|
norushnomore
Apr 21, 2007, 10:52 AM
Post #26 of 43
(4389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 414
|
Extra pass can serve two purposes: 1. Keeping tail out of the way 2. Make knot easier to untie after falling on it (don't cinch that last pass tight) It's my knot of choice
|
|
|
|
|
rockguide
Apr 24, 2007, 5:39 AM
Post #27 of 43
(4337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 8, 2004
Posts: 1359
|
norushnomore wrote: Extra pass can serve two purposes: 1. Keeping tail out of the way 2. Make knot easier to untie after falling on it (don't cinch that last pass tight) It's my knot of choice I often use it also. I have heard it called a back-threaded eight. I have never heard "Yosemite Finish". All good.
|
|
|
|
|
kdelap
Jul 19, 2007, 1:27 PM
Post #28 of 43
(3678 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2005
Posts: 12
|
I would consider this knot less safe than just a regular figure 8 without a back up. If you rap the load strand; like many have suggested in this forum; then there is a possibility of the finishing strand to pull through and cause the knot to completely unravel. So to answer if you should go around the load strand, no i wouldn't. But I also would use this back up method! Figure eight, 5 inches of tail.
|
|
|
|
|
summerprophet
Jul 19, 2007, 2:17 PM
Post #29 of 43
(3660 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2004
Posts: 764
|
mtnfr34k wrote: Better to adjust the knot with a proper 2"-3" tail and let it alone. Ummmm, No. Proper dressing of knots requires that all knots used for life saving purposes have a tail of (minimum) 10 times the width of the rope. Seeing as most climbing ropes are in the range of 1/2 inch, you are looking at a 5 inch tail minimum. Unless of course you are regularly climbing on 5mm, in which case your 2" tail would be suitable. The reason back up knots are used for the figure eight is not that they add any strength to the eight, but rather they ensure a 5" tail.
(This post was edited by summerprophet on Jul 19, 2007, 2:21 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
king_rat
Jul 19, 2007, 3:31 PM
Post #30 of 43
(3629 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Posts: 365
|
mtnfr34k wrote: I've used this finish for the past 7 years, having been taught it was the "Yosemite finish". More recently, though, I've stopped. Its been pointed out to me that this "finish" makes the knot visibly harder to inspect and confirm. Furthermore, to my knowledge a properly tied figure eight knot cannot spontaneously become untied. Any "back-up", "tuck", or "finish" is only to remove unwanted extra tail from the knot. Better to adjust the knot with a proper 2"-3" tail and let it alone. You feel comfortable climbing with a 2"-3" inch tail on a figure of eight?? are you sure?
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Jul 21, 2007, 8:33 PM
Post #31 of 43
(3555 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
summerprophet wrote: mtnfr34k wrote: Better to adjust the knot with a proper 2"-3" tail and let it alone. Ummmm, No. Proper dressing of knots requires that all knots used for life saving purposes have a tail of (minimum) 10 times the width of the rope. Seeing as most climbing ropes are in the range of 1/2 inch, you are looking at a 5 inch tail minimum. Unless of course you are regularly climbing on 5mm, in which case your 2" tail would be suitable. The reason back up knots are used for the figure eight is not that they add any strength to the eight, but rather they ensure a 5" tail. --according to some person or organization put forward as an authority? It has been pointed out that the usual Fig.8 can have its last tuck omitted and hold--AMGA testing was cited re that. And this if fine so long as the knot isn't ring-loaded, which with a small tie-in eye is kinda hard to imagine happening (what could snag the eye, or otherwise bias loading?). Now it seems to me that most climbing ropes are around 10mm, which is 3/8" not 1/2", and which by your Rule of Tail converts to not quite 4", which is an even compromise between your 5" and his 3" (though you focused on the lower end of his range :-). As I noted above, there is a diversity of knot geometries/orientations that come with the moniker "Fig.8", even before dressing comes into play. You are better off with a Lehman8 if you fancy 8-ness, and for surely easy untying yet security untensioned go with the Mirrored Bowline (which takes a Girth Hitch in the main line and has the end do the rabbit run-around-the-tree-from/to-hole on both ends of the Girth h.). *kN*
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 21, 2007, 9:59 PM
Post #32 of 43
(3543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
kdelap wrote: If you rap the load strand; like many have suggested in this forum; then there is a possibility of the finishing strand to pull through and cause the knot to completely unravel. i'm having trouble picturing this in my head. wrapping the load strand or not, as long as you pass the finish end through the bottom of the knot and not the top, there's no possibility of unraveling the knot. i've been using the yosemite 8 for almost as long as i've been climbing and i still cant figure out for the life of me how anyone could mess it up or tie it in a way that could unravel the knot.
|
|
|
|
|
zeke_sf
Jul 22, 2007, 2:14 AM
Post #33 of 43
(3522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Posts: 18730
|
The Yosemite finish will cost you extra. But you'll know where your money went.
|
|
|
|
|
kobaz
Jul 22, 2007, 3:34 AM
Post #34 of 43
(3509 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2004
Posts: 726
|
vegastradguy wrote: i've been using the yosemite 8 for almost as long as i've been climbing and i still cant figure out for the life of me how anyone could mess it up or tie it in a way that could unravel the knot. Ditto. You would have to majorly screw up the initial 8 in order for it to "unravel".
|
|
|
|
|
kdelap
Jul 23, 2007, 1:15 AM
Post #35 of 43
(3457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2005
Posts: 12
|
I had to play with the yos-finish for a while before I figured out how it was un-raveling as well. I would agree that it isn't something that is likely to happen; but with the posibillities there I will personaly make the desicion to steer clear.
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 23, 2007, 4:12 AM
Post #36 of 43
(3435 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
kdelap wrote: I had to play with the yos-finish for a while before I figured out how it was un-raveling as well. I would agree that it isn't something that is likely to happen; but with the posibillities there I will personaly make the desicion to steer clear. care to tell us how it can happen? i would think that the only way would be to tuck it back through the hole the finish end came out of, which would be obvious and difficult, given the way the knot is tied.
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Jul 23, 2007, 6:11 PM
Post #37 of 43
(3393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
vegastradguy wrote: kdelap wrote: I had to play with the yos-finish for a while before I figured out how it was un-raveling as well. care to tell us how it can happen? Again, the name "Fig.8" gets attached to a variety of actual geometries. Let's consider some definite knots, via the images here: http://nudos.bravehost.com/doblesochos.jpg Do you see two (blue, yellow) Fig.8 loopknots? Are they the same? (no) [edit: Sadly, "no" answers the first question, as the site forbids remote linking to its images. Therefore, cf http://nudos.bravehost.com for the full story--Doblos Ochos is at the bottom.] They are both in a perfectly symmetric form, but the loading is reversed: the mainline on the yellow rope runs to the first/farthest-left eye-choking turn; whereas in the thicker, blue rope, it runs to the inner such turn. In the version of Fig.8 instantiated in the blue rope, if the end is simply tucked back out beside the eye legs, it can go such that it pulls back behind & over top of this eye and thus comes free of its former last tuck by the mainline, newly forming an Overhand instead of an 8 (the end, i.e.). (That sounds awkward in my what-can-happen description, but it is less so in actual tying, if one focuses first on tightening the end before setting the rest of the knot.) I can tell you that Fig.8 knots--again--are tied in a VARIETY OF DRESSINGS, and given this, the result of the recommended end-tucking is hard to predict. One can see the shape of one re-tucking used in the Lehman8, but here what would be the tucked end of the Fig.8 is in fact loaded as one eye leg (and some other parts of the Fig.8--noticeably, one twin part of the collar-- are absent). http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/Lehman8.jpg It is worth asking: What is the point of this recommended extra tuck? If it is to give added security, well, that might be superfluous--the knot, as noted above, can hold even if losing the last tuck of the end (on normal loading). The suggested additional end-tuck can weaken the knot's resistance to flyping on ring-loading (but which should be near impossible with a small eye tie-in). If it's to give extra strength (one more dia. to bend around), none is needed. If it's to make the knot more easily untied, I'd recommend using a better knot for that function, such as a secured version of the Bowline, or the Lehman8, or a (to introduce a new name) Back-Threaded Fig.8--i.e.., where one "re-threads" from the mainline's end of the knot and so finishes on the eye's end; or a similar back-threading of the Overhand (in both cases, prefer the version where the mainline--as in the BLUE knot linked to above--makes the turn around the eye more interior to the knot; this gives more balanced loading; it is, nicely, the easier/natural re-threading to begin). *kN*
(This post was edited by knudenoggin on Jul 24, 2007, 5:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
wolfski
Jul 23, 2007, 6:47 PM
Post #38 of 43
(3381 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2007
Posts: 41
|
ive always been told the only real reason you use a backup knot is to insure that you have enough tail and the knot is to simply keep the tail out of the way
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 23, 2007, 7:04 PM
Post #39 of 43
(3373 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I use back up knots for peace of mind. I don't care if you knot experts agree, or knott! I've used the Yosemite finish a lot. But I don't use a single tie-in method anyway. For top toping I by far prefer a bowline to any 8 config. But for a knot you tie once and never have to mess with again, I prefer an 8 variant like this one to 'put the fucker to bed.' I have an unreasonable but well-earned fear of becoming unattached to the climbing rope mid-pitch. So peace of mind is very important to me. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 23, 2007, 7:10 PM
Post #40 of 43
(3367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
knudenoggin wrote: vegastradguy wrote: kdelap wrote: I had to play with the yos-finish for a while before I figured out how it was un-raveling as well. care to tell us how it can happen? In the version of Fig.8 instantiated in the blue rope, if the end is simply tucked back out beside the eye legs, it can go such that it pulls back behind & over top of this eye and thus comes free of its former last tuck by the mainline, newly forming an Overhand instead of an 8 (the end, i.e.). how can it pull over the top of the eye if its your tie-in point?
In reply to: If it's to make the knot more easily untied, I'd recommend using a better knot for that function i use the fig-8 with the yosemite finish because 1) its easier for my partners to identify and 2) i can tie it blindfolded if i need to. not so much with the other knots you mention. i also still cannot see how this extra pass can result in any problems so long as you dont feed it back through where it came from (which, in my mind at least, seems obvious).
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Jul 25, 2007, 7:07 PM
Post #41 of 43
(3300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
vegastradguy wrote: knudenoggin wrote: In the version of Fig.8 instantiated in the blue rope, if the end is simply tucked back out beside the eye legs, it can go such that it pulls back behind & over top of this eye and thus comes free of its former last tuck by the mainline, newly forming an Overhand instead of an 8 (the end, i.e.). how can it pull over the top of the eye if its your tie-in point? Hmmm, maybe I should've said "the eye legs". In any case, again, there are SOOO many ways the Fig.8 gets (mis)tied, I don't want to speculate on the efficacy of this re-tucking ("Yosemite" finish--this seems a marketing term).
In reply to: i use the fig-8 with the yosemite finish because 1) its easier for my partners to identify and 2) i can tie it blindfolded if i need to. not so much with the other knots you mention. That begs the question: Why do you add the extra end-tuck? --for the Fig.8 alone meets your two criteria (better). But some others have given reasons for their preference. The simple wrap & tuck of the End-Bound Bowline is a quick & simple. Inspection is also, but knowledge might need a beginning here.
In reply to: i also still cannot see how this extra pass can result in any problems so long as you dont feed it back through where it came from (which, in my mind at least, seems obvious). Beyond possible mis-formations from setting, the knot will be less resistant to rolling if it's ring-loaded--which might well be irrelevant (for a small eye of a tie-in, e.g.). *knudeNoggin*
|
|
|
|
|
vegastradguy
Jul 26, 2007, 12:46 AM
Post #42 of 43
(3284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 5919
|
knudenoggin wrote: That begs the question: Why do you add the extra end-tuck? because it makes the knot really easy to untie. i dont use the bowline (yes, i do know its easy to untie) because it isnt as easily identified.
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Jul 26, 2007, 4:49 PM
Post #43 of 43
(3241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
vegastradguy wrote: i dont use the bowline (yes, i do know its easy to untie) because it isnt as easily identified. This tends to be a self-fullfilling prophecy--don't use, don't see, => don't know. It also might follow from the WRONG SIDE of the knot being what is usually presented. THIS is the side of the knot from which all interesting variations are most easily comprehended: http://www.iland.net/~jbritton/Boln_6.jpg. (My suggestion for an "End-Bound" version takes the end from this start, rightwards under the eye leg, then back down-left over the crossing of the main line's "rabbit hole" formation, and tucked back out again through that hole beside itself--which extra wrap helps bind the rabbit hole part and prevent it from loosening. And one gets one additional diameter of rope within this hole around which the mainline bends. This needs to be set pretty firmly, as loading will NOT tension it. This extra wrap could be made w/o surrounding the right-side eye leg, too; but including that leg in the wrap helps stiffer ropes cinch snug. With the Dbl. Bowline, the binding is more sure/secure.) *kN*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|