Seeking name for friction hitch

[Knicknack]

This is my favorite friction hitch for loadbinding, or otherwise attaching a rope to a taut line. In its slipped form, it can be tied on the bight, which is handy when there’s a lot of spare rope at the end. It ties quickly, releases easily and cleanly, and it’s pretty grippy, even when pulled in different directions. (Though on slick rope I add a helper hitch–like a lobster buoy–to amplify the friction.)

But I came up with this on my own, so I don’t know what its proper name is. (Or names are, if it goes by several.) And I don’t know how to search for a knot when all I have is the knot. Anyone here recognize this thing?
Thanks, K.

[Dan_Lehman]

Firstly, I’d say that this isn’t a “friction h.”
but a “jam hitch” : that the hitch really is
“friction”-like perhaps in its sliding along
a line until … it gets its holding effect from
being jammed tight at some point, thereafter
not slipping & gripping (so well).

And to this point --i.e., the need to be able to be
"jam"med into the gripped line–, I expect that this
knot doesn’t work well if at all as line strength/tension
rises : that the knot cannot then make the effective
jammed deflection in the gripped/object line!?

In what circumstances (line type, forces, configuration)
have you tried the knot?

As for novelty, I don’t offhand recall having seen
this particular knot previously.

Thanks,
–dl*

[Knicknack]

@Dan_Lehman post:2

Firstly, I’d say that this isn’t a “friction h.”
but a “jam hitch”

I’m from outside knot culture, so I’m not up on nomenclature. I’m using it for the friction of its grip, whatever the term for that is.

..that the hitch really is "friction"-like perhaps in its sliding along a line until ... it gets its holding effect from being jammed tight at some point, thereafter not slipping & gripping (so well).

Once it is snugged down, it strongly resists sliding along the taut line. And to my way of thinking, if something is slipping, then it is not gripping, and vice-versa. Your suggestion that it might not do well at both to me implies you might be thinking of some sort of ability to alternate between low and high friction. If that is a defining quality of a friction hitch, then yes, this hitch would indeed be something different from that. But I looked up jam hitch, and the images and descriptions for that also seem like something different from this.

And to this point --i.e., the need to be able to be "jam"med into the gripped line--, I expect that this knot doesn't work well if at all as line strength/tension rises : that the knot cannot then make the effective jammed deflection in the gripped/object line!?

The surface slickness of the rope definitely makes a difference. I haven’t noticed that the amount of tension and deflection in the taut line makes much difference, but maybe such a difference would occur mostly outside of the range of tensions I normally encounter.

In what circumstances (line type, forces, configuration) have you tried the knot?

I use it when I want to tie onto a taut line–either because I want to pull the taut line to release tension in some part of the rope, or to attach a return line to prevent loss of tension in a load-binding situation. For such uses, I don’t need a low-friction feature. I just want it to grip and not slip.

In most cases, the attaching line has tension roughly in parallel with the taut line, but I have also used this where the attached line pulled at more of a right angle. The most common hitches I saw recommended for this use were the taut-line and midshipman’s hitch, but when I tried them, they seemed quite prone to slippage. I tried more elaborate friction hitches, but even with lots of extra turns, they didn’t seem to grip as well as the noname hitch, and they were quite fiddly to tie. (And none of these could be tied on a bight.)

I usually tie the hitch as I showed it, but the grip strength of this hitch is actually greater if the hitch is tied pointing the other direction on the taut line (or if the attached line is pulled in the opposite direction). But I have a hunch (untested) there could be a greater capsize risk when pulled the opposite way, and it is easier and quicker to tie the hitch pointing in the direction shown, and the grip strength is usually ample, so when I do encounter a particularly slippery rope and need more friction, it only takes a couple of seconds to tie in a friction-multiplier (or tension-reducer) helper hitch before tying this noname hitch. (Again, I don’t know the nomenclature for an in-line hitch which increases friction so that the line tension is higher on one side than the other.) I’ll attach an image to show a typical configuration.

Ropes I’ve used this on range from around a quarter inch diameter up to roughly 3/4"–usually braided synthetics. I’ve never measured the tension or line forces. I’ve dropped branches and 50 lb. feed sacks on this knot under tension without it slipping, and the tension between the bed walls in my pickup is often high enough that I have to release the tension in order to open the tailgate.

As for novelty, I don't offhand recall having seen this particular knot previously.

Without knowing how extensive your knowledge of existing knots is, I don’t know how much that might suggest a possibility of novelty. My assumption was that this surely had to be some well-known hitch that I was not finding due to my inexperience at how to search for knots. It seems almost unthinkable that this could be a novel hitch, but if you have broad experience of knots, that would at least suggest this is not already a popular or well-known hitch. That would just be mystifying. For my purposes at least, it has been a solid performer–rarely slipping (usually when there’s no helper hitch), never jamming, it’s never capsized on me, and I’ve never had it fall apart. Maybe my uses are freakishly odd, but I wouldn’t have thought so. Or maybe this hitch is completely eclipsed by a better one, but if so, I sure haven’t run across it.

Something here does not seem to add up, but perhaps I’m just missing or failing to understand something. Wouldn’t be the first time.

Anyway, much thanks for your comment.

K.

Attached Image: The taut line is on top, the attaching line is coming up from lower left. I tie the helper hitch first, then the noname, and snug them in the same order. (I show all the hitches before tightening for clarity.) I spaced the noname hitch and helper hitch closer together than usual to reduce image size. Helper hitch in the main image is, I think, a lobster buoy hitch. Inset shows an alternate (I don’t know the name) which is at greater risk of capsizing, but very easy to untie while the taut line is under full tension (unlike lobster buoy). Cow hitch is kind of in-between on both factors. I expect there are others, but I use these depending on whether I need stability more, or ease of untying. Haven’t run across a helper hitch which excels at both. A string of three or four lobster buoy hitches is about as secure, but the noname hitch is faster to tie and untie, and can be tied on a bight.

[Dan_Lehman]

@Knicknack post:3

I’m from outside knot culture, so I’m not up on nomenclature.

Ha, it’s little better on the inside!

It gets its holding effect from being jammed tight at some point, thereafter not slipping & gripping (so well).

Once it is snugged down, it strongly resists sliding along the taut line.
And to my way of thinking, if something is slipping, then it is not gripping, and vice-versa.
Your suggestion that it might not do well at both to me implies you might be thinking
of some sort of ability to alternate between low and high friction.
If that is a defining quality of a friction hitch,
then yes, this hitch would indeed be something different from that.
But I looked up jam hitch, and the images and descriptions for that also seem like something different from this.

Egadz, I looked up “knots jam hitch” too, and --nothing
much right in sight! (Crabber’s eye knot comes to mind.)
But, yes, what I mean by that is that the knot gets set hard
to grip and isn’t expected to move w/o deliberate loosening
and then maybe re-setting; in contrast to hitches used by
cavers/climbers/arborists to move up/down ropes,
where there is a coil that tightens & grips but then can
be (hoped to be) loosening and sliding up to grip again
& again. (Rolling, Prusik, Hedden hitches, e.g.)

And to this point --i.e., the need to be able to be "jam"med into the gripped line--, I expect that this knot doesn't work well if at all as line strength/tension rises : that the knot cannot then make the effective jammed deflection in the gripped/object line!?

Or, say, to tie to a steel railing --an object that will not deflect to give a shaped purchase point for the knot.

Thanks, again;
I need to go play with this!

[Knicknack]

@Dan_Lehman post:4

Egadz, I looked up “knots jam hitch” too, and --nothing
much right in sight!

That gives me hope my confusion is not entirely due to a deficiency on my part.

But, yes, what I mean by that is that the knot gets set hard to grip and isn't expected to move w/o deliberate loosening and then maybe re-setting; in contrast to hitches used by cavers/climbers/arborists to move up/down ropes, where there is a coil that tightens & grips but then can be (hoped to be) loosening and sliding up to grip again & again.

I think I’m following that, though I would imagine different knots might require differing amounts of effort to deliberately loosen them, so there could be some categorical blending at the edges?

I expect that this knot doesn't work well if at all as line strength/tension rises : that the knot cannot then make the effective jammed deflection in the gripped/object line!?

Or, say, to tie to a steel railing --an object that will not deflect to give a shaped purchase point for the knot.

I can see how a rigid steel rod with a deflection could provide that sort of mechanical interlinkage, but I would not have expected flexible rope or cord would also have that property. It also seems counterintuitive that higher tension on the taut line (thereby reducing deflection) might have the effect of reducing friction. I’m going to have to take a closer look at that to see how that works. I like exploring counterintuitive concepts. And the idea of separating jam force from friction force is interesting. I hadn’t considered imagining it that way.

Okay, so, presumably a hitch could be configured to maximize jam force, and by this theory, it sounds like that should thereby produce more deflection, and it is this increase in deflection that provides the extra resistance to slippage relative to friction alone. No?

If that’s the theory, I think I’m still missing something. I’m attaching an image of a hitch that seems like it would tend towards maximizing jam force (clamp force, binding force, whatever). This might be a knot of no practical value, but it’s something I imagined for purposes of this thought experiment. (But if it does happen to have a name, I’d of course be interested to know what it is.)

For tying the experiment hitch, as I’ll call it for now, for me it’s conceptually easier if the main line is temporarily slack, so I’ll illustrate it that way. It’s kind of a mess, so I’ll shade the main line darker for easier discrimination. When the main line is straightened out, and the knot is snugged down as in the fourth frame, it looks to me like there are three main components to this hitch mechanism. (I tend to think of knots as little machines.) A would be the stack that redirects the downward tension on the attaching line into tension that acts more perpendicularly to the main line. B would be the loop that uses that perpendicular tension to clamp the main line against the stack, and C would be the stabilizer loop that keeps the stack from falling over in the direction of downward tension.

So in terms of jamming, or binding, this does seem to be noticeably more effective at resisting sliding down the main line than a friction hitch, so no problem with the theory on that point. With regard to the amount of deflection in the main line, maybe it’s just the kind of rope I’m using, but I’m not seeing a lot of deflection. And when I increase the tension on the main line to try to straighten it out as much as possible, the experiment hitch still seems to grab just as effectively so far as I can tell. I don’t know. Maybe other people with different rope might get different results. Somewhere around here, I think I have a chromed steel rod about the same diameter as this rope. If I can find it, I’m definitely going to run that experiment.

And with regard to loosening it in order to slide it upwards, it seems like I can just grab the knot and slide it upwards. Does that count as loosening?

Or maybe I misunderstood completely and the experiment hitch isn’t a true jam hitch at all?

By the way, please don’t feel like the mere fact of my having questions about this theory translates into any sort of obligation on your part to answer them. It isn’t critically important that I get answers. If nothing else, stepping outside my usual way of looking at things is an interesting exercise, and putting my thoughts into words helps me to organize them.

Cheers,
K.

---

[agent_smith]

Hello Knicknack,

Thank you for your presentation.
Just adding some commentary about your hitch.
And please note that I am simply replying in good faith - I am not insulting you nor am I intending to cause harm or trying to make you look incompetent.
Its just some commentary to assist in clarifying some knotting concepts (nothing more and nothing less).
You seem to be a native English speaker - so there shouldn’t be any misinterpretation or misconstruing of any words!

Dan was thinking that your hitch isn’t effective as a ‘slide and grip hitch’.
This has a special meaning.
Go to this link to view a typical ‘slide and grip hitch’: https://www.animatedknots.com/prusik-knot

Quick side note: All hitches require a ‘host’ in order to take form and function. If the ‘host’ is removed, the hitch loses structural integrity and collapses.
Its a type of ‘symbiotic’ relationship. In this case, the hitch needs the host…it cant exist without a host!

The defining characteristic of all ‘slide and grip hitches’ is that they can be used for progression up/down a fixed host rope.
They grip firmly to the host rope when load is applied - and when load is zero, they easily release and can be slid up/down the host rope. As soon as load is reapplied, the hitch firmly grips the host again. This is how mountaineers and cavers can progressively ascend a fixed host rope.
EDIT NOTE FOR ADDITIONAL CLARITY: A further defining geometric characteristic is that the ‘host’ penetrates through the core of the hitch in a linear path.

Dan also suggested that your hitch may not function effectively when the host rope is under significant load (ie the host rope is pre-tensioned).

Your hitch actually employs a proxy ‘toggle’ mechanism (the bight functions as a ‘toggle’).
Therefore, the effectiveness of your hitch could be impacted by how heavily loaded the host rope is.

I’ve done absolutely zero testing of your hitch - all I’ve done is looked at your photos…so I am not in a position to make any firm assessment of how line tension in the host rope affects your hitch.

As to whether your hitch can function as a ‘slide and grip hitch’ - is also something I can’t firmly assess - because I haven’t tried it.
Having said that, it might be the case that once your hitch is heavily loaded to grip its ‘host’ - it may not easily release to slide again when the load is zero (it may need to be manipulated by hand to get it ti release (again - this is pure conjecture since I haven’t tested it myself).

…

As for whether your hitch is ‘TIB’ (Tiable in the Bight) - in your first images at your opening post, yes, it is TIB.

However, in your images at reply #2, I don’t believe you can arrive at your exact depicted photographed state without access to either end.
(Note: ‘TIB’ means the knot/hitch can be tied without access to either end).
Reasoning: With the addition of a ‘helper hitch’ - it can still be ‘TIB’ - but it wont look exactly like your photos at reply #2.
To form the ‘helper hitch’ - a simple girth/larks foot/cow hitch is the first step. Then, the helper hitch is manipulated to form the desired geometry. Next, without access to either end, the core hitch is formed. The end result is different from that which you photographed.

[Knicknack]

@agent_smith post:6

Dan was thinking that your hitch isn’t effective as a ‘slide and grip hitch’.
This has a special meaning.

And that meaning would seem to be apparent from the term itself. However, I did not use that term in describing the noname hitch. (I’ve posted two hitches in this thread by this point–not including the helper hitches–so I’ll discriminate them by, for now, calling the first one the noname hitch and the second one the experiment hitch.) The term I used was “friction hitch” and the point at issue that Mr. Lehman brought up is whether this knot can properly be styled a friction hitch. I don’t know whether the “slide-and-grip” issue is related. It would be related if all friction hitches are, by definition, slide-and-grip hitches, but I already affirmed that if a defining quality of a friction hitch includes some sort of ability to alternate between low and high friction, then that would indeed disqualify the noname from being classed as a friction hitch. But is it the case that all friction hitches are necessarily slide-and-grip hitches? Because if not, then it’s not a related issue.

I thought the noname hitch was a friction hitch because friction is the only thing I imagined would provide resistance to sliding along the taut line when the attached line experienced tension in parallel with the taut line. Mr. Lehman appears to have proposed that in addition to the friction factor, there is a sort of mechanical interlinkage factor, and this is what would make the noname not properly a “friction hitch”, but would place it into a different category known as jam hitches. (From which I further surmised that jam hitches are not a subcategory of friction hitches, and that the two are distinct non-overlapping categories.)

Quick side note: All hitches require a 'host' in order to take form and function. If the 'host' is removed, the hitch loses structural integrity and collapses."

Quick side question: Are hitches a subcategory of knots, or are they properly a separate and distinct category from knots? I’ve seen conflicting opinions on this, and I notice Mr. Lehman sometimes referred to the noname as a knot–so following his lead, I’ve been treating hitches as a sub-category here.

Dan also suggested that your hitch may not function effectively when the host rope is under significant load (ie the host rope is pre-tensioned).

Or at least, not as effectively. That was my read as well. It is an intriguing proposition, and I’m looking to investigate that theory with the experiment hitch. (If the experiment hitch is likewise properly styled a “jam hitch”.)

I've done absolutely zero testing of your hitch - all I've done is looked at your photos

That seems like about as much fun as looking at a toy in a package without taking it out and doing anything with it.

As to whether your hitch can function as a 'slide and grip hitch' - is also something I can't firmly assess - because I haven't tried it.

I’ve used the noname for years, but I’ve never tried using it that way either. I sometimes slide it up the taut line as I am tightening it to take up slack, but thereafter, I just use it to hold its position until I’m ready to untie it.

As for whether your hitch is 'TIB' (Tiable in the Bight) - in your first images at your opening post, [u]yes[/u], it is TIB.

Having used it this way many times, this part, for me, was not really in question.

However, in your images at [u]reply #2[/u], I don't believe you can arrive at your exact depicted photographed state without access to either end.

The ‘TIB’ aspect only applies to the noname hitch itself–not to any helper hitches (whatever the correct term for those is) that I use on occasions when I’m dealing with slippery rope and need more grip strength.

With the addition of a 'helper hitch' - it can still be 'TIB'

That might be interesting. It would be a bonus not to have the run yards of end rope through the helper hitch. And if this would give the helper hitch the same quick-release and distant-release feature of the noname, that would be another bonus.

To form the 'helper hitch' - a simple girth/larks foot/cow hitch is the first step. Then, the helper hitch is manipulated to form the desired geometry. Next, without access to either end, the core hitch is formed."

I’m having difficulty visualizing how that would work. Are there, perhaps, some steps missing from that description?

[Knicknack]

@Knicknack post:5

Somewhere around here, I think I have a chromed steel rod about the same diameter as this rope. If I can find it, I’m definitely going to run that experiment.

Okay, I found a straight steel rod of about the right size, and it had a light coating of surface rust, which for this test actually seems perfect. If the hitch had slipped on a smooth, straight rod, it would have been hard to determine whether that was due to lack of friction (owing to the smooth surface) or the lack of interlinkage (owing to its straightness). Being a straight, slightly-rusty rod provides a way to separate those factors.

To try to minimize extraneous factors, I took an experiment hitch that I had previously tied around a rope, then slid that rope out of the knot and slid the rod in, in its place–with the result being the configuration shown in the attached image. The hitch was just slightly loose, and at this point, I could slide it up and down the rod easily, with even a less resistance than when I was sliding it up and down the rope. And then I pulled down on the rope in parallel with the rod and the result was–it gripped like crazy. It didn’t slide down the rod any detectable amount. And presumably, none of that gripping effect could have been due to any interlinkage with a deflection, bend, or shaped purchase point in the rod–as there was none. So at this point, I’m having doubts about the importance of this putative deflection purchase point effect–which leaves me wondering whether there is anything useful about the distinction between a friction hitch and a jam hitch. (Unless, of course, the experiment hitch is not a “true” jam hitch.) I’ll do some more thinking about this to see if I might have let some extraneous variable slip through, but at first blush, this seems like this should be a pretty clean test. But critiques are, of course, welcome. K.

[agent_smith]

Hello again knicknack!

But critiques are, of course, welcome

That's good to know - as this is a technical knot forum - which means discussion is (by definition) of a technical nature. However, sometimes these technical discussions can devolve into a knowledge contest.

which leaves me wondering whether there is anything useful about the distinction between a friction hitch and a jam hitch

The reason i weighed in previously is to assist with clarification and understanding of knotting terminology.

Your presentation is properly classified as a ‘hitch’.
The word ‘knot’ - can be used both in a specific sense and as a ‘catch-all’ phrase for any type of knot structure.
Take for example the knot geek bible “Ashley Book of Knots”… the title uses the word ‘knots’ - but the content includes all types of knots (including decorative knots).

A subset of ‘knots’ is hitches.
All hitches need a ‘host’ - without which, the hitch loses structural integrity and (in most cases) collapses.
The term ‘hitch’ is therefore a more constrained and specific descriptor of a particular class of ‘knot’.

The term ‘friction hitch’ is generally understood to mean ‘slide and grip hitch’ (the two terms are interchangeable).
I prefer to the more accurate term ‘slide and grip hitch’ (rather than ‘friction hitch’).
The essential characteristic geometry of a slide and grip hitch is that the ‘host’ penetrates through the hitch in a straight line.
The hitch can slide up/down the linear host - to enable progression/mobility (eg climbers and arborists use slide and grip hitches to ascend fixed ropes).
In my view, the term ‘jam hitch’ - is not particularly useful (ie what exactly is meant by the word ‘jam’ within the context and operation of the hitch?). It appears that some content writers and youtube presenters actually show a noose hitch which they understand has the ‘jamming’ property.

As this is a technical knot geek forum - I’ll continue…

In my view, ‘hitches’ can be sub divided into the following categories:

1. Slide and grip hitches
2. Noose hitches (hitch core forms around its own SPart and when load is applied, the ‘eye’ collapses/shrinks - but can also be designed to be adjustable)
3. Binder hitches (these hitches progressively crush their host)
4. Load control (in this category, the hitch flows around the ‘host’).

In my view, your presentation fits within the sub category; ‘slide and grip hitch’.
I suggest this because the host rope penetrates through the core of your hitch in a linear path. Also, the hitch can slide up/down/along the host. When load is applied, your hitch grips the host.

As I indicated in a previous post, it may not function ‘effectively’ as a slide and grip hitch - particularly when compared to other slide and grip hitches.
However, ‘effectiveness’ is a relative concept - and context/application affects the assessment of whether any particular slide and grip hitch is ‘effective’ (or not).
For example, an arborist would likely deem your slide and grip hitch to be ineffective or not practicable (that’s not intended to be insulting - its simply a statement of fact for a particular context/application).

For a camping context or perhaps securing loads on a trailer, others may see your hitch as ‘effective’ for their purpose.

I've done absolutely zero testing of your hitch - all I've done is looked at your photos

That seems like about as much fun as looking at a toy in a package without taking it out and doing anything with it.

I don’t always have time or motivation to carry out physical testing - due to a range of life factors.
I’ve taken more of an interest in John’s (JRB) ‘ascender hitch’ (a slide and grip hitch) - which appears to be remarkably effective as a slide and grip hitch (presented in “New knot investigations”).
In your present case, its just theoretical contributions given in good faith.

[Knicknack]

@agent_smith post:9

sometimes these technical discussions can devolve into a knowledge contest.

If that knowledge happened to include the actual name of the noname hitch (and now I guess also/or the name of the experiment hitch) that would be the very sort of knowledge I came here for.

A subset of 'knots' is hitches.

That was the impression I got from Mr. Lehman, but good to have a corroborating opinion on the matter.

The term 'friction hitch' is generally understood to mean 'slide and grip hitch' (the two terms are interchangeable).

In general, and maybe in particular within the tying community, perhaps so. But I’ve also seen references to knots such as the rolling hitch as friction hitches, merely for their resistance to sliding in one direction. And my impression was that the rolling hitch is not a “slide-and-grip hitch”, which would suggest the two terms are not quite synonymous.

I prefer to the more accurate term 'slide and grip hitch' (rather than 'friction hitch').

That, too, would suggest the categorical boundaries of the two terms are not coterminous. If they were identical, then one term could not be more accurate than the other.

The essential characteristic geometry of a slide and grip hitch is that the 'host' penetrates through the hitch in a straight line.

Seems like that would also be the case for hitches that slide freely in both directions.

In my view, the term 'jam hitch' - is not particularly useful (ie what exactly is meant by the word 'jam' within the context and operation of the hitch?).

Especially when a jammed knot commonly refers to one which has become bound and very difficult to loosen.

In my view, 'hitches' can be sub divided into the following categories: 1. Slide and grip hitches 2. Noose hitches (hitch core forms around its own SPart and when load is applied, the 'eye' collapses/shrinks - but can also be designed to be adjustable) 3. Binder hitches (these hitches progressively crush their host) 4. Load control (in this category, the hitch flows around the 'host').

I had considered adjectives like binding, clamping, or gripping, but I knew binding knots were for constraining deformable objects or for keeping multiple loose objects together, and I didn’t know if the clamp or grip adjectives were similarly taken.

In my view, your presentation fits within the sub category; 'slide and grip hitch'.

If I were to categorize the noname hitch according to how I use it, it would be more of a “grip and release” hitch–basically, holding until I yank it loose. It’s not a very good hitch for sliding after it has been tightened.

I suggest this because the host rope penetrates through the core of your hitch in a linear path.

Nearly linear. There is some deformation when it is tight. But while the straight path may be a necessary condition for “slide-and-grip”, I don’t think it is a sufficient condition, as it appears there are other hitches which also have this characteristic.

Also, the hitch can slide up/down/along the host.

Sort of. It takes some force to do this after it has been tightened. There are other hitches that loosen and slide much more easily.

As I indicated in a previous post, it may not function 'effectively' as a slide and grip hitch

I expect it would not be a suitable knot for that purpose.

For example, an arborist would likely deem your slide and grip hitch to be ineffective or not practicable (that's not intended to be insulting - its simply a statement of fact for a particular context/application).

It would be a poor ascender knot, so aborists would presumably have no use for it for that particular purpose. But arborists use many other kinds of knots as well, and I’ve found the distant-release feature to be handy in felling and limbing operations where I knew the hitch would wind up out of reach.

For a camping context or perhaps securing loads on a trailer, others may see your hitch as 'effective' for their purpose.

Loadbinding is one of the more common applications I use it for.

That seems like about as much fun as looking at a toy in a package without taking it out and doing anything with it.

I don't always have time or motivation to carry out physical testing - due to a range of life factors.

My condolences. That sounds even less fun.

I've taken more of an interest in John's (JRB) 'ascender hitch' (a slide and grip hitch) - which appears to be remarkably effective as a slide and grip hitch (presented in "New knot investigations").

I imagine people who are interested in ascender hitches will be much more interested in hitches which are actually suited to that purpose. That would not be any of the hitches I’ve talked about here.

In your present case, its just theoretical contributions given in good faith.

Your theory that a helper hitch (is there a conventional term for that?) could also be made ‘TIB’ sounded particularly intriguing. It’s not readily apparent to me how that could work.

[agent_smith]

Hello Knicknack,

Your posts are becoming a little tedious to read - due to the large number of pulled quotes that you use.

I’m not sure what direction you see this discussion going?

You’ll find that in the world of knotting, many concepts and descriptive terms are not precisely defined - and there are definitely grey areas which are still very much evolving.
Tradition plays a large role - and knot book authors such as Ashley and CL Day have laid a solid foundations - which carry forward to our present time.
Xarax made significant progress and contributions to the state-of-the-art… from which I draw and base many of my thoughts.

…

From your original post:

But I came up with this on my own, so I don't know what its proper name is

This could be understood to be a claim of originality. With regard to your presented hitch - it appears to be original, in the sense that it isn't immediately apparent in the existing published knot books. However, only time will tell - someone may come forward and make a claim or point out its existence in some published work. You'll need to be patient - as only in the fullness of time can we establish who first devised it.

…

With regard to the 4 categories of hitches that I indicated, there are always going to be boundary conditions.
Some hitches will have characteristics and applications that are hard to quantify.
Quantifying anything in the art of knots and knotting is difficult at best.

The rolling hitch (#503) is a type of ‘slide and grip’ hitch.
It is designed to be loaded longitudinally (or axially) in alignment with the host rope.
They grip when loaded, and tend to ‘release’ when unloaded (although this tendency to release varies significantly).
All slide and grip hitches are designed for axial/longitudinal loading with respect to the host.
A geometric characteristic of all slide and grip hitches is that the host penetrates through the core of the hitch - with all of the hitch being formed radially around its host.
There are other characteristic ‘traits’ - such as when the host is removed, the hitch loses structural integrity - usually triggering collapse (and often no remnant knot is left), and that all of the hitch is centered on, and formed around its host.

So for this reason, I view the #503 Rolling hitch as a type of slide and grip hitch.
Slide and grip hitches are like automobiles in the sense that performance and handling varies significantly from type to type (some perform better than others).

In contrast, I don’t view a ‘Round turn and two half hitches’ (#1720) as a slide and grip hitch.
It is not designed to be loaded axially/longitudinally with respect to its host.
Also, a key component is formed around its own SPart (ie the 2 ‘half hitches’) - rather than around the host.
When the host is removed, a remnant knot structure remains.

You may wish to devise your own nomenclature and descriptors for classifying knots/hitches… and you are perfectly entitled to do so.
I would invite you to devise your own theoretical work and share it in this forum (maybe under knotting concepts and explorations) - many would welcome such an effort
I would!
If you go to this link, you’ll see some of the work I have done: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php (in particular, the PACI protocols is an evolving encyclopedic document).

There are numerous pulled quotes in your narrative - and its hard to reply without getting into a quagmire of quotes that are quoted from other quotes.
I will pull this one out:

Nearly linear. There is some deformation when it is tight. But while the straight path may be a necessary condition for "slide-and-grip", I don't think it is a sufficient condition, as it appears there are other hitches which also have this characteristic.

As I pointed out, the definitions to quantify all types of hitches is evolving - it is not perfectly defined. With regard to the geometric characteristic of all slide and grip hitches - that is; the host penetrates through the core of the hitch in a linear pathway... this is a true statement. Obviously, when load is applied to the hitch, it will induce a kink in host. One only has to examine a 'Prusik hitch' (#1763) - when load is applied, it induces a kink in the host. In other words, the host is no longer straight as an arrow when the hitch is loaded. But that does not disturb the fundamental geometric construction of the hitch relative to its host. What you have described is the side-effect of load. A Prusik hitch will eventually reach a [i]threshold jamming[/i] state given sufficient loading. I have loaded several different 'slide and grip' hitches to the point where [i]threshold jamming[/i] is triggered. Beyond that load threshold, I needed to use pliers to loosen and untie the hitch.

One can say that ‘slide and grip’ hitches have a nominal operational load range… and this varies significantly across the different types of hitches (some work better than others).

In your presented hitch, it appears to me to be designed for axial/longitudinal loading (rather than a perpendicular loading profile).
It can slide and grip its host - but only within a narrow load range.
It appears that after a certain load threshold is reached, your hitch is no longer easy to release and slide along its host (and that’s fine - it has it limitations like any hitch).
The ‘novel’ design aspect of your hitch is the proxy ‘toggle’ mechanism - which is formed by the ‘bight’ component.
Its also its Achilles heel - in that toggle mechanisms have a tendency to deform and jam under heavy loading.

As for the terms ‘friction hitch’ and ‘slide and grip hitch’ - you will find that these terms are generally interchangeable.
In the general climbing and caving community, the term ‘friction hitch’ is interchangeable with ‘slide and grip hitch’.
You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree.

[Knicknack]

“Your posts are becoming a little tedious to read”

I sincerely hope there is not some reason that you are forced to read my poor contributions.

“I’m not sure what direction you see this discussion going?”

The only direction I set was in asking for the name of a hitch. In return, I’ve received some other information, some of which was interesting and prompted some questions, but other than following up on those questions, I haven’t been setting the direction since the first post.

“From your original post:
[ But I came up with this on my own, so I don’t know what its proper name is ]
This could be understood to be a claim of originality.”

I would be shocked if I originated this hitch. Structurally, it is very nearly as simple as a figure 8 knot, which I expect has been found independently around the world many thousands of times down through history. The whole reason I asked about its proper name was because I assumed it already had a proper name, and I even felt it was probably a popular hitch.

“With regard to your presented hitch - it appears to be original, in the sense that it isn’t immediately apparent in the existing published knot books.”

So at a minimum, that rules out it being a popular hitch, or even a well-known hitch. That, by itself, is a level of bizarre beyond anything I was expecting. It seems too simple not to have been found many times before, but if that’s the case, I can’t think what could have derailed it from becoming widely-known every single time. It’s easy to remember, easy to tie, it has mundane and common applications, and I know it has utility because I’ve been using it. Either I’m not seeing something that is obvious to everyone else, or there is something of a mystery here.

“You’ll need to be patient - as only in the fullness of time can we establish who first devised it.”

Wait, does that mean this is being investigated? More surprising still.

“Obviously, when load is applied to the hitch, it will induce a kink in host.”

And I didn’t think that characteristic had any special significance–until Mr. Lehman proposed that property put it in the category of ‘jam hitch’.

“In your presented hitch, it appears to me to be designed for axial/longitudinal loading (rather than a perpendicular loading profile).”

I primarily use it that way. But once it is snugged down, it has no problem taking loading in a full 180 degree arc.

“It can slide and grip its host - but only within a narrow load range.”

With rough rope, it’s not great about sliding. With slick rope, that reduces the peak load it can hold without slipping.

“The ‘novel’ design aspect of your hitch is the proxy ‘toggle’ mechanism - which is formed by the ‘bight’ component. Its also its Achilles heel - in that toggle mechanisms have a tendency to deform and jam under heavy loading.”

The quick release will usually not release while it is heavily loaded. (But the way I use it, that’s kind of a safety plus.)

So if it turns out that the noname hitch actually has no name (which presumably would mean that the experiment hitch also has no name), how do knots normally acquire names? Is that decided by some organization?

[agent_smith]

Hello again Knicknack,
You have some questions in your replies… but as I indicated, with the number of pulled quotes that you type, it getting very tedious to continue.

Anyhow, I’ll try to respond in good faith

You stated that you would be “shocked” if it turns out that you are the originator of your hitch.
Well - you might need to prepare yourself for a shock (I’m sure you’ll get over it!).

You also asked; “How do knots normally acquire names?”
This one is fairly easy to answer… the creator has naming rights.

So if this was the principal reason for posting in the IGKT forum - fee free to name your hitch.
But - as I previously indicated, someone may come forward with historical information pointing to another originator (no need to be shocked if this happens). This happens reasonably frequently in the world of knotting. In fact, one such (famous) scenario occurred last century and led to the creation of the IGKT!

You also commented:
“Wait, does that mean this is being investigated? More surprising still.”
The answer to this question is that there is no formal ‘investigation’ taking place.
The IGKT is a loosely bound group of individual knotting enthusiasts. Some may be checking ‘ABoK’, and some may check their own notes, but nobody is obligated or responsible for reporting anything (unless they personally want to).
There tends to be more focus on fixed eye knots and ‘end-to-end joining knots’ - and not so much attention given to ‘slide and grip hitches’ (although arborists are always looking for more efficient and effective slide and grip hitches.

You also had another question in a previous post:

Your theory that a helper hitch (is there a conventional term for that?) could also be made 'TIB' sounded particularly intriguing

There is no "conventional" name. As I pointed out, the world of knots and knotting has many terms and concepts based on old traditions. In the past 10 years or so, there has been a lot of progress with many new discoveries - and a need has arisen to develop new theories to try to improve understanding. With specific regard to your question, it could be stated that there is a primary knot and a secondary knot. Although this is purely my conceptualisation. When advancing new concepts, one has to tread with caution. For example, the notional concept of a 'loop knot' is seen by some to be an 'eye knot' (ie the loop is a fixed [i]eye[/i]). Some knotting enthusiasts have had virtual seizures and expressed outrage against those who dared to use the term 'eye knot'!

…

I’m not sure if you’re going to reply with a large number of pulled quotes again… in any case, I don’t think I can contribute anything of further use to you going forward. Maybe others might post?

[Knicknack]

There are some quirks to the way my brain works–the word scatterbrained has been suggested, and that’s not wrong. I derail and branch very easily. Quotes provide the simulated structure of a dialog, small bits at a time, which helps me to focus and keep on track. Also, I feel like it makes it easier for readers to see whether I’ve fairly interpreted the passages I’m responding to–and easier to see how I might have misinterpreted them when I get it wrong–without having to scroll up and down and hunt for the relevant passages, and also easier to see whether my response was pertinent and reasonable. And in forums which allow editing, I also use it as routine insurance against a passage changing after I have responded to it. I’m sorry if you find this insufferable. I do understand I’m not the only person with brain quirks, so I will try to accommodate yours. I will also refrain from asking questions so as not to make you feel compelled to respond again.

I can see the term “creator” being apt where the knot in question is complex enough to have been designed, but with very simple knots, it would seem to be more a matter of simply finding them than creating them. But I do feel like this hitch needs a name, even if only a temporary working name until a prior name can be found. If I’m right that this hitch has probably been found many times before, it would seem one of the more remarkable properties of this hitch is its ability to be forgotten, so the part of me that secretly enjoys bad puns is tempted by ‘forget-me knot’. But I think good knot names should describe something distinctive about the knot itself, which is a problem for me because I don’t know many knots, which makes it difficult to tell what is distinctive. So I’m inclined to defer to your breadth of experience on this, and take my lead from your observation that its distinctive feature is the toggle. And since that would make this a toggle variant of a figure 8 knot in hitch form, that naturally suggests the term “toggle-8 hitch”. I’m not finding a Google reference to that term, but if any of the expert readers here can see where that might cause confusion, or if you can think of a more fitting name, your input would be most welcome.

[Edit to add] Suggestions for a name for the experiment hitch would also be welcome.

[SS369]

Good day Knicknack.

Lots of good info here.

Looking at my copy of Ashley?s book of knots, it looks like your offering has its roots as the #1992 Jamming hitch. Yours is slipped with a bight.
Without looking further, I could name it a ?Slipped Jamming Hitch?.

That said, it is just actually a slipped Fig. 8 with a host running through it. I have tried this in the past as a bend with opposing knots. The bend jammed up very tight, even when slipped.

Hope this helps.

SS369

[Knicknack]

Much thanks for the input. The toggle-8, as I’m calling it for now, has similar appearance to Ashley’s #1992, but in knots, small structural differences can yield large difference in how it actually operates. The first step of #1992 is a pass around the main line to form the initial loop, whereas the first step of the toggle-8 is the formation of the first loop completely apart from the main line. And #1992 finishes with the tail passing through the first loop, whereas toggle-8, as Agent Smith has observed, finishes with a toggle, which bypasses the first loop. This means that instead of the first loop constricting the tail and main line together to provide friction to resist traveling, the tension in both sides of the first loop act to clench the tail against the main line perpendicular to the main line, such that the tail acts as a rolling fulcrum, which appears to be a very different mechanism for developing resistance to traveling. Also, the toggle-8 can be tied on the bight, whereas #1992 cannot.

It also appears that Ashley is using “jamming hitch” to refer to a class of knots, rather than to #1992 particularly.

I have never tried using the toggle-8 in a bend application. (Ditto for the experiment hitch.) I have no idea whether it might have any utility for such an application. My suspicion would be that it doesn’t.

[agent_smith]

Suggestions for a name for the experiment hitch would also be welcome.

Perhaps [u]Toggle 8 grip hitch[/u]?

Note that Ashley’s #1992 is presented as an adjustable noose hitch (and so is #1993 & #1994).
I should comment that adjustable noose hitches also have a corresponding ‘slide and grip’ hitch (in the same way that all bends have 4 corresponding eye knots (within a chiral orientation).
In Knicknack’s case, his creation is configured as the corresponding slide and grip version of #1992 - but with the addition of a toggled bight (which can also be viewed as ‘slipped’).
I think the toggled bight is a novel addition and certainly enhances/boosts its ability to grip to its ‘host’.
That novel addition - in my view - takes it a step beyond Ashley’s depiction of #1992… and so I would like to see Knicknack remembered as the ‘creator/originator’ of his “Toggled 8 grip hitch”.

I always keep in mind that Ashley published his masterpiece during WW2 and without the aid of a computer!
He was (to an extent) constrained by the traditions and state-of-the-art at that point in time.
He used the word ‘jam’ to describe some of his presented hitches - which (in my personal view) is unfortunate. ‘Grip’ would have been a more accurate descriptor.

I personally find that the term ‘jam hitch’ not to be a particularly useful concept.
The word ‘jam’ has its own meaning (and there are in fact different levels of ‘jamming’).

In Knicknack’s case, the property of ‘jamming’ is (I believe) something he wishes to avoid.
I don’t think he developed this variation with jamming foremost in his mind.

Also, nice find Scott - you are a great super sleuth
See Knicknack, I mentioned that someone would be thumbing their way through a book - and behold, he found a good analogue of your presentation at #1992!

And in closing, please consider ‘grip’ instead of ‘jam’ hitch (because the operational characteristic of your hitch is that its grips well - rather than jams).

[Knicknack]

@agent_smith post:17

Perhaps Toggle 8 grip hitch?

I like it. (For the first hitch I presented–not for the hitch that I developed for the purposes of the experiment.)
I wanted to include “grip” (I felt it needed some sort of a function descriptor, I like the adjective–I used grippy in my first post, and I even like the extra beat in the name) but I stepped in it last time by referring to something as a friction hitch without knowing about its specific meaning within knot terminology, and I didn’t know if “grip” was similarly taken. If it’s available, I think that would succinctly capture the point of the knot.

And you are correct. I strongly feel that “jamming” would very poorly convey the point of the knot, so if any association with that term could be avoided, I think that would be to the good.

[Dan_Lehman]

@SS369 post:15

Looking at my copy of Ashley?s book of knots,
it looks like your offering has its roots as the #1992 Jamming hitch.
Yours is slipped with a bight.
Without looking further, I could name it a ?Slipped Jamming Hitch?.

I’m looking at similarities with #1746.
[edit/add : More nearly #1469, and all of #1467 .. 71,
for “jam hitches”.]
Which if I recall my fiddling a few days back,
is more like the reverse of the OP’s knot
–which, NB, was suggested to work even better!

I did play around with this, briefly, in firmish 8mm
kernmantle; as I suspected, the knot didn’t hold,
used to make a(n adjustable) eye, into which I stood
and bounced a little.
REVERSING the knot did, as hinted, give a solid nip & grip,
which comes with deformation of the hitched object(rope).

That said, it is just actually a slipped Fig. 8 with a host running through it.

No, that is NOT a [i]fig.8[/i] --as a [i]marlinespike h[/i]. isn't an [i]OH[/i]. --like shape, missed Xing. :-\

[agent_smith]

No, that is NOT a fig.8

You’re correct, it isn’t a slipped F8.
I think Knicknack was simply referring to its appearance rather than its precise geometry.