|
neadamthal
Aug 16, 2003, 2:25 PM
Post #1 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
i have been using the bowline to tie into for lead for several months now. i only just realized that i'm using the single bowline instead of the double bowline. now to me, i don't see how the double can be any safer than the single. granted, it might have a little more strength, but does it really matter when its so marginal an increase? thoughts? opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 16, 2003, 3:40 PM
Post #2 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Well, it's twice the bowline, isn't it? (pitiful Merkin attempt on a British accent and all...) And that has to be worth something! I thought the double was stronger by a noticable margin and easier to untie after weighting. But I could be wrong. Me? The single bowline just isn't, um, beefy enough for my taste. There ya go... that's the difference. When I shout , "Where's the BEEF?' the single bowline says nothing. Not a peep. But when I ask the double, "Where's the BEEF?" it replies "I got yer beef right here big boy." And THAT is good enough for ME. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Aug 16, 2003, 3:50 PM
Post #3 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
From "The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots & Ropework" by Geoffrey Budworth - "With the reinforced nip, this knot (double bowline) is stronger (70 to 75 per cent) and more secure than the common bowline. With a fairly long end, it may not need to be taped or tied."
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 16, 2003, 5:24 PM
Post #4 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
A single bowline can (and often will) slip even backed up. A double will not. The weakness however, remains, if you look at the knot. There is one point where its one strand instead of two. Keep that in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
meataxe
Aug 16, 2003, 6:36 PM
Post #5 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 1162
|
If the second part of the double bowline somehow comes untied, you still have: a single bowline. If the single bowline comes untied, you have: nothing :(
|
|
|
|
|
full-time-climb
Deleted
Aug 16, 2003, 6:56 PM
Post #6 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I use the double for sport and a figure of eight for multi-pitch. Works great.
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Aug 16, 2003, 7:39 PM
Post #7 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
I use a single with a Yosemite/Jack's finish and a double fisherman backup. I've seen/read that the double is better, but the firsthand info I've gotten from the climbers I respect say that the single with the Yos finish and df backup is perfectly bomber... any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
mike
Aug 17, 2003, 12:34 AM
Post #8 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 1461
|
In reply to: From "The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots & Ropework" by Geoffrey Budworth - "With the reinforced nip, this knot (double bowline) is stronger (70 to 75 per cent) and more secure than the common bowline. With a fairly long end, it may not need to be taped or tied." Just picked up this book in the bargain bin at Waldenbooks for $5.99.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 17, 2003, 2:02 AM
Post #9 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Bowline with yosemite finish and double fisherman's backup is wonderful. I've fallen on this knot over and over, I've used it in 11mm singles and 8.5 doubles and it's always been a champ. The fisherman's backup never seems to do anythign on this knot, except keep the tail out of the way, and a bowline is very easy to untie even after repeated falls.
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Aug 17, 2003, 5:01 AM
Post #10 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: If the second part of the double bowline somehow comes untied, you still have: a single bowline. I don't think you're talking about what everyone else is talking about. The only double part of a double bowline is the so-called "rabbit's hole." (As in "the rabbit comes out of his hole, around the tree and back down his hole".) There's no way for THAT to "come untied" without everything coming untied. Larry
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Aug 17, 2003, 5:04 AM
Post #11 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: A single bowline can (and often will) even backed up. A double will not. Say what?
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Aug 17, 2003, 9:39 PM
Post #12 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
so what exactly is a yosemite finish? i do a bowline with df backup...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abalch
Aug 18, 2003, 12:22 AM
Post #14 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2003
Posts: 179
|
In reply to: If the second part of the double bowline somehow comes untied, you still have: a single bowline. If the single bowline comes untied, you have: nothing :( everything you said would be true--if you were talking about a retraced bowline. Let me elucidate. You get a retraced bowline if you tie a bowline, and then retrace it, putting two loops through your harness. You have a double bowline if you have two coils at the beginning of the tying of this knot, but only once does the rope go through your harness. As you can see, with a double bowline, if it comes untied(unlikely) it comes untied, but if the retraced bowline come untied, (very unlikely) it is tied in with a single bowline. Try this test. Go to the recent Climbing magazine where it discussed using a dogeared bowline as a means to build an anchor. if your bowline on your harness looks just like this knot, you have a retraced bowline. If it doesn't, you don't
|
|
|
|
|
lancebrock
Aug 18, 2003, 1:23 AM
Post #15 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 156
|
i would strongly recommend not using a single bowline. i have been using a double bowline for 4 or 5 years. i used the single for a short time until i looked down in the middle of a route and it had worked it's way loose (not untied, but just loose). they are just harder to keep tight, especially with a stiff rope. double bowline is the bomb...
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 18, 2003, 1:32 AM
Post #16 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Lance, did you have a standard bowline that came loose, or a bowline with a backup such as a yosemite finish? YOu can put the yosemite finish on the double bowline as well. Sometimes the double bowline is called the mountaineer's bowline.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 18, 2003, 2:11 AM
Post #17 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
anybody have a link for a retraced bowline? dirt?
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 18, 2003, 3:18 PM
Post #18 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Sorry, Can't find it. Clmbing used to have a pic of what they called a double bowline with bowline backup, which Ashley called a bowline on a bight and bowline, but the pic is gone. IF you have old Climbing mags, look back about two years ago or so in their tech tips. IT's not a true reweave, as every part of the bowline is not repeated in the reweaving. TO see a pic of what you should wind up with, check the dog eared bowline as some call it, but ashley calls it a bowline on the bight. IF you should get a copy of Ashley's Book of knots, they are numbers 1075 and 1080. The reweaving part you can figure out, if you want to use this as a tie in.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 18, 2003, 6:19 PM
Post #19 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: If the second part of the double bowline somehow comes untied, you still have: a single bowline. Not true. I think you need to look up what a double bowline is. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 18, 2003, 7:08 PM
Post #21 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
EDIT: OOPS, messed up, the pic above is a bowline, but a really bizzare way to tie one.END EDIT To tie the two loop semi-rewoven bowline uner discussion here, first tie a normal bowline, then with the tail follow the tie in loop back around and keep following the small loop and exit through the single loop that the main line goes through. YOu will know you have this right if you can untie it as if it were the dog eared bowline. By the way, just as someone earlier mentioned, this reweave will still be a bowline even if the first loop somehow comes out, although the knot would probably be very loose then. Climbing had a picture of this knot with a bowline backup and called it the double bowline with bowline backup, or dbbb, but that tech tip is gone now. I think that this knot should have a bowline backup, as was givein in climbing mag, if you are going to tie in with it. Again if you have Ashl;ey's it is knot 1075
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 19, 2003, 4:12 AM
Post #22 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Climbing had a picture of this knot with a bowline backup and called it the double bowline with bowline backup, or dbbb, but that tech tip is gone now. The tech tip of the double bowline with the bowline backup was just that, not a rewoven bowline. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 19, 2003, 2:42 PM
Post #23 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
to tie the DBBB, you use a reweave method for part of the knot. You can call it whatever you want to, but you still have to reweave, retrace, or follow part of the knot. Again, the thing in the illustration is not a bowline at all, and as I pointed out yo ucan demponstarte this for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Aug 19, 2003, 2:59 PM
Post #24 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
Try this: make a bowline and clip two carabiners into the loop. Pull the biners in oposite directions and the bowline will untie. It is designed only to take force from one direction. I know of one climber that got killed because he used the bowline. He had to be rescued by helicopter and the rescue team clipped a carabiner to his bowline loop and lifted him off the wall. The bowline untied and the climber died. This would not have happened if the climber had used the figure of eight.
|
|
|
|
|
lazide
Aug 19, 2003, 3:09 PM
Post #25 of 70
(19818 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 225
|
Figure 8 knots are not designed to be loaded crosswise inside the loop of the knot. (see fatalities due to joining two ropes in a manner that loads them similarly) Seems like lifting a climber that way was a very bad thing for SAR to do - not so much as a limitiation of the knot. Personally any time I tie in to the end of the rope outdoors (the gum I train at REQUIRES fig-8 only there, so hey), I use a double bowline with bowline backup. Never had it worked loose by itself (It is a VERY snug and clean knot), and WAAAY easier to untie after a large whipper.
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Aug 19, 2003, 3:44 PM
Post #26 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
You are RIGHT lazide, the fig.8 will walk the rope and untie if weighted crosswise, thanks for the head up, in my mind the fig.8 could take any force at any direction! Glad I'm in the habit of tying a fisherman with the spare end as a backup.
|
|
|
|
|
alpiner
Aug 19, 2003, 4:08 PM
Post #27 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 210
|
In reply to: That is not even a bowline. Yes it is. Just a different way of tying it. Pay attention to the directions and you get a proper single bowline. The whole strength issue is moot since knots don't break in the real world...coming untied is a different matter and that is just pilot error.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 19, 2003, 5:17 PM
Post #28 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Crap, you're right, I crossed over instead of under in step 3, DOH! did it 5 times no less, no more drinking while knot tying I guess. But that is still the most bizzare way to tie a bowline I ever saw.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 19, 2003, 7:44 PM
Post #29 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
Hey I just saw this in google's image cache. Can someone who knows (e.g. jt, not dirtineye :wink:) tell me what's up with this knot? http://images.google.com/...s/thumbs/78/7829.jpg It looks like the DBBB, except the way I learned the DBBB (which wasn't from climbing magazine; someone showed it to me) the tail comes out on the other side of the bowline backup (it wraps around the other way and goes back through the "hole", if you know what I mean, ending up with 3 parts of the rope going through the "rabbit hole"). Am I (and the person I learned it from) doing it wrong? Or is this pic just a different double bowline variant?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 19, 2003, 8:13 PM
Post #30 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: Hey I just saw this in google's image cache. Can someone who knows (e.g. jt, not dirtineye :wink:) tell me what's up with this knot? http://images.google.com/...s/thumbs/78/7829.jpg It looks like the DBBB, except the way I learned the DBBB (which wasn't from climbing magazine; someone showed it to me) the tail comes out on the other side of the bowline backup (it wraps around the other way and goes back through the "hole", if you know what I mean, ending up with 3 parts of the rope going through the "rabbit hole"). Am I (and the person I learned it from) doing it wrong? Or is this pic just a different double bowline variant? I just re-created the knot in your pic. I don't know if it has a name, but it seems to be just a single bowline knot with a backup that is kind of an overhand knot threaded through the bowline. There must be 101 different variations on the bowline, and I'm sure most of them work fine. GO
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 19, 2003, 9:02 PM
Post #31 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Hey I just saw this in google's image cache. Can someone who knows (e.g. jt, not dirtineye :wink:) tell me what's up with this knot? http://images.google.com/...s/thumbs/78/7829.jpg It looks like the DBBB, except the way I learned the DBBB (which wasn't from climbing magazine; someone showed it to me) the tail comes out on the other side of the bowline backup (it wraps around the other way and goes back through the "hole", if you know what I mean, ending up with 3 parts of the rope going through the "rabbit hole"). Am I (and the person I learned it from) doing it wrong? Or is this pic just a different double bowline variant? I just re-created the knot in your pic. I don't know if it has a name, but it seems to be just a single bowline knot with a backup that is kind of an overhand knot threaded through the bowline. There must be 101 different variations on the bowline, and I'm sure most of them work fine. GO It definitely isn't a single bowline; the "rabbit hole" has two loops.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Aug 19, 2003, 9:18 PM
Post #32 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Hey I just saw this in google's image cache. Can someone who knows (e.g. jt, not dirtineye :wink:) tell me what's up with this knot? http://images.google.com/...s/thumbs/78/7829.jpg It looks like the DBBB, except the way I learned the DBBB (which wasn't from climbing magazine; someone showed it to me) the tail comes out on the other side of the bowline backup (it wraps around the other way and goes back through the "hole", if you know what I mean, ending up with 3 parts of the rope going through the "rabbit hole"). Am I (and the person I learned it from) doing it wrong? Or is this pic just a different double bowline variant? I just re-created the knot in your pic. I don't know if it has a name, but it seems to be just a single bowline knot with a backup that is kind of an overhand knot threaded through the bowline. There must be 101 different variations on the bowline, and I'm sure most of them work fine. GO It definitely isn't a single bowline; the "rabbit hole" has two loops. Actually you might be right; I tried to tie it, and the only way I could get it to look similar was to tie a single bowline and follow the hole back around. Weird.
|
|
|
|
|
full-time-climb
Deleted
Aug 19, 2003, 11:23 PM
Post #33 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
The pik above seems to be a backup tied downward. I also use two wraps on the rabbit hole. I then use a single fisherman's above the knot. Some of my buddies use a fisherman's below the knot on the loop that goes through the harness. I will add a cautionary note. "The working end should be inward on the knot and not outward." This would have the working end down through the center instead of down on the outside. Like the sketch I push a loop down through the rabbit hole to retreave the working end. Works great. Easy to teach. After the knot is complete I feed the working end up along side the main rope and tie a fishermans knot. It is a thing of beauty. John I'll dig up my camera and post a pik.
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Aug 20, 2003, 12:44 AM
Post #34 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
Dirtineye the first part of the pic for the retrace bowline is an easy way to tie it one handed. The first part is basically the cinch knot that people use to tie off pins short or chicken heads with webbing. While the loop is pushed through all you need to do is grab the tail (with your hand and pull it through the loop then pull on the rope end that goes away from the climber, viola bowline. Clear as mud?
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 20, 2003, 1:34 AM
Post #35 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
It is not hard to tie a bowline one handed. Unlike that other one in the pic, I can tie a bowline while drunk haha, and once you have a bowline you can make a yosemite finish with ease or make a reweave or retrace from the normal bowline. I really wonder when you might need to tie a one handed tie in though, cause when you are changing your tie in you are usually tethered at an achor or on the ground or somewhere else that allows use of two hands. On the other hand, it's kind if fun to tie knots one handed and it comes in handy sometimes. (puns intended) About chicken heads, I go round and round on what knot I like, sometimes it s a clove, sometimes a slip knot, and you can even tie a constrictor which is a sort of clove relative, but the clove is so easy to tie one handed, I think I like it the best most of the time. I guess the girth hitch is out of favor these days, but I've seen people drape slings over knobs and horns before, now THAT is scary.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Aug 20, 2003, 1:58 AM
Post #36 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Jay, thanks for the pic.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2003, 3:48 PM
Post #37 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: I really wonder when you might need to tie a one handed tie in though... When one arm is broken. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 20, 2003, 5:28 PM
Post #38 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
So you break you arm while not tied in, and need to tie in? Don't you think you probably would break your arm falling and still be tied in about 99 percent of the time? But, allowing that this could happen, then you need to be able to tie the knots with eihter hand, cause you don't know what arm you'll break. Seriously, can anyone come up with a scenario or a report or a real situation where someone had to tie knots one handed? For scenarios, the more plausable the better. I'm curious about this.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 20, 2003, 5:44 PM
Post #39 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Back to the original question: Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same? GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2003, 6:57 PM
Post #40 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: So you break you arm while not tied in, and need to tie in? Don't you think you probably would break your arm falling and still be tied in about 99 percent of the time? If you were tied in when you fell, then you'd be tied in. If you weren't, then wouldn't be. I think the scenario is that you've fallen while scrambling unroped and have broken your arm. Someone lowers you a rope and you have to tie in one-handed to be rescued. You probably don't have a harness with you either, so the knot you want to be able to tie one-handed is the bowline-on-a-coil. Probably not a lot of call for this skill sport climbing. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2003, 7:04 PM
Post #41 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Back to the original question: Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same? GO No, but where would such data come from? Comparisons of accident rates? These events are so rare that the relative risk could not be reliably determined, even if the necessary denominators (eg, the numbers of climbers who use each type of knot) were available. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 20, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #42 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: Back to the original question: Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same? GO According to Setnicka of the Wilderness Rescue Society, the mountaineering bowline (AKA double bowline, AKA double turn or round turn bowline) is 5 % stronger than a regular bowline. Both can be tied with a yosemite finish. Both should have a backup knot of some sort, usually a half hitch or a yosemite. That's out of "On Rope". Fasulo in "Self Rescue", shows the double bowline with yosemite finish and a double fisherman's backup. I use the bowline with a yosemite finish (A backup itself) with a double fisherman's backup
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 20, 2003, 7:49 PM
Post #43 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: Back to the original question: Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same? GO No, but where would such data come from? Comparisons of accident rates? These events are so rare that the relative risk could not be reliably determined, even if the necessary denominators (eg, the numbers of climbers who use each type of knot) were available. -Jay Jay - if you don't know, a simple "I don't know" would suffice. Or don't post at all. If someone has had a personal experience with an accident using either type of knot, I'd like to know, and yes, Jay, I'm perfectly clear on the statistical significance of a personal anecdote. Similarly, if anyone knew of published data on the testing of the two knots, I would assume that that paper would show the specific number of tests, on what, and under what conditions. This would be very iteresting to me, however anyone who is not interested is under no obligation to read, much less post. GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 20, 2003, 8:27 PM
Post #44 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Back to the original question: Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same? GO No, but where would such data come from? Comparisons of accident rates? These events are so rare that the relative risk could not be reliably determined, even if the necessary denominators (eg, the numbers of climbers who use each type of knot) were available. -Jay Jay - if you don't know, a simple "I don't know" would suffice. Or don't post at all. Um, excuse me? If my only response would have been "I don't know," I wouldn't bother to respond. However, my response was not "I don't know." It was that hard data is unlikely to exist. If you don't see why pointing this out is relevant, then I would invite you not to respond to my post.
In reply to: If someone has had a personal experience with an accident using either type of knot, I'd like to know, and yes, Jay, I'm perfectly clear on the statistical significance of a personal anecdote. I was commenting on "data," not anecdotes. My point was that there is not likely to be any such data. Why such a response would turn you into a raving lunatic is unclear. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
slcliffdiver
Aug 20, 2003, 8:36 PM
Post #45 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Posts: 489
|
Actually the knot in the book is not the yosimite finish you showed me I had my terminology wrong. It doesn't go around and through the tie in. It's the one I use for the "double" bowline whatever it's called. It's the one thing that scares me a bit that people will use this finish with a single bowline (it's okay with a double). It's also may be a reason to use a double bowline if you mess up the yosimite finish with a double bowline you still have a good knot. For those that have the book (don't do this with a real tie in demo only) tie the knot in the book with a single bowline, now switch position of the strands that are coming out of the knot. Do this a few times and pull on the strand going out of the knot and the one that is the rabit coming around the tree. Scarry hey. I know a couple things might have to happen to make the knot fail but I don't think it's out of the question of them happening especially on a tie in. Gotta go I'll give more details for those who don't have the book when I get back if there is interest.
In reply to: According to Setnicka of the Wilderness Rescue Society, the mountaineering bowline (AKA double bowline, AKA double turn or round turn bowline) is 5 % stronger than a regular bowline. Both can be tied with a yosemite finish. Both should have a backup knot of some sort, usually a half hitch or a yosemite. That's out of "On Rope". Fasulo in "Self Rescue", shows the double bowline with yosemite finish and a double fisherman's backup. I use the bowline with a yosemite finish (A backup itself) with a double fisherman's backup
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 20, 2003, 9:02 PM
Post #46 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
EEK if you mean the fasulo book, yes you are right that is not the yosemite finish in the picture. But it SHOULD BE LOL, according to On Rope, where the pictures are correct. I agree that that finish is scary on a single bowline. YOu might try looking up that guy in the wilderness rescue society for some testing info. I was told by a friend who took an AMGA course that the bowlines were coming apart when loaded around the loop, and that is when the need for finishes became apparent, through rescue work. It makes sense that the rescue folks would have a reason for recommending one over the other, but finding the test results or stories that back it up may be hard.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 21, 2003, 7:06 PM
Post #47 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Back to the original question: Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same? GO No, but where would such data come from? Comparisons of accident rates? These events are so rare that the relative risk could not be reliably determined, even if the necessary denominators (eg, the numbers of climbers who use each type of knot) were available. -Jay Jay - if you don't know, a simple "I don't know" would suffice. Or don't post at all. Um, excuse me? If my only response would have been "I don't know," I wouldn't bother to respond. However, my response was not "I don't know." It was that hard data is unlikely to exist. If you don't see why pointing this out is relevant, then I would invite you not to respond to my post. In reply to: If someone has had a personal experience with an accident using either type of knot, I'd like to know, and yes, Jay, I'm perfectly clear on the statistical significance of a personal anecdote. I was commenting on "data," not anecdotes. My point was that there is not likely to be any such data. Why such a response would turn you into a raving lunatic is unclear. -Jay Sorry you saw my response as being that of a raving lunatic. I saw yours as being that of someone who poo-poo'd my question as meaningless. Just because you don't see how something can be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. For whatever it's worth, I agree with you that the likelihood of seeing any statistically significant accident data on the two knots is just about zero. (Don't even get me started on the data collection of the AMA.) However, that's not what I had in mind. Actual personal experiences are data. So are pull tests and drop tests done in labs. I can do some tests myself, but if someone else has done some already, or has a personal experience that could shed light on (for example) the way in which the single bowline failed, that might save me a bit of time. GO
|
|
|
|
|
scottie_c
Aug 21, 2003, 7:12 PM
Post #48 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 2
|
you ever take a lead fall on that single bowline? No, because you would not be here. :shock: If you insist on using a bowlin as a tie in, use the double with the Yosemite hitch. I would shoot the person who taught you to tie in with a single...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 21, 2003, 7:24 PM
Post #49 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Sorry you saw my response as being that of a raving lunatic. I saw yours as being that of someone who poo-poo'd my question as meaningless. That wasn't my intent. My purpose in pointing out that accident data would likely be unavailable was to dispell the fallacy that lack of data showing one knot to be safer than the other tacitly supports the alternative; ie, that the two knots are equally safe. It is common for people to mistakenly believe that lack of data contradicting the null hypothesis is support for the null hypothesis.
In reply to: Just because you don't see how something can be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. As a scientist, I am aware of that, which is why I questioned how such data could be collected, rather than stated that it could not. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
csoles
Aug 21, 2003, 8:37 PM
Post #50 of 70
(6290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 329
|
In reply to: you ever take a lead fall on that single bowline? No, because you would not be here. :shock: If you insist on using a bowlin as a tie in, use the double with the Yosemite hitch. I would shoot the person who taught you to tie in with a single... Gosh, after 30 years of climbing with a single bowline, it's great to have some newbie tell me it's no good :roll: Clue time: it's as safe as any other tie-in knot and a heck of a lot easier than the other nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
deleted
Deleted
Aug 21, 2003, 9:45 PM
Post #51 of 70
(5900 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
very nice, clyde.
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Aug 21, 2003, 11:43 PM
Post #52 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
Apply enough force on a single bowline and the curl will untwist and the result is a sliding knot, how strong this sliding knot is I dont know. The harder the knot is tied the more force have to be applied for this to happen and tied hard it might be impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Aug 22, 2003, 1:55 PM
Post #53 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
In reply to: I know of one climber that got killed because he used the bowline. He had to be rescued by helicopter and the rescue team clipped a carabiner to his bowline loop and lifted him off the wall. The bowline untied and the climber died. This would not have happened if the climber had used the figure of eight. Please cite the date and area where this happened. A reference to a print resource, heck, even an online resource, would give this some credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Aug 22, 2003, 2:06 PM
Post #54 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
In reply to: Apply enough force on a single bowline and the curl will untwist and the result is a sliding knot, how strong this sliding knot is I dont know. The harder the knot is tied the more force have to be applied for this to happen and tied hard it might be impossible. got a reference for this?? i really don't see how the 'curl', or the single loop, could straighten out. if the knot is set properly, there's no way a load on it could straighten it out. just tie one and jump on it and you'll understand.... :?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 22, 2003, 2:56 PM
Post #55 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sorry you saw my response as being that of a raving lunatic. I saw yours as being that of someone who poo-poo'd my question as meaningless. That wasn't my intent. My purpose in pointing out that accident data would likely be unavailable was to dispell the fallacy that lack of data showing one knot to be safer than the other tacitly supports the alternative; ie, that the two knots are equally safe. It is common for people to mistakenly believe that lack of data contradicting the null hypothesis is support for the null hypothesis. If you thought I was implying that, then thanks for the correction. Mine was an honest request for information.
In reply to: In reply to: Just because you don't see how something can be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. As a scientist, I am aware of that, which is why I questioned how such data could be collected, rather than stated that it could not. -Jay I appreciate you spelling this out. If you look back on your first post, I believe you'll find that the question comes across as a rhetorical one, implying that such data could not exist. I'm sure you didn't mean to portray yourself as the voice of ultimate authority. Um, right? Anyway, I believe I've spelled out a couple of places where I think such information might have been produced, but there may be others. Regarding the curl-straightening issue. I too am skeptical on how this might happen. Sure, if somehow the force was all on the side of the rope where the curl enters the main loop, it could probably happen at a fairly low force. I'm not sure how, in the standard practice of tying in with a bowline, you could possibly get a force on just that one strand. And with the force on both strands of the loop, this "uncurling" can be produced? GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2003, 5:09 PM
Post #56 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: My purpose in pointing out that accident data would likely be unavailable was to dispell the fallacy that lack of data showing one knot to be safer than the other tacitly supports the alternative; ie, that the two knots are equally safe. It is common for people to mistakenly believe that lack of data contradicting the null hypothesis is support for the null hypothesis. If you thought I was implying that, then thanks for the correction. Mine was an honest request for information. I wasn't sure whether you were implying that or not, but there is always someone around who will make the wrong inference from lack of data. I was trying to head that off.
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Just because you don't see how something can be done, doesn't mean it can't be done. As a scientist, I am aware of that, which is why I questioned how such data could be collected, rather than stated that it could not. -Jay I appreciate you spelling this out. If you look back on your first post, I believe you'll find that the question comes across as a rhetorical one, implying that such data could not exist. I'm sure you didn't mean to portray yourself as the voice of ultimate authority. Um, right? The "final authority"? No. But you are asking an epidemiologic question, and I'm an epidemiologist. Consequently, I understand what is required to collect valid data on the relationship between purported risk factors and rare outcomes, and so I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that such data would be unlikely to exist for the question at hand.
In reply to: Anyway, I believe I've spelled out a couple of places where I think such information might have been produced, but there may be others. I'm talking about accident data, not anecdotes or lab tests of tensile strength, neither of which are likely to be useful in answering the question about whether one knot is safer than the other. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Aug 22, 2003, 5:55 PM
Post #57 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
In reply to: In reply to: Apply enough force on a single bowline and the curl will untwist and the result is a sliding knot, how strong this sliding knot is I dont know. The harder the knot is tied the more force have to be applied for this to happen and tied hard it might be impossible. got a reference for this?? i really don't see how the 'curl', or the single loop, could straighten out. if the knot is set properly, there's no way a load on it could straighten it out. just tie one and jump on it and you'll understand.... :? I know this because I did read an article about it in Norsk Klatring (Norwegian climbing mag), other climbers have told me this (maybe the best source if one wants to learn) and I have tested it myself on a loose knot. I am not able to test this knot to its maximum so I dont know how it would react.
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Aug 22, 2003, 6:15 PM
Post #58 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
[quote="sittingduckI have tested it myself on a loose knot. I am not able to test this knot to its maximum so I dont know how it would react. well, a loose knot isn't to be used to protect your life. i've fallen on a single with a df backup... it holds fine. i implore you to try the same in a controlled situation. i'm not saying it couldn't 'uncurl', but i really don't understand how it ever could (but i defer to the law of improbability)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Aug 22, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #59 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: The "final authority"? No. But you are asking an epidemiologic question, and I'm an epidemiologist. Consequently, I understand what is required to collect valid data on the relationship between purported risk factors and rare outcomes, and so I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that such data would be unlikely to exist for the question at hand. Actually, no. Read it again "Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same?" Data is data, and comes in all different forms. The epidemiological inference was yours alone. As you're involved in the field, I can understand why you would focus in on this one aspect, but there are many reasons why one knot might be demonstrably worse than another. Some of these have been mentioned in the thread since then, and bear further research.
In reply to: I'm talking about accident data, not anecdotes or lab tests of tensile strength, neither of which are likely to be useful in answering the question about whether one knot is safer than the other. -Jay You don't think that lab tests or anectdotes have anything to teach you about knot safety. To the best of my knowledge, there are fewer than half a dozen deaths attribuatable to using the fig-8 version of the EDK recorded. How many more before you have a valid sample size? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind! And of course those famous pull tests are irrelevant to you right? As you wish. Either way, climb safely and joyfully. Peace, GO
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 22, 2003, 7:04 PM
Post #60 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: The "final authority"? No. But you are asking an epidemiologic question, and I'm an epidemiologist. Consequently, I understand what is required to collect valid data on the relationship between purported risk factors and rare outcomes, and so I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that such data would be unlikely to exist for the question at hand. Actually, no. Read it again "Anyone know of any data (personal experience included) showing that a single bowline with a Yosemite backup is any less safe than a double bowline with same?" The epdemiological inference was yours alone. As you're involved in the field, I can understand why you would focus in on this one aspect, but there are many reasons why one knot might be demonstrably worse than another. Baloney. All reasons boil down to exactly two: whether there is an important difference in strength between the two knots, and whether one could come untied more easily that the other. The answer to the first question is obviously "no." If either knot weakened the rope to the point where it broke in a fall, it would be well known. However, it is well known that ropes don't break in falls. Therefore, both knots must be strong enough, and thus, tensile strength tests unnecessary. Therefore, the question comes down to whether the knots are equally secure, and the only way to answer that is with data. A pull test isn't going to inform you if one knot is more likely to come undone during a climb, and anecdotes are worthless.
In reply to: You don't think that lab tests or anectdotes have anything to teach you about knot safety. To the best of my knowledge, there are fewer than half a dozen deaths attribuatable to using the fig-8 version of the EDK recorded. How many more before you have a valid sample size? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind! I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you, apparently. I would consider a single death from a failure of a knot as reason to investigate that knot's safety. In the case of the EDK vs the death-8, you are comparing a safe bend with a dangerous one, so you're going to see a marked difference in accident rates; that is, a large effect size. Large effect sizes are detectable with small sample sizes. Hence 6 accidents with the death-8 vs, probably 0 with the EDK is a meaningful difference. However, you don't have a large effect size with a single vs a double bowline. Accident rates are nearly zero for both these knots. If that were not the case, we'd know about it. Since the effect size, if any, is small, you'd need a huge sample size to make meaningful comparisons. But accident rates for these knots are way too low to produce large enough numbers of incidents to make meaningful comparisons. Get it now? -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 22, 2003, 9:50 PM
Post #61 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Holy knotweed batman, I can't believe anyone really thinks a proper bowline will pull into a slip knot with enough force. IF that were so, it would have been branded as unsafe a LONG time ago by sailors. I mean, if that is not enough, it's been tested as having 75 % the strength of the rope for gods sake, and they get those results by pulling til the rope breaks. That is, the knot does not fail, the rope breaks, usually right outside the knot. To say that you can have trouble with a loose knot is like saying you can have trouble starting a car if you don't put gas in it. Knots are not complete til they are set and dressed. Knots that are not complete are not safe, that's very basic knowledge. The EDK will roll right off the ends of the rope if it is not set for example. About data from tests or anecdote, I'd rather see tests, for the control aspect. In reports you have no way of knowing if the knot was tied properly. (I'm accepting that modern ropes don't break, so the knot would have to screw up some other way) To test the "coming undone during a climb"-ness of a knot, I guess you'd have to have a machine to shake and rub the crap out of the knot tied into a harness, huh? Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Aug 22, 2003, 11:20 PM
Post #62 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
A LOOSE bowline will turn into a slipknot, that is easy for anyone to test. When I think of all the bad tied fig.8's I have seen I dont think it is unlikely that there have been and will continue to be badly tied bowlines. Hope is that climbers allways back it up one way or the other. For beginners I think the fig.8 is a better choice because it is easyer to learn and more forgiving if uncorrectly tied.
|
|
|
|
|
neadamthal
Aug 23, 2003, 12:27 AM
Post #63 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2002
Posts: 245
|
for sure... i only use a bowline for times when i think i'll actually fall and tighten the knot. i think beginners should use the figure 8 retrace as well. but why would you ever leave your knot loose and undressed? if you have any sense about you, you wouldn't. :? but there's always distraction i guess...
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 23, 2003, 1:01 AM
Post #64 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
LOOSE IS NOT RIGHT. I guess you could say the same thing about gear placements and bolts too, hey, look guys, a loose nut is not as safe as a well set one, it could fail! Gee, this bolt spins and wiggles in it's hole, why, it is not as good as a tight one! IF YOU CAN'T TIE A PROPER KNOT STAY HOME. A bad figure 8 is still bad, debating what knot is still the best when it's done wrong is just ludicrous. Tie em right, it's not rocket science. Gimme a break.
|
|
|
|
|
sittingduck
Aug 23, 2003, 9:50 AM
Post #65 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2003
Posts: 338
|
If a piece pops there is always the previous pieces and the belay anchor. If the tie in pops thats it. Up til one point I did not know how to tie in until someone teached me, sorry to say that the one teaching me did not know all there is to know about the fig.8 ... dude this is the bomber knot, period. So I did belive this and treated it as a bomber knot and did not try to find out for myself. If you cant tie a proper knot then learn to tie one, and learn all there is to know about the knot.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 25, 2003, 4:50 PM
Post #66 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: IF YOU CAN'T TIE A PROPER KNOT STAY HOME. Somebody said that to me yesterday at Williamson. Dirtineye, you've been quoted in SoCal. -Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 25, 2003, 5:06 PM
Post #67 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
I don't know what to say. Maybe the guy thinks he said it first? This will probably lead to litigation or something. That line does have a ring to it, doesn't it? SOome are born to greatness, others have it thrust upon them, I stepped in it. Oh wait, that was sh!t. :P :P :P
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Aug 25, 2003, 5:20 PM
Post #68 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: Apply enough force on a single bowline and the curl will untwist and the result is a sliding knot, how strong this sliding knot is I dont know. The harder the knot is tied the more force have to be applied for this to happen and tied hard it might be impossible. Wow, did this really happen? You'd think the rescue team would have enough common sense to clip into the belay loop, or is it standard practice for S&R to do this? Why would they clip into the tie-in knot knowing that this just adds another point of possible failure into the system?
|
|
|
|
|
full-time-climb
Deleted
Aug 25, 2003, 5:33 PM
Post #69 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Thanks for this topic everyone. John
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Aug 25, 2003, 6:54 PM
Post #70 of 70
(5903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
The reason these finishes for bowlines became popular for climbing is that rescuers did find that clipping into a bowline loop could cause it to pull out. I don't know the details but I've been told that by more that one rescue guy. When I said a proper bowline will not pull out I was talking about using it as a tie in loop, where the forces on the knot are in one direction, coming from the belay end of the rope. Pulling on loop knots by taking the loop and pulling it at 180 degrees apart at the knot is not a good idea, this is forcing the knot to act as a bend, which is a different situation altogether. A loosely tied figure 8 can fail in this test just as well as a plain jane bowline, and this has been demonstrated before, in the bend tests where a figure 8 rolls down the rope and off the ends. The moral is, Choose an appropriate knot, dress and set your knot and use a backup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|