|
vpm
Oct 15, 2008, 8:46 AM
Post #1 of 7
(7837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2007
Posts: 8
|
Hello,
The Edwards bowline has been my primary knot for tying in during the last year or so. The only reason for this is the ease of untying after loading.
Does this knot have other names that are more known and has it ever been tested? Am I trusting my life to something almost completely unheard of and am I the only one stupid enough to do so? Am I going to die?
|
|
|
|
|
nthusiastj
Oct 15, 2008, 8:59 PM
Post #2 of 7
(7779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2002
Posts: 1994
|
My partner and I have used a double bowline for about 4 years now. Many old school climbers and others also use the knot. It's not much different than the Edwards.
It was a much more common tie in before the advent of gyms, where you have to tie in their way and it must be easily inspectable.
You probably won't die.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 15, 2008, 9:22 PM
Post #3 of 7
(7765 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Contrary to what anyone else might tell you, the correct answer to your question:
vpm wrote: Am I going to die?
is yes. But probably not due to that knot.
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Oct 17, 2008, 5:31 AM
Post #4 of 7
(7680 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
vpm wrote: Hello, The Edwards bowline has been my primary knot for tying in during the last year or so. The only reason for this is the ease of untying after loading.
This knot is gratuitously complex. You can have the same results of security,
strength, and ease of untying with other bowline variants.
Cf. http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg. Esp. the simple wrap and 2nd
tucking of the end shown as the "Prohaska Bowline" (but actually presented
well before Heinz did, by Wright & Magowan in 1928) will give good results.
As for testing, what sort of test would you like? --strength? That won't matter
(but it should be good). The better test would be one in which the untensioned
knot is jiggled, in an effort to loosen & untie it.
*kN*
|
|
|
|
|
vpm
Oct 17, 2008, 6:34 AM
Post #5 of 7
(7666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2007
Posts: 8
|
knudenoggin wrote: This knot is gratuitously complex. You can have the same results of security, strength, and ease of untying with other bowline variants. Cf. http://i3.tinypic.com/wjwh1t.jpg. Esp. the simple wrap and 2nd tucking of the end shown as the "Prohaska Bowline" (but actually presented well before Heinz did, by Wright & Magowan in 1928) will give good results.
knudenoggin wrote: As for testing, what sort of test would you like?
I'd also like to know the tendency to roll when loaded across the loop for different bowline variations. I'm understanding it's a situation to be avoided since they are, after all, bowlines.
(This post was edited by vpm on Oct 17, 2008, 6:37 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 17, 2008, 6:50 AM
Post #6 of 7
(7657 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Bowline is commonly used in mountain rescue operation and its been proven that is slightly superior to standard fig 8 knot in several applications.
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
|
|
|
|
|
knudenoggin
Oct 17, 2008, 3:21 PM
Post #7 of 7
(7622 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2004
Posts: 596
|
vpm wrote: Thanks for this link, I think I've never seen these variations before. ... My main problem with many bowlines has been the need for an additional stopper knot. It gives me the feeling the primary knot is not cutting it since it needs to be backed up and secondly it takes a lot of time (and rope) to tie and untie several knots when just one could do the job. I will definitely give your suggestion a try.
security, could be seen as you do, or just taken as in a sense **one**
attachment structure--incomplete until the 2nd component is done.
In some ropes, the bowline is left unaided; but the common kernman tle
ropes of caving/SAR/climbing has such firmness (resisting bending) and smooth
slick surfaces that a bowline can loosen. But there is that advantage upon
desired untying, so the extra work to keep it secure has a pay off.
(And, frankly, one might be as quick or quicker in making the seemingly more
extended knotting than in forming and dressing a Fig.8.)
There are several ways to make a wrap of the eye legs with the end and
then re-tuck the end through the "rabbit hole", which does a few things:
it secures the end a bit; it fattens & rounds the mass of material around
which the mainline compresses (which should help strength); and it points
the end away from the eye--which for climbers means that gravity should
be usually pulling the end in the right direction. The two end-wraps shown
in my URLink of a "single" bowline (center, & right) work by holding the
eye leg that springs from the rabbit-hole turn up snug to the knot body
and thus inhibits it from loosening. This sort of extra tucking has good forms
in both the regualar ("right") bowline and the so-called "Cowboy" bowline
in which--as with "Edward's"--the rabbit goes around the tree in the other
direction, leaving the the end outside of the eye (which form is much
more secure against ring-loading, btw).
Vary that Prohaska bowine by bringing the end around under BOTH eye legs,
and then up around to the front (as image presents it) and down through
the rabbit hole between its first two passes--which makes for a knot
that is symmetric (i.e., if you put a circle around the knot body, you
can't tell which is eye side--same coming & going).
In reply to: I'd also like to know the tendency to roll when loaded across the loop for different bowline variations. I'm understanding it's a situation to be avoided since they are, after all, bowlines.
of the knot and not between eye legs, on ring-loading which you are
concerned with the effective knot is a reverse sheet bend or Lapp bend,
and holds much better than otherwise. The extra tucking done as described
above only further secures the knot. Conceivably, the Fig.8 eyeknot is also
vulnerable to "rolling" and so could be argued to need a long tail (not a greatly
reassuring recommendation!) or a back-up knot (the sometimes recommended
"Yosemite" re-tucking of the end actually aggravates this vulnerability!).
Note that the simple Overhand base tied for an eyeknot as though making
the infamous "EDK" yields a water knot on ring-loading.
cf http://i1.tinypic.com/2z3z8ts.jpg
It seems to be a nicely secure yet fairly easily untied knot.
*kN*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
