THE CURE FOR THE COMMON BOWLINE

Practical Knots
1

MORE MUSINGS ON BOWLINE SECURITY AND A NEW LOCKING BOWLINE

With respect to life critical applications the central issue concerning the common Bowline (ABoK #1010) lies with the “single loop” nipping structure’s propensity to loosen under slack conditions, thus giving opportunity for the tail to move out of the knot.

For life critical applications several methods have been used to improve Bowline security. They include:

  1. tying a stopper knot in the tail
  2. wrapping the tail around one or both eye legs and tucking it back through either the nipping
    loop (eg. Prohaska/Janus) http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg or the collar (eg. Yosemite) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_bowline
  3. re-tucking the tail through the nipping loop in the same direction as the
    original tuck (eg. Dan Lehman’s “End Bound Double Bowline” aka EBDB) http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg
  4. combinations of 2 & 3 (eg. alpineer’s Cowboy Bowline/F8 hybrid) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1202.0;attach=4797
  5. re-tracing the bowline back through the collar
  6. building a locking mechanism into the nipping structure to maintain security in slack mode (eg. DL’s Locktight Loops) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3888.0;attach=7199;image

The first five methods treat the symptom - a moving tail, whereas the sixth method treats the actual cause of the problem - a loose nipping structure.

Testing of the Tresse Bowline back in March indicated that it wasn’t as strong as ABoK #1010! But introducing a third loop (i.e. second underhand ) turned the tables, and importantly, increased the locking mechanism’s efficiency significantly - the modified tresse may be one of the simplest examples of a secure and practical locking mechanism for the Bowline requiring no tail enhancement. The tests were brief and not at the level of scientific rigor, but after playing with the modded TB and other combinations of multi-loop overhand/underhand nipping structures over the past months I think it’s time to introduce it to the forum.

I like tying methods that don’t place unnecessary and superfluous twisting within a knot’s structure. Here’s one tying method from the climber’s perspective that works well after feeding the rope through the harness tie-in points. Then:

  1. Make your standard bowline overhand loop, but make it from the Standing Part instead of the Working End (the S.Part leads from under the loop).
  2. From the new S.Part place an underhand loop under the first(overhand) loop (the S.Part leads from between the two loops now).
  3. From the S.Part place a second underhand loop between the two other loops.
    4.Treat the three loops which are coiled in hand as a single loop and continue tying as for ABoK #1010. Dress and set to finish tying the knot (see 2nd paragraph below).

The tying steps may sound confusing at first, but once you’ve seen them you’ll understand how simple they really are.

The MTBowl. can be dressed into three distinct forms according to which direction the three nipping loops “coil” along the bight - either away from or toward the bowline’s collar (see photos). This has nothing to do with re-tying the knot, but how the coils are oriented. All three dressings are easily recognizable, and also distinguishable from other possible bowline variants.

Another round of testing is in order which should include:

  • testing for performance differences between the 3 dressing configurations (eg. strength,
    locking efficiency, abilty to remain locked…)
  • relative strength comparisons with other #1010-base knots
  • behavior over time of a loosely set knot (in a simulated or real-world environment)
  • how well over time a properly set MTB nipping structure resists unlocking (in simulated or real-
    world situations)
  • assessing other bowline variants constructed utilising the “treat as one” (tao) tying method.

In order for the M.Tresse Bowline to have even a chance of being accepted by climbers as a harness tie-in knot it must perform reliably and consistently and show that it can remain secure and stable at all times under all conditions without any tail enhancement and remain easy to untie after repeated heavy loading.

alpineer

DISCLAIMER: The Modded Tresse Bowline hasn’t yet passed rigorous testing to indicate it’s appropriateness for use as a tie-in knot, or any application where your life et al are on the line.
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Tresse bowline variation/modification -- TIB
Tresse bowline variation/modification -- TIB
Tresse bowline variation/modification -- TIB
Is it a "bowline" ?
2

They are? I’ve been looking at the photos for a few minutes, and I’m still not sure what’s going on.

3

I believe that the bowline is an eyeknot which involves two main parts, the nipping structure ( be it a simple “single” nipping loop, or a more complex “double” one, based on a Clove, a Girth , a Pretzel or a Constrictor hitch, for example ) AND the collar structure. Trying to improve the one part, while leaving the other as it was in the “common” bowline, is like trying to solve the one side of an equation ! :slight_smile: A double nipping loop AND double collar bowline is the most simple and secure solution, which retains the original balance between the two interweaved parts of the ABoK#1010, ABoK#1034.5.
Having said that, this m.Tresse bowline looks a nice, fine, most secure loop. I wonder, would it be too much, an overkill (?), to just turn the tail upwards and retuck it through the upper / higher part of the double nipping loop, and through the collar ?

4

I designed the M.Tresse out of a desire to find a safer, simpler, stable, secure bowline having a memorable tying procedure and which effectively addresses slack (in)security by redesigning the nipping structure to sufficiently grip the bight/tail in slack mode. It (the M.Tresse Bowline) must stand or fall as is. Tail enhancement for security would render the attending premises suspect, suggesting more security was needed. If you insist on tail enhancement you’re better off with one of the existing knots that exploit this security feature to good effect.
I would only recommend leaving a 12in(30cm) tail and push it directly back through the collar - before setting the knot completely - as a convenient means of controlling it’s direction.

5

Notice that you can not even pronounce what I say : double collar ! :slight_smile:
Do you believe that the collar of the “common” bowline is a "tail enhancement " ? :slight_smile: If you do, you have not understood what a colar is - especially the “proper” collar of the “common”, or of the “Eskimo” bowline.

I have to repeat it once more, because, although it is such a simple, self-evident thing, it is not realized by knot tyers : The bowline has two parts : a nipping structure, tied on the Standing Part before / ante the eye, and a collar structure, tied after / post the eye. No one of them can work in isolation, without the other.

  1. Without a nipping structure, i.e., some curved segment of the Standing part which serves as an anchor point, the bowline could possibly be a noose, but not a fixed loop : Any, however tightly attached on the Standing Part collar structure would have found no obstacle to its slippage along it, towards the tip of the eye. THAT is the main function of the nipping structure, provide a stable, not-slipping anchor point where the returning eye leg can be attached on.
  2. Without a collar structure, i.e., some U turn of the direct continuation of the returning eye leg, no nipping structure, however strong, would have been able to hold fast. The collar structure enables a large portion of the tensile forces that come through the eye to be “uploaded” on the Standing part, so the only thing that remains to be done by the nipping structure it to hold the second eye of the collar, the tail - a much easier job. ( The Sheepshank, the Captain Mullin s knot, and the Gleipnir do not have a collar, but they take advantage of the mechanical advantage, and they work effectively because they have more separate nipping loops, arranged the one after the other, or they distribute the tensile forces coming from the eye(s) to more than one segments. )

There is a common misconception, which underestimates the role of the collar, to just a simple way to stabilize the nipping loop, so it does not open up. We tend to forget that the collar structure is what keeps the returning eye leg to be and to remain attached on the Standing Part, in the first place, i.e., what enables the bowline to be and to remain a loop, in the first place ! The stabilization of the nipping structure by the collar structure is very important, indeed, but it is not the main / principal reason the collar structure itself exists : The main reason for the existence of a collar structure is to connect the returning eye leg on the Standing Part, for KnotGod s sake ! To make a loop !
I take the liberty to repeat here something that was written quite some time ago - but, evidently, not read ! :slight_smile:

If we wish to retain the marvellous balance of the two parts of the bowline, the nipping loop AND the collar, we should better improve both, not only the one or the other. An improved bowline with a very complex nipping structure, but with the same simple collar structure the “common” bowline has, is not a well balanced, harmonious knot - this simple “single” collar, a relic, undeveloped structure from the initial knot we were supposed to improve however efficiently we can, is put under too much strain, and it is abandoned to address any increased new requirements with a safe complex nipping structure wrapped around its neck only, but not embraced with it in any more effective, and more clever way.

Well, I think I have said more than enough ! :slight_smile: My one-liner is this : Do you really wish to improve the bowline ? Improve the nipping loop AND the collar, not only the one or the other. A more complex nipping structure should come hand to hand / embraced with a more complex collar structure, otherwise the balance and efficient co-operation of the two structures that were proved so effective even in the case of the “common” bowline would be lost.
I am not saying that this m.Tresse is not an improved bowline, of course! All that I am saying is that you made the one step, you improved the nipping structure, but you should also make the second one, and improve the collar structure as well.

6

If you do this, why you do not tuck it through the upper / higher ring of the nipping structure as well ? It is not such a complex or difficult to remember move, is it ? On the contrary, I claim that it is required, to complete, in a simple, coherent way, this “pushing back through the collar” move . You would have three rope diameters going through this/these first ring(s) , which is a very good thing ! There is a free, regarding simplicity and easiness, second collar, take it ! It will not bite you ! :slight_smile:

7

Don’t go off on a tangent X1 and get your tail in a knot. You’ve misunderstood my words. So, for you, I’ve edited (slightly) my response to your initial post. Go back and re-read it, please. Honestly X1, you’re a smart guy, and should have anticipated that you might not have understood my answer.

As for balance regarding the M.Tresse Bowline - improving a part that needs no improving - now that’s what I call an unnecessary imbalance. Nothing is free. If you require a second collar, don’t mess with the tresse. Choose another bowline. Don’t bastardize this knot’s balance. Instead, understand that problems associated with the common bowline are a consequence of slack within the nipping structure, even as the initial setting of the collar is immediately lost.

Also, I am aware of the inter-dependent relationship between the bowline’s collar and it’s nipping structure.

8

No, I just pull your leg a little bid, to have some fun ! :slight_smile: Also, you should take into account that I try to use whatever slight chance it is offered to me, to repeat the same old s…I keep saying all the time, in other. perhaps more proper words each time.
You are wrong - tucking the tail through the upper “ring” of the nipping structure of the m. Tresse bowline does not destroy ( “bastardise”) its balance - especially if you intend to push it through the collar, too. On the contrary, it makes a somehow crippled knot stand on both its feet ( the more complex/double nipping loop AND the more complex/double collar ) ! :slight_smile: But you should have anticipated that our views on that would not be identical, do nt you ? :slight_smile:
A nipping loop encircling three rope diameters is wider, rounder, and stronger ( as every circular ring is, compared to an elliptical one - tensile forces flow smoothly inside its body ). Whenever I can make the tail go through the nipping loop, without using more material, I take advantage of the opportunity, and I do it. I do not believe that, doing this, one “bastardises” what is already there…

9

If your reference is to the best balance of desirable properties for tying into a harness - which I am and have been - then yes, it does destroy this delicate balance. I have to pay a price in time, and complexity and farting around with an already sufficient knot IMO while getting nothing I need in return for the effort.
Re pushing the tail through the collar: it’s a quick and easy way of controlling the tail’s direction, and may? also have extra benefit, aside from keeping SS369 from “super snugging” the knot. :wink:

10

Is the ‘Water Bowline’ - tied properly of course - a secure & trustworthy knot?

11

Yes, and simpler to tie and recognize:
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/waterbowline.html

It merely echoes a step in the standard bowline tying process.

12

Hi Festy,
Your words betray a trust of the Water Bowline. Do you have trouble tying it correctly? Or, were you referring to the Reversed Clove variant?
I haven’t any trouble tying it, but I don’t have any experience using it.
Conceptually, I’d expect to find my “treat 3 loops as one” m. tresse bowline quicker and ergonomically easier to tie and manage under trying circumstances.

Cheers,
alpineer

13

Hi alpineer,

I’m a complete novice at knot tying I fear. I’ve no problem tying the WB, but I just wondered if it was a safe knot. Roo favors it so it seems it is secure.

I merely seek knowledge,

thanks
F :slight_smile:

14

Whoops! I’ve edited my previous post after you posted.
In climbing, there’s a non-zero possibility of clipping a carabiner into the bridge or the lower(closer to you) hitch of the clove and pulling it off the end of the tail, leaving your security to a single #1010 without a tail stopper = more time and more complexity.

15

:o
Are you seriously going to evaluate how knots perform when someone tries to jam a carabiner through all the possible entry points into tightened knot body? Really?

16

I’m laughing because I just realized my M. Tresse Bowline is Dan Lehman’s Locktight Loop (5th one from the left) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3888.0;attach=7199;image his image showing the cowboy version.

17

It’s not inconceivable that I could myself “reinvent”
this, forgetting the old illustrations … !

But for “locktight” --though the notion can be seen
as general of such multi-wrap security–, I prefer to
see it applying to those knots 2nd from each margin,
with the main one being that 2nd-from-right. With
flexible rope, the hard turn prior exit into the eye
of the SPart-side eye leg will greatly resist loosening;
but in rope too stiff to do this, one has the alternative
structure (I recall fiddling with aged BlueWater II).

As for “cowboy” vs. otherwise, my thoughts were that
the former would give greater resistance where the
SPart-side eye leg exits; on reflection, this probably
is fine by either finish.

The other thing I look at is how the SPart’s u-turn
nips whatever : I want it to lay hard into the tail
and draw it around with it, rather than biting the
tail-side eye leg.

–dl*

18

I am laughing, because it is not ! The first author did not notice that the knot he tied is not what the second author tied, and the second author did not notice what the first author did not notice ! :slight_smile:

  1. The Locktight loops are based on the concept of a squeezing “tube”, traced by the one leg of the one structure ( one leg of the nipping structure, or one leg of the collar structure ) around the - penetrating this tube - second leg and the two legs of the other structure. This concept is utilized in many fishing and climbing knots, with great success. I believe its main advantage lies in the tension that can remain within the long path of the segment that traces the 'tube" coils - especially when the knot is tied on a nylon line, which can be, and can remain, elongated quite a bit, and for a long time, without fatigue.

  2. The Tresse boiwline is based on the concept of two interweaved coaxial helices, of opposite helicity ( one left- and one right-hand helix ) which cross each other at each “node”, in an alternating “over” / “under” pattern. It is exactly the same concept we meet at the ABoK#1755 hitch tied around a pole, or at the rat-tail stopper hitch tied around a tensioned main line - the “cross-gartering” of the two legs of the collar structure, or of the two legs of the nipping structure, which are used to attach the yellow Malvolio s stockings on his feet, so he is not seen as a fool by Olivia, for example. ( See the attached pictures )
    I have tried to explain the big, HUGE difference between the fishing bends and the climbing gripping friction hitches, on the one hand, and the rat-tail stopper, on the other, but I did notice that I failed, so I am not going to repeat this failure here… :slight_smile:
    I wish only to notice that, when I tried to insert some curvature / complexity into the collar structure of the m.Tresse bowline, to “balance the sheets” in relation to the already convoluted and more complex nipping structure, I had seen that, following the rat-tail stopper method, I was driven to bulky, ugly knots. Therefore I had followed a third road, which uses two interlaced helices, of the same helicity ( both left- or right-hand ), the one traced by one leg of the nipping structure and the other by one leg of the collar structure. The result is shown at the pictures presented at (1).

  3. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4456.0

19

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=542.msg4030#msg4030

20

I’m reminded of the recent utterance “‘convenietly’ is purely
in your imagination” or the like,
as to what either author might have seen or not.
–along with considerations of what constitutes equality
vs. similarity vs. distinctive difference. (AND what changes
of geometry might occur via loading and actual nature of
the knotted medium.)

1. The [i]Locktight[/i] loops are based on the concept of a squeezing "tube", traced by the one leg of the [i]one[/i] structure ( one leg of the nipping structure, or one leg of the collar structure ) around the - penetrating this tube - second leg and the two legs of the [i]other[/i] structure. This concept is utilized in many [i][b]fishing and climbing knots[/b][/i], with great success. I believe its main advantage lies in the tension that can remain within the long path of the segment that traces the 'tube" coils --especially when the knot is tied on a nylon line, which can be, and can remain, elongated quite a bit, and for a long time, without fatigue. 2. The [i]Tresse boiwline[/i] is based on the concept of [i]two[/i] interweaved coaxial helices, of opposite helicity ( one left- and one right-hand helix ) which cross each other at each "node", in an alternating "over" / "under" pattern. It is exactly the same concept we meet at the [i]ABoK#1755 hitch[/i] tied around a pole, or at the rat-tail stopper hitch tied around a tensioned main line --the "[i][b]cross-gartering[/b][/i]" of the two legs of the collar structure, or of the two legs of the nipping structure, ... . I have tried to explain the big, HUGE difference between the fishing bends and the climbing gripping friction hitches, on the one hand, and the rat-tail stopper, on the other, but I did notice that I failed, so I am not going to repeat this failure here... :) ...

There is less of this envisioned coaxial-helices action and
intent than meets your eye : I have made the twisting
of the SPart w/adjacent part for the hope of off-loading
force/tension prior to its U-turn, to soften its “bite” there
and yield some increase of strength? --but the SPart yet
bears the heavy load into the nub and even outer wraps,
more than will come from the SPart-side eye leg, esp.
in THE “locktight” in which that leg makes a hard turn
around the SPart on entry --so, only passive resistance
in those wraps.

–dl*