For consideration:
Something I devised back in 2021. Found the photo while doing some organizing.
Definitely secure in all directions.
Does take careful dressing and tightening.
Comments appreciated.
SS
Thanks for your presentation Scott.
Good to see you using your ‘Scotts lock’ to make the structure stable and secure.
It reminds me of a ‘woven’ Bowline you presented many years ago.
I’ve always been a fanboy of your original ‘Scotts locked Bowline’ - and routinely use it
in life critical applications.
It is a quasi Bowline - having a nipping structure rather than a nipping loop.
Although I had to make sure that the nipping structure was in fact ‘functional’.
The key conditions/rules for ‘nipping loops/structures’ are:
- Must be ‘TIB’
- Must be loaded at both ends
- Must be functional.
It took me a little while to confirm that functionality had not been compromised.
Quick analysis:
It is stable and secure and also resistant to jamming.
I’ll go further and declare it to be inherently secure (in human rated ropes, EN892, EN1891, EN564).
However, it is unlikely to gain traction and popularity in the general roping community.
I don’t recall it being presented before - so I think you have a legitimate claim of originality.
Thanks for your comments Mark.
I have employed the tail lock maneuver with many constructs, not just eye knots. I believe it enhances security with the added complexity. (Not a complex action to perform though.)
I agree with your quick analysis and appreciate you taking the time and effort to share it.
Yes, I don’t expect much traction to be gained by any large audience of users, but then, many of the knots being offered and explored are so complex and of no practicality, except perhaps furthering the understanding the mechanics involved, that they most likely will never be used.
It is nice looking though. Grin
SS
Hello
It is clearly a retucked version of your prototype bowline with your well known locking maneuver.
Threading the eye through the nipping structure collar (not the bowline collar) establishes this correlation.
However, despite the security enhancement, there is also a nipping structure complexity upgrade of third level, which, in conjuction with the bowline collar placement in between the nipping loop and the out-going eye leg collar continuation, along with the three rope diameters, would cause severe friction conditions in your core, leaving no room for bowline collar decompression.
Swapping the collars would make at least the one more releasable.
Not sure if you have already investigated the second level of nipping structure complexity, using your lock or a yosemite finish.
Hello Kost_Greg, thank you for your comments.
Yes, the collar swap can ease the untying, although I haven’t found my offering to be very difficult, except in highly compressible or thin media, (as with most knots). But, it does make it more susceptible to loosening, in my testing.
Friction in the core could be a two edged sword. One: It makes it more secure. Two: It could promote failure at extreme loading(s).
I have no current facility to test to destructive failure, but I have tightened it to what I consider unsafe limits including “ring loading” and as an inline eye knot.
Not sure what you mean by, “second level of complexity”?
I am of the opinion that anymore complexity may just be superfluous. Maybe even counter-productive.
SS
Just a few clarifications about nipping structure’s complexity.
-
First level, simple nipping loop (one twist), example:Scott’s locked bowline.
-
Second level, crossing knot (two twists), example: Karash bowline.
-
Third level, Shaped eight(?) (three twists), example:Your original post bowline.
It seems that you have advanced from first to third, and i was curious about the second.
Would a karash bowline, enhanced with your locking mechanism, meet your security standards?
As you see, i meant downgrading the complexity by one order/level.
I understand what you are saying now.
Yes the Karash single eye would benefit with the tail locking, as will many others. Some bends as well.
I have tried too many to document. Pretty much any suitable knots requiring more security will benefit.
Downgrading the complexity won’t be what I have brought to discuss. 
SS
Interesting eye knot!
I just noticed how similar it is to Ashley’s #1037. I know it is not the same, even before the “lock”, but since that knot has such a unique method of for tying, I wondered: how did you tie the knot you have pictured?
Hello Dennis.
Thanks for looking and your comment.
I don’t think that I can do a worded instruction justice and that is why I showed the loose tie next to the tightened one.
I feel that the loose picture is easy enough to trace and follow. If not, I could try again with some steps.
Let me know if you are successful.
BTW, I have found this to be a very, very secure eye knot - almost approaching semi- permanent.
As far as strength, well, truthfully I am not all that concerned with that.
I have tied this using some .125 inch Dyneema was pleasantly surprised that didn’t slip although it was a challenge to untie. But I was successful.
SS
Dear SS,
I was able to tie the knot. I found that it was a nice moderately secure eye knot without the lock. It is an extremely secure eye knot with the lock.
It is also possible to tie a variation giving two loops, somewhat like Dr. Harry Asher’s Birmingham Bowline. I show the steps for the two-loop version below. Again, it is a nice eye knot without the lock, but more secure with the lock.
Dennis
Thanks Dennis.
Nice drawings! Do you mind sharing how those are done?
Yes, there a few iterations that can be done, but they get difficult to tie and dress. And their bulkiness, well they are just that - bulky.
SS
I just do the drawings in Paint 3D (which Microsoft no longer supports or updates). I will soon have to move to another simple drawing program. Long ago, I used to draw my diagrams by hand. Then when I wanted to begin to do the written part of a handout on a computer, I started scanning the diagrams in to be inserted in the word processing document. At first, I just cleaned up my scans a little in a simple drawing program on the computer. I eventually moved to doing the whole drawing on the computer. I have no fancy tablet, and I just draw things with the mouse. Occasionally when I want something to really look nice, I will tie the knot in cord, lay it directly on my scanner, and then pull the scan into my drawing program to get an accurate outline for my drawing. I find it easier to show tying details in my drawings compared to doing so in actually photos. Others with better lighting do well enough that way.
Since I have been looking at bends related to Bowlines and Quasi-Bowlines that work well with two ropes of different sizes (in another forum discussion), I had to try the eye knot in this discussion. Without the locking step, the most complicated part of this knot is the nipping structure. Thus, I tied the related bend with the small rope doing this nipping structure and the large rope having only a bight like a Sheet Bend. The resulting bend is diagramed below. It has many similarities to Ashley’s Tucked Sheet Bend [#1436] and it would also work reasonably well as a “one-way” bend. It did not make sense to try to implement the locking step with the large rope in the bend. I did try reversing the two ropes, tying the nipping structure with the large rope and then adding the locking step with the small rope. This was pretty ugly, and I did not bother to draw it.
Loaded end of the thicker rope should be the other sode?!
I believe this nipping structure and the scott lock are a mismatch insofar that the two components are not very effictive in increasing security in the way they interact.
..Maybe even weaken eachother. A simple nipping loop creates friction in the tailend more efficiently (1010 scottlock) I believe.
And reverse: a different tail lock will allow the nipping structure to tighten more easily and increase friction.
Yosemity finish (through both collars) seems to work better wish this nipping structure.. and vice versa
Thanks for the drawing explanation Dennis. I use an IPad so drawing on it is very limited.
As for using this eye knot basis for a bend, I did not like it. I’ll leave it as an eye…
SS
Good day Andreas, thanks for your comments.
I respectfully disagree with your assertions.
If you have tied it correctly and dressed it well, I believe that it is very secure - in all directions. As for weakening the eye knot, that I have not tested.
Would you care to compare the strengths between your offer and mine?
The tail lock offers more resistance to overall slippage than the #1010 as I have proven (at least to my own satisfaction) when I tested it in Dyneema. And without it, well it is a different knot.
Again, thanks for your comments.
SS
Hi Scott, can you check again, i did not write that the knot is not secure or lacks it.
Also everthing mentioned refers only about the inherent friction of the knob so that it loosens or not when its shaked.
Hope it makes more sense now.
I will also check again practically by tieing 4 knots and shake them
1010 scottlocck
1010 yosemity finish
- the shown knot in both versions
Results should make my point clear..
Hello Scott,
Hope 2025 is off to a great start for you and family.
I can confirm the following about your presented knot:
- It is a quasi Bowline.
- It is inherently secure - meaning that it is suitable for life critical applications (eg as a tie-in knot for climbing).
- It is jam resistant.
I dont know for sure if your quasi Bowline is an original creation.
So far, no one has come forth to make a counter-claim.
I haven’t heard anything from Xarax about claims of originality.
Further commentary:
I assign the title of ‘quasi Bowline’ because it meets all of the requirements for a ‘Bowline’,
but falls short only on the nipping structure (it isn’t a loop).
I use the term ‘nipping structure’ because it isn’t a nipping loop.
It still fulfils all other criteria for being a functional nipping structure:
it is ‘TWATE’ (Tiable Without Access To an End)
it encircles and clamps both legs of the collar
it is functional (its clamping force increases as load increases)
I did make an early comment in a previous post that I don’t think it will
gain wider popularity in the climbing community.
But, this wasn’t your personal criteria for objective success.
That is, you weren’t attempting to design a new tie-in knot that would
become the worlds No.1 ‘go to’ tie-in knot!
You created it for your own personal satisfaction - not someone else’s
satisfaction.
I still regard your ‘Scott’s locked Bowline’ as the best all-round
inherently secure Bowline for life critical applications.
It would be hard to knock that one off its place in the history books…
Hello Andreas.
I’ve reread what you wrote and I am having a challenge interpreting it another way.
Please run your own tests, I have run mine. Add what material(s) you’ve used as well. Let us know…
Just before responding now, I tied this eye knot in BlueWater 2, shook it, twirled it, slammed it, jerked it while unloaded, then cycled it by pulling the eye and standing part and compressing over and over. Performed the same maneuvers to each part after that. The result: Still intact and secure.
You must realize/believe that I have performed numerous home tests, using various media, and would not offer this if I had noted failure(s).
If there is a language challenge here, I apologize.
SS
Hi Mark.
Yep, 2025 is starting off great for us, thanks. Snow, cold temps, gorgeous hiking, lots of projects - life is good.
My offer hits hit a lot of good points. Don’t know if it will ever be received as well as my locked 1010. Actually not concerned about that.
Side note: My Scott’s locked bowline is actually included in a knot tying app. Never expected that!
As with many of the “new” knot explorations presented here in this forum, I believe, the only light-of-day they will see is here. Many are too complicated/convoluted, hard-ish to tie and serve no better than simpler items. But sometimes it is just fun to explore. I’m all for it.
When the weather complies I will have fun with more use of this QLEK. I hope you’ll do the same.
Thanks for the good wishes Mark. Stay safe and healthy to you and yours.
If X has comments, please pass them along.
S