalled: that you can HAVE the EBDB, and yet go on to produce and prefer
the grotesque derivative “#1013 720deg” variant!? --incredible!

Firstly, your presentation should orient all knots the same (re SPart turn/handedness)
which will make comparisons easier and surer. Currently, you have reversed handedness.
And there is still the problem with some “rear/front” view labeling–540 is wrong. Yes, it entails
the most work–as it’s the most annotated/labeled–, but starting the series off correctly with a
nice “FRONT view” for the Common Blw #1010 will set the tone & orientation basis.
(You could also anticipate some criticism (pretty much just baseless hearsay/rumor) of the
Cowboy Bwl (#1034.5) by having a ready image of it and 1010 ring-loaded, and indicating
what part (the end) will often slip out in the 1010 form abnormally loaded–that should shut
a few mouths (maybe).

Secondly, your #1013 variant is more varied than you state in that it is a “Cowboy” (1034.5)
collar direction; that could lead someone to a bit of confusion. This change was made presumably
to have the end finish adjacent to the SPart.

Re criterion #2, that begs a So what? challenge. I found it quite interesting to see in the cited
(above) Dave Richards testing that in the low-elongation-rope cases (12.5 & 7mm), the DOUBLE
Sheet Bend slipped (but not in the 10.5mm dynamic rope)–and for the 12.5mm rope, the single
SB did NOT!? This goes to question the efficacy of the double turn, which I’d have thought would
improve security. (It also begs the question of What-form-of-sheet-bend?, sadly–I don’t think that
I found out (yet).) In any case, for THIS eyeknot, given the follow-on securing of the end, and the
materials, I don’t think that one should put much weight on this. (Note, before Spydey chimes in
with relationships between … , that the eyeknot (normally loaded) tensions the nipping loop from
both sides, whereas in a sheet bend, the end-side is untensioned, just nipped–significant re security.)

Re #3: how is this at all beneficial, vs. detrimental, even?!
–detrimental in that with a larger collar there is more material to all knot deformation at high loads.
And I think that it’s partly illusory in regards to the stuffing of the end back through it (and having,
at the point of setting, some sense of added tightness): for, on serious loading, the end will likely
swing around behind (in proper “front” perspective) the SPart, and the looseness of the enlarged
collar will lead to an inferior orientation of the nub–SPart then going too directly into the nipping
turn vs. pulling over the dble.turns into it (for note that the other end of this dbl.turn coil is going
to be farther away and trying to capsize it–SPart pulling back in opp. direction, to flip … ).

Re #4, well, big whoop. One can do that with the EBDB. One can do that in a better way with
the Water Bwl (or should we better say, “The Clove Bwl”–as it seems there’s been an unjustified
shift of the postion of the added HH/turn from removed to adjacent by authors not well advised!),
taking the end back towards the SPart through the original nipping loop. A clear eye seems a
pretty trivial distinction to me, for many uses. The EBDB leaves the eye clear, too, even w/o
pointing the end SPartwards; there are various ways of dressing … .

Re #5, no, as noted above, it is not simply an extension (any more than it is of 1034.5).
But I sense that you hope to buy credibility sort of ad hominen vis-a-vis such a comparison.
Big whoop, again. Now, EBDB is such a quite simple extension (though, it too can be tied
in a Cowboy orientation)–one repeated tucking of the end (and one can choose inside or outside
of the collar, for that. But the EBDB binds the central nipping dbl. loop at the one point
where the binding has sure, lasting effect (in the materials of concern here); “720” does not.

Finally, re #7, as Roo noted, we are some distance from compactness now. Not that it’s unheard
of to add a Strangle tie-off for the Fig.8 even (oh, yes, a flame debate that flares up every so often
between climbers), which adds to consumption. I have some inkling that using a variety of knots
to tie off --and consequently sharply bending the rope at different places-- might less quickly
degrade the strength of the rope ends–“the sharp end”.

If you want efficiency, the Lehman8–D.Britton linked image now lost–would do well.

“Do Not Pass Go” is the old board-game saying I’ll lay on the latest innovation. You have much
better & detailed hints above to explore, really.

As for Roo’s “what you think ‘3 rope diameters which are encircled and gripped by the loops’ … actually achieves” ,
it has pretty obvious implications for what must happen for the knot to come untied–that the end
must go back out of the loops the extra time, and in cases to repeat this (to come completely out)
it must then go in the opposite direction, which gives some assurance that it won’t happen
(and there should be a longer, flapping end to notice, for a climber and her tie-in, anyway).
The presumption re strength is, yes, just that; but it seems plausible, though I note some
aspects that might be unfavorable (re friction); also, OnRope1.com had a MythBuster that
challenges this notion–YMMV.

–dl*

32

Thanks for feedback,

New version is uploaded… the reversed image is corrected. Modification of the description of the 720 degree variant is also added…yes it is bulky.

I only stated that I was ‘leaning’ toward the 720 cowboy variant - not an outright declaration of confidence.

Yes, I like the EBDB version - but need to do something with the tail - like a Yosemite finish or similar. Will work on it and take photos for you.

Please advise if there are still further glaring errors to correct!

agent smith

33

But that is, still, leaning towards something unappealing and away from something good.

Yes, I like the EBDB version - but need to do something with the tail - like a Yosemite finish or similar.

I don’t see such “need”–the remarks about a clean eye are not compelling to me,
especially for the applications of kernmantle ropes, which is the main context here
–where, historically, people have been tying “back-up”/“safety” knots ON THE EYE legs,
hardly the model of such clean-liness!

But, if you insist, the “End-Binding” wrap of the tail can be made to run diagonally across
(under, from the (proper!) “front” perspective) the end-side eye-leg and so emerge just
outside of the eye, but still pointing generally eye-wards vs. SPartwards. (And it should
be noted that this path can be used vice the popular one to make a YoBowl that cannot
deform on setting into that [u]On Rope (1st ed.)-Chap.3-cover-photo peculiarity.)
(And this End-Bound wrap can go either inside or outside of the collar on its turn.)

And I’ll reiterate: presenting the proper aspect (my urged “front” view) of the Bowline
from the start is a big step to making clear it and all the variations of it–all of the various
securing extensions that are done are much more clearly understood from viewing the
knots from this perspective (as it is pretty easy to comprehend the course of the
end’s/bight’s legs, and the pure turns/wraps in a Clove-Bwl (“Water”) or Dbl.Bwl).
–along with the much better quick-tie behavior (i.e., support of the unhandled SPart
by the handled SPart-side eye leg after the initial capsizing of the Overhand maneuvre).

:slight_smile:

34

But, if you insist, the “End-Binding” wrap of the tail can be made to run diagonally across
(under, from the (proper!) “front” perspective) the end-side eye-leg and so emerge just
outside of the eye, but still pointing generally eye-wards vs. SPartwards.

Will try to tie this variation and photograph it.

And I’ll reiterate: presenting the proper aspect (my urged “front” view) of the Bowline
from the start is a big step to making clear it and all the variations of it–all of the various
securing extensions that are done are much more clearly understood from viewing the
knots from this perspective

I am happy to do as you request - but I must confess that I am unclear as to exactly how you want me to orient the knots. I’m saying I’m confused…can you give me clear instructions as to the correct orientation! (its very late at night where I am at present and I can’t think clearly…got to sign off for now.

agent_smith

35

  1. FLIP THE ORIGINAL BOWLINE (1010) OVER–show opposite face as the “Front”.
    (Yes, this is the opposite to what is commonly done; we have common difficulty with this knot
    so let’s get rid of the common confusion and show the proper perspective.
    You want to see how that “hitch”/“loop” crosses itself; the paths of the bight parts are
    easily enough understood and so can be more hidden.)

  2. KEEP ALL OF THE VARIATIONS IN THE SAME ORIENTATION VIS-A-VIS THE STANDING PART.
    So, if the SPart makes its nipping loop (and crosses UNDER itself in going into the eye-leg) with
    the flow going to the LEFT (crossing point on left), say, keep that orientation for all knots,
    and thereby it will be easier to recognized each variation’s differences.

As a right-hander, I find it natural in TYING-IN TO A HARNESS (so, eye at me, SPart leading
away) to hold the END in my right hand; doing the quick-tie maneuvre by coming UNDER
the SPart, then leftwards-over-eye-leg-down-and-pull-away-rightwards to capsize a turn
into the SPart, I arrive at the above-specified orientation: SPart flows in OVER its crossing
point, exits to my/viewer’s left, and returns on the right side to complete the knot.

Thanks for all the good work in making images.
Would like to also see one of the specified alternative “Janus”-like ones (where the end
goes around both legs before tucking back into the nipping center). (A Cowboy Bwl version
will have end on right side, so pass it around the legs by going UNDER them rightwards
and back up over and down through the center, making a nice same-coming&going variant.)

–dl*

36

Am still working on some new images…sorry for the delay Dan.

Christmas is hectic at the moment and the weather and lighting conditions have not been favourable (I take the photos outdoors to get the best results due to my camera limitations).

Hope to post another version of the bowlines tomorrow.

Will eagerly await IGKT and Dan Lehman’s feedback.

agent smith

37

i first saw the slip knot method described in a rescue scenario. Victim is on side of sheer cliff face, and holding on with 1 hand. Line is lowered from overhead cliff or copter, victim makes slip knot with 1 hand and lets it hold self. Then draws tail around self, then reeves thru slipknot; folds back and pinches off to self. At this point, even if they fall, as long as they keep that pinch of Bitter to itself (through slip), the lacing should close and lock safely.

i thought of this because of your rescue scenario. But also, it has become my favorite way of making a Round Turn (double) or Clove(Water) especially. The 2 part way of forming, can make it a preset and finish quickly type of strategy too. This can be especially useful if someone is bringing Bitter End around tree, hitching up to a truck pull, stretching line to a point to tie off quickly, evne for same in forming Sheetbend on fly etc. The slip/noose after formed can also be set aside or hung and keep well until precise , moment needed.

38

Agent Smith - Have you written to the Guild for feedback? This is an open forum NOT the voice of the Council of the IGKT - and currently only one member who uses this forum (Squarerigger) is a member of the Council so please be sure that you do not quote anything said in this thread as being from the IGKT.

Gordon

39

Were the report given by Ashely, it would not be a “slip knot” that got (first-) tied,
but a simple, Overhand noose.

–dl*

40

I apologise to other posters for hijacking this thread slightly, but it is an important issue which I feel should be made straight away.

Gordon, I think you have your world view a little upside down. The Council is not the IGKT, the MEMBERS are the IGKT. The Council are a group of volunteers to whom we the members are deeply indebted for running the administration of the IGKT, but the heart, the muscle, the conscience and the voice of the IGKT is that of the members and those closely associated with us.

To hear the ‘voice’ of the IGKT where do you need to go?

Certainly you will hear the voice at the AGM and EGMs, you will also hear it at the local branch meetings every month or so and every venue where members are present to promote knots and the IGKT. One of the most prominent places to find the voice of the IGKT is of course through our Knotting Matters monthly publication, particularly as it better reflects the internationality of the membership than most of the physical meetings can achieve.

But by a long long way, the best place to go to speak to the IGKT is here, on its Forum. It is fully international, it is 24/7, it reflects a significant membership presence and through the course of a year it covers massively more knotting issues and aspects than probably all of the other avenues put together.

You are right that Lindsey Philpott, our new Editor is the only Guild Officer to regularly post here - that is very much to his credit. But the other Officers are busy people and we should not criticise them for not posting here as well as doing the jobs for the Guild which they have so generously volunteered to serve. But that does not change one jot the fact that if you want to speak to the International Guild of Knot Tyers, the very best place to do it is HERE.

DerekSmith
Member of the IGKT