I also used to think that was a terrible knot. However, that knot has important use in rock climbing because it is “flat”. This means the bend is less likely to get caught on a rock or other obstruction as it is dragged along.
Hi Knutern.
The ABoK #1410 offset rope joining knot has been much debated. There are many threads that either sing its praises or knock it down. It is a good knot and has a history in rock climbing, etc. Set snug and diligently, it performs as needed with the bonus attribute that it may clear obstacles that other joining knots may not.
As for “flat”, well I don’t see much flatness to it. Looks rather round to me.
I wouldn’t put too much currency in some of the know names.
SS
Me too.
However, that knot has important use in rock climbing because it is "flat".Make that ("flat") "[b][i]offset[/i][/b]" --the knot is [i]offset [/i]from the axis of tension, and can bounce out of the way of being snagged on surface bumps. (Ergo, it's the [i]"offset water knot."[/i])
And there are ways to improve upon it,
the simplest and likely most accommodating
(of tyer imperfections) is repeating the knot
smack against a first-tied one (which 2nd knot
can be tied either behind or before the 1st!)
–what I call “an EDK-backed EDK” for quick
understanding (in climbing circles, i.e.).
Agent_Smith has put much work into exploring
such abseil-rope-joining knots, and one can find
a URLink to his paper elsewhere on this site.
He offers a simple improvement, too.
–dl*
The flatness of the EDK is where the two ropes meet and slide flat over a surface, thereby decreasingly the chance of getting snagged on a rock, branch, or whatever. Thus, climbers call the knot flat.
Or they call it “flat” because someone started calling
them that and … (like Brits using “larksfoot” vice “larkshead”,
traceable to a book by Bill March). Still, the knot isn’t flat.
IMO, “offset” is a far better, apt adjective.
(-;
I nominate the butterfly bend and Hunter’s bend. Not that they are that bad, but I can’t think of any situation where they would be preferred over the zeppelin bend, which has better resistance to jamming.
I recently used the tautline hitch to hang a clothesline. It worked great because the line was not too slick and it didn’t need to hold much tension.
With all due respect to original poster, I think this thread is rather pointless.
In my view, all knots have their place - context is what matters.
Obviously, if the wrong knot is chosen for a particular application, disappointment may result.
And in response to Harold’s post;
Phil D Smith’s Riggers bend (aka #1425A Hunters bend) is a beautiful symmetric structure that can be tied from the #1053 derived Butterfly bend by a simple reversal of one SPart.
Yes, Phil D Smith’s Riggers bend is vulnerable to jamming, and this may be a desirable property in some applications. Also, it can help us to understand why the Zeppelin bend is jam resistant (eg one consists of inter-linked loops while the other consists of superposed loops).
As Agent_Smith notes, jamming might be wanted.
If one were able to have a comprehensive survey
of Knots In The Wild (i.e., what actually is used!),
the aforementioned knots would likely combine for
hardly even a negligible tally.
As for SmitHunter’s bend, that need not be all so
vulnerable to jamming, if one just crosses the tails a
certain way when tying it. That THIS preferable version
wasn’t what got initially & then repeatedly promulgated
is unfortunate.
The butterfly bend strikes me as an unwanted
compromise on quality over Ashley’s bends #1452
& 1408, as well as having vastly more publicity
than is warranted, while e.g. fine knots such as #1425
in addition to the other two are ignored.
Still, consider e.g. cavers & rockclimbers & canyoneers :
they use the offset overhand /EDK to join abseil ropes
because of its offset profile for easy rope movement
over a surface; the grapevine for forming round slings
because of its high strength & security in doing that;
and … what other end-2-end circumstances/knots?
Their ropes aren’t breaking or coming untied … ,
so why change? (The taming of HMPE cordage is
now one thing that the old knots don’t so well do;
but that material is not necessary.)
As for “all knots have their place”, that makes sense
IMO only if one includes Heinz Prohaska’s “the waste
basket” as an option. E.g., I’ve now illustrated (freed
tied-up play rope by recording the knots on paper)
over 500 (yes, five HUNDRED) new knots since
just fall of 2016. SOME few of those are likely worth
knowing, most are just records in knot-space of places
I’ve been. (And in my case, most are eye knots.)
Do I --or anyone-- need 200+ eye knots (and I’ve
done a few times more than this tally, pre-2016)?
Can we even argue that some even small “place”
needs each? I doubt it.
–dl*
People explaining why they hate certain knots is perhaps more useful than people expressing their love for certain knots. That is the point of this thread. Well done, original poster.
People explaining why they hate certain knots is perhaps more useful than people expressing their love for certain knots. That is the point of this thread. Well done, original poster.???
A hatred of a knot and explaining the source of hatred actually reveals a failing of human application/understanding.
A knot doesn’t know that it ‘exists’ or what domain/category it belongs to. It has no feelings or consciousness.
A knot doesn’t know if it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’…only a human can form that concept.
A knot is just a type of tool created by a human. All tools have their purpose…even if it is purely for decoration, art or to study a particular structure. Evan Dan Lehman’s ‘Lehman 8’ has a purpose - maybe not the waste basket but perhaps as a means to study response to load and jam resistance? Although Xarax might think the Lehman 8 belongs in the waste basket 
The concepts of ‘hatred’ and ‘love’ are simply opposite viewpoints.
I had a problem relating to this challenge.
My pet ‘hate’ is knots that jam, knots the opposite end of the spectrum from the Carrick group of knots, knots like the ‘evil’ Strangle. Dress it and set it, then even with the application of a modest load in softish cord and you can kiss goodbye to ever being able to pick the damned thing open, more likely to shred the cord long before you ever find the release end.
But -
When you need a stopper that you can rely on, the strangle steps up and is hard to beat.
Even 'crazy knots like the Whatnot has it value - it is without exception the very best knot for explaining and demonstrating the knot mechanism of Cogging. Dress the ends into ‘Grief’ mode and the cords roll with one another allowing the load force to flow the knot along the cord to eventual destruction. Yet reverse the ends and the rotational flows contradict one another, locking the knot into one of the most secure you will find.
So, on this one I find myself strongly in support of the opinion voiced by agent_smith, to deny the value of any knot is to deny ourselves the opportunity to study and understand the machines we love to master.
Derek
Good to hear from you again Derek!
I see you are no longer the dunny man - and have been promoted to ‘knot botherer’!
Hope to see more comments from you in these forums…I always enjoyed reading your posts and learning from you