Can someone tell me what they think is the strongest loop, bend, hitch, binding, knot and why.
Thanks in advance.
TH54
carrick bend- why ,google it
Before “why” comes “what”: presumably you’re replying only to “which bend…?”,
not hitch, loopknot, or binder.
Now, “Google it” doesn’t much help this simplistic question, does it?
–each must repeat something that one has already done,
rather than that one presenting results to spare the redundant seaches?!
But I played that game for 1 page of results, and came away no closer to
your answer than before. (Elsewhere, one can find documented results
for the Carrick Bend that are not so impressive.) How many sites might
choose to echo Ashley’s words is not a compelling case for anything.
–dl*
Hi TH54,
Yes, I can tell you what I think is the strongest (…) knot and why. But before I do, would you mind telling us why you ask - what is behind your question?
DerekSmith
As an answer to your question Derek: I’ve always wondered what exactly
are the strongest knots for each group. I know that there is not one
single strongest knot for each , so I was wondering what other people
think are the strongest knots.
TH54
Hi there,
This question rears up from time to time not just in this forum but in other forums (eg rope rescue, climbing, etc).
I was under the impression that DerekSmith was undertaking his own testing into this area and even built a special test rig?? Dan Lehman also contributed a wealth of information to this subject area.
I think one of the things that raises eyebrows in this forum is how to actually ask the right questions in the first instance.
Asking a question like; “Whats the strongest knot?” is rather simplistic in my view and is sure to raise eyebrows in this forum.
For a start, there are matters to consider such as rope construction (synthetic fibre or natural fibre, hawser lay or kernmantel - spelt el not le).
Then there is loading profile. The Butterfly knot is a good example of a knot that can be loaded in a number of directions yet it is rarely reported in which direction the purported test results were applied. The Clove hitch is another, there is always a ‘load’ strand when this hitch is used in a climbing carabiner. Mike Law did extensive testing on this and reported his results in Australian ‘Rock’ magazine some years ago (no, I cant remember the #issue). He found through experiment that the Clove hitch had to be looked at in the wider context of how it was used on a carabiner (in climbing applications). If the load strand was placed closest to the spine of the carabiner, the hitch and carabiner (as a collective whole) held higher loadings. A lever arm was created if the load strand was placed away from the spine.
Then there is static Vs dynamic loading. In climbing applications, knots/hitches are typically shock loaded (eg after a free-fall event). Static loading is typical in abseiling (rappelling for you fine US folks) applications.
Any testing would at the very least, need to peg down a context/application and rope construction.
Sometimes the strongest knot/hitch/bend is NOT necessarily the optimal choice.
For example, the best ‘bend’ for joining two (2) dynamic climbing ropes together in preparation for an abseil descent off a cliff is arguably the ORB (offset ring bend - ABoK #1410). I personally prefer the Zeppelin bend (Rosendahl) since it can be easily untied after high loadings and it retains a large % of the rope strength (ie its very strong). The double fishermans has historically been the bend of choice but it can be extremely difficult to retrieve over a 90 degree cliff edge (in a abseil rope retrieval scenario). And failure to retrieve ones climbing ropes can mean death! Furthermore, at high altitude, removing ones gloves in order to untie a stubborn knot can mean frost bite and the loss of fingers. Clearly, this is not good…
So the above discussion is a classic example where the strongest (eg double fishermans bend) is not necessarily the best choice.
The figure 8 family of knots are also a favourite of many rope rescue teams. But there are issues with tying method (symmetry/shape) and ease of untying after loading…
agent smith
…
“Kernmantle” might be spelt w/‘el’ but is spelled with ‘le’, for me! :
(Google votes 20_100 v. 7_300.)
As for the “great strength” of Rosendahl’s bend, I’ve yet to see any good basis
for such an assertion.
For those in love with the knot, though, you might try tying a corresponding
loopknot, as follows (and there are a few variations on this theme (which can
be projected elsewhere, generally)):
- tie the initial Overhand;
- now continue as though you have in fact just finished the END of the
2nd Overhand, tying this thus in reverse, which results in having a Z.-like
single-strand knot where the would-be “ends” of the bend are one, into each other; - now having formed an eye, bring the rope back into the knot by tracing the
just-tied 2nd Overhand.
Voila!
i think this is going to be dependant on use and materials.
Like mono or braid; static or dynamic loading; from consistent or variable angles, repeated dynamic or singular dynamic loading etc.
Most botable lacings that leverage the Standing Part least will be stronger, but also if dynamic loading can pull any from a bank of slack/ coils, through frictions, slipages etc. it may be more dynamically forgiving a lacing etc.
For abseiling, have you ever considered the double (or triple) “T” fishermans ?DT-FK??
I thought that the zeppelin bend was a symmetric knot that could also get sutck on a cliff.
The mis-named fisherman’s knot is better called, depending on a perspective re its parts,
“Offset Fisherman’s Knot w/Overhand Stopper” or “Overhand-guarded O.F.K.”–the point
being that within the trio of Overhands tied alternately in (mind this order) thin-thick-thin
ropes, one can see either the first or last pair as constituting the Fish., and the resp. ending
or starting Oh. as resp. a stopper/guard (though, in this latter case, the Fisherman’s itself
wouldn’t be offset loaded but more a 2-rope stopper pulled against the “guard”).
Conceivably, the ordering could differ, with e.g. two initial (to SParts) Oh.s tied in the
one, thinner rope, and the thick rope’s Oh. being at the load-wise end; I think that this
configuration would make it more difficult to achieve the distortion Edelrid got with
the center Oh. pulling through the guard Oh., as here that center one would be tied
in the guard’s end and largely pushed/pressed into the guard by the end Oh.
of the thick rope, rather than pulled, and this should tend to compress & flatten/widen
the center component. --bunch of windy conjecture, but I’m trying to highlight how
one can see the structure. (But it should highlight some questions about how exactly
one sets such a structure–which way does one pull the center knot to set it,
which remaining Overhand at the end (either end) must be then tied alone and
as snugly as possible against the other two, set qua Fisherman’s knot?! (I’ve not
heard yet from Heinz Prohaska, who developed this independently from Jost
Gudelius who has publicized it more.))
In practice, anyway, I think it’s simpler and better to join the initial-to-load two Oh.s
in a Thumb Bend / Offset Ring Bend, and have the 3rd one be tied in the thin rope’s
end around the thick rope’s end as a stopper, helping to arrest the opening of the
first-pried-open “guard” Overhand (though in this case I don’t see a guard, really).
One can also try the Offset Grapevine Bend (also shown by Gudelius’s site and tested
by Edelrid), but here I’ll say that the away-from-load Dbl.Overhand component need
not be double, and the knot could be that much reduced in bulk (dbl=>single Oh.).
Yes, the Rosendahl’s bend isn’t offset and can be impeded by a surface. It does have
a nice flattish side though and should take knockabout abuse pretty well, tending to
orient itself to taking rubbing on a flat side (ideally with the leading-edge collar rising
away from the surface!).
–dl*
I asked about the one that is called “double T fisherman’s”, the one that lacks the overhand stopper. It’s an offset knot, yes, and you could tie a real “triple fisherman’s” the same way.
I’m currently using, in training situations, this knot, the zeppelin loop that you cited, the trident loop and the Lehman8 (I live in Mexico, so I translated it just as “nudo de Lehman”).
Thanks…
Okay, the Offset Grapevine Bend. (One can see the problems at once w/Jost’s naming,
and the benefit for a nice qualifier “offset” combined w/known knots.)
Note that you can tie the Dble.Overhand (Strangle-oriented) component in the thinner
and (red, in Jost’s image) SParts-binding line WITH the thicker, away rope forming an
Overhand, as a variation on the Offset Ring Bend–you just make the extra wrap with the
one line; and it’s easier to make this into a Fig.9 than Strangle, but both provide the full
turn around the SParts and so improve the offset knot’s resistance to being pried apart.
(But tying the FULL knot as an Offset Dbl.Overhand would make for a LESS stable knot
under the offset loading.)
I'm currently using, in training situations, this knot, the zeppelin loop that you cited,Hmmm, which of my sketched Rosendahl Zep. knots? --for I described something, here, quite novel; and I think I generally pointed this and some other like structures in another thread?! Anyway, what I described above is a less elegant solution to eye-knotting the Zeppelin than exists. But, for what it's worth, I'd favor other knots--a Bowline variation, esp., for its ability to be completely tied after forming the eye, and for considerable strength, which I surmise increases as one puts another diameter of material through the central loop, as various securing tucks do (but NOT the Yosemite Bwl).
... the trident loop and the Lehman8 (I live in Mexico, so I translated it just as "nudo de Lehman").
Well, it’s NOT by any means so simply “nudo de Lehman”–that would need to be plural by a thousand!
Surely Spanish can take it as, perhaps, “nudo del ojo de Lehman8” (‘LehmanOcho’ if you must?)?!
What I once called “Lehman Loop” is simply the Honda/Bowstring loopknot with the end not stoppered
but run into a collar of the SPart as for the Bowline and back out–very simple, more secure than the Bwl,
and able to be similarly reinforced re security by taking the end around the legs of the eye and then
back again through the central/base Overhand knot.
Which sort of bowlinesque collaring is also possible (also found by Lehman, another nudo de …)
by tying the Lehman8 but after the 2nd tuck of the end (just before it makes the wrap and then
finishing tuck) taking it around the SPart and back through the knot parallel to itself or otherwise.
You’ll be surprised to find this knot holding WITHOUT any further tuck (i.e., at the point of difference
before the revision just described; with the end brought back 2 tucks and THAT’S IT!) --but this
is not going to hold if the end-side of the eye is loaded in some isolation or bias, and maybe not
in some slippery materials, but it at least shows some degree of security even at this point.
The way I tie the zeppelin loop is the one I found in Roo_Two’s Notable Knot Index. Where can I find yours?
OK, you win. Could I call it, then, “el ocho de Lehman”? Traduttore tradittore.
Thanks again.