|
Rocknovice
Sep 13, 2010, 9:36 PM
Post #1 of 20
(4619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 228
|
Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct?
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Sep 13, 2010, 11:05 PM
Post #3 of 20
(4552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
It is likely that it was the yosemite finish. Search for "yosemite finish." If that is what he or she showed you, then yes, it is safe.
|
|
|
|
|
kennoyce
Sep 13, 2010, 11:48 PM
Post #4 of 20
(4522 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2001
Posts: 1338
|
Rocknovice wrote: Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct?
Yep, I'd be willing to bet that it's a yosemite finish which is perfectly safe.
Just as an aside, a double fisherman's knot after the figure 8 is 100% completely unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
|
testpilot
Sep 13, 2010, 11:55 PM
Post #5 of 20
(4514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2009
Posts: 25
|
Rocknovice wrote: Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct?
Probably the Yosemite finish as others have said. Im just curious as to why you think this wouldn't be safe? Its what Ive always used and its never been an issue at all. It keeps the tail out of the way and seems to help a lot with the untying of things.
(This post was edited by testpilot on Sep 13, 2010, 11:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 14, 2010, 12:29 AM
Post #6 of 20
(4488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Rocknovice wrote: Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct?
Your friend.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
acorneau
Sep 14, 2010, 1:02 AM
Post #7 of 20
(4460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2008
Posts: 2889
|
Think of it as more "weaving" of the strands.
|
|
|
|
|
dudemanbu
Sep 14, 2010, 1:33 AM
Post #8 of 20
(4431 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Posts: 941
|
Rocknovice wrote: Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct?
STFU NOOB
|
|
|
|
|
Rocknovice
Sep 14, 2010, 1:58 AM
Post #9 of 20
(4405 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 228
|
dudemanbu wrote: Rocknovice wrote: Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct? STFU NOOB
Let's hope the rest of your lines are more original.
Thanks to everyone else who took the time to answer. In regards to why I felt it might compromise the knot, anything that makes it easier to untie seemed like a bad thing to me. It is not like a rethreaded figure eight where you have matching strands. Thanks for the information. I did google it unsuccessfully but can now put a name to it.
(This post was edited by Rocknovice on Sep 14, 2010, 2:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
Sep 14, 2010, 2:07 AM
Post #10 of 20
(4394 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
Rocknovice wrote: dudemanbu wrote: Rocknovice wrote: Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct? STFU NOOB Let's hope the rest of your lines are more original. Thanks to everyone else who took the time to answer. In regards to why I felt it might compromise the knot, anything that makes it easier to untie seemed like a bad thing to me. It is not like a rethreaded figure eight where you have matching strands. Thanks for the information. I did google it unsuccessfully but can now put a name to it.
The more you climb the more you will learn. Its interesting the things climbers latch onto as 'seeming' safer - like clipping the belay locker through the leg and waist webbing of their harness, gigantic backup knots on their figure 8, running a toprope through 3 (or four, or five...) carabiners.
All part of the learning experience.
|
|
|
|
|
Rocknovice
Sep 14, 2010, 2:12 AM
Post #11 of 20
(4385 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 228
|
I would rather ask and get called names that hurt myself or my climbing partner by pretending to have it all figured out.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Sep 14, 2010, 2:28 AM
Post #12 of 20
(4375 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
Rocknovice wrote: dudemanbu wrote: Rocknovice wrote: Climbed with a friend this week who swears it is safe to put the tail of the rope through the figure 8 instead of doing a double fisherman's. I thought that would compromise the safety of the knot. Who is correct? STFU NOOB Thanks to everyone else who took the time to answer. In regards to why I felt it might compromise the knot, anything that makes it easier to untie seemed like a bad thing to me. It is not like a rethreaded figure eight where you have matching strands. Thanks for the information. I did google it unsuccessfully but can now put a name to it.
Good response.
And good attitude.
I agree that "easy to untie" is not the most comforting quality in my tie-in. But, the 8 is quite secure.
|
|
|
|
|
spikeddem
Sep 14, 2010, 2:50 AM
Post #14 of 20
(4355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319
|
jt512 wrote: Rocknovice wrote: In regards to why I felt it might compromise the knot, anything that makes it easier to untie seemed like a bad thing to me. It is not like a rethreaded figure eight where you have matching strands. The knot we are all thinking that you are asking about is a rethreaded figure-8, with the addition of having the tail tucked back through the knot, as depicted below.  If that's not the knot you're asking about, then ignore all our answers so far. Jay
I never knew that was a legitimate version of the yosemite finish. I've always seen an extra wrap (described on the website you got that picture from, here). I'm surprised I've never seen anyone tie their yosemite finish that way. Glad I knew better than to call you out on it without double checking 
|
|
|
|
|
gosharks
Sep 14, 2010, 3:06 AM
Post #15 of 20
(4335 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Posts: 268
|
spikeddem wrote: jt512 wrote: Rocknovice wrote: In regards to why I felt it might compromise the knot, anything that makes it easier to untie seemed like a bad thing to me. It is not like a rethreaded figure eight where you have matching strands. The knot we are all thinking that you are asking about is a rethreaded figure-8, with the addition of having the tail tucked back through the knot, as depicted below. [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ejAk42p7jdY/SQnf7IKpeLI/AAAAAAAAByY/uZ2c1iMcPJY/s400/Yosemite+Finish+1.jpg[/img] If that's not the knot you're asking about, then ignore all our answers so far. Jay I never knew that was a legitimate version of the yosemite finish. I've always seen an extra wrap (described on the website you got that picture from, here). I'm surprised I've never seen anyone tie their yosemite finish that way. Glad I knew better than to call you out on it without double checking
(This post was edited by gosharks on Sep 14, 2010, 3:07 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Rocknovice
Sep 14, 2010, 10:51 AM
Post #16 of 20
(4245 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Posts: 228
|
Yes, that's it but it was not so neatly dressed.
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Sep 15, 2010, 3:00 PM
Post #17 of 20
(4074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
I was just having a conversation about this knot last weekend. The extra wrap was suggested to me as I use the standard Yosemite finish.
It is interesting to read that the standard Yosemite finish is susceptible to roll if the knot is loaded from the inside of the loop. (i.e. if you use the loop of the knot for your belay loop.)
I'll have to put some thought into my standard practice now... I often clip into my belay loop and the loop of my figure eight when belaying and anchoring on multi-pitch. I consider it (extra) redundant...
While the figure eight is rarely loaded in this fashion, this new info (to me) is indeed food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Sep 15, 2010, 4:43 PM
Post #19 of 20
(4002 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
boymeetsrock wrote: It is interesting to read that the standard Yosemite finish is susceptible to roll if the knot is loaded from the inside of the loop. (i.e. if you use the loop of the knot for your belay loop.)
Yeah, I heard that it's possible for the knot to unravel if the inside of the loop was to become loaded... perhaps in the VERY unlikely event the inside loop (going through your harness) clips into a draw during a fall...??
|
|
|
|
|
boymeetsrock
Sep 15, 2010, 5:01 PM
Post #20 of 20
(3978 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709
|
The example used in the article was of a harness with no belay loop, where the person uses his tie in as the belay loop.
In this situation if the belayer were to catch a fall the knot would be loaded from the inside of the loop attached to the belayers harness.
Another concern may be on a multi-pitch climb where the belayer is secured to the anchor via a biner through the inside loop of the tie in. After weighting this for some time the know "could" roll...
|
|
|
|
|
|
