I'm sorry but what are you trying to say here by posting that big hunk of unformatted and hard to read text?

If anything it seems to be supporting a contention opposite of what you advocated earlier. But since you haven't actually said anything we can only guess at what you are trying to say.

Obviously, the clove hitch is making the rope weaker compared to the figure eight on the bite, and that is good to know

read the article

Obviously, the clove hitch is making the rope
weaker compared to the figure eight on the bite, and that is good to know

Majid, in those tests, under maximal loading, improperly oriented clove hitches slipped at a bit less than the 400 lbf increment needed to break a rope tied with a figure-8 knot, and the slipping consumed less than two feet of rope. Properly oriented clove hitches didn't slip.

The orientation issue suggests that the shape of the biner probably plays an role in the results.

In any case, there is nothing there that suggests clove hitches aren't fine for climbing applications, and there is even a hint that they might be safer, if they are capable of absorbing energy through a small amount of slippage and thereby avoid breaking.

The slight strength advantage of the figure-8 is deemed "inconsequential," and of course additional loads in an anchor system that might be the byproduct of the figure-8's lack of fine adjustability are not even on the horizon in this study.

Of course, the tests do not address what happens with a double strand of 7mm nylon.

As Jim points out, whether we should trust the expertise of experts who can't correctly spell "bight" is a question worth pondering.

Yeah, that is confusing. Perhaps I should have said "conventionally oriented," since conventional wisdom requires the load strand be the strand closest to the spine.

I don't believe that a rope has broken at a knot ever in an actual climbing situation. When tests are performed that break ropes at the knot, the loads imposed can very safely be assumed to exceed any climbing application.

From that perspective, this particular test asserts that clove hitches don't slip, are adequately strong for any climbing application, and it does not matter how they are oriented.

None of this is news, except possibly for the orientation issue. (If you use superlight biners, I'd still pay attention to proper orientation until a definitive test on those items appears.)

As Jim points out, whether we should trust the expertise of experts who can't correctly spell "bight" is a question worth pondering.

the million dollar question of the day is this

why even bother using CH with possibility of slippage or wondering if the orientation of biner is correct or its nylon vs 7 mm when you could just simply attach the cord with fig-8 or other alternative knots?

if CH is used as an habit or convenience, then its understandable but claiming that this system is superior or its safer, I just don't personally buy it

I was reading through this article on a variation of the standard equalette, it included the photo below.



There are two types of knot shown in the photograph that I have not come across before. Clove hitches tied with a bight and overhand knots on three pieces of cord.

Would anyone care to comment on the suitability of either of the knots?

Have any strength tests been conducted on either knot?

Were they both to prove adequate, I could see the system being a viable alternative to the traditional equalette, providing an easily accessed power point in which following climbers could clip into and a quicker and more easily adjustable method of tying one side of the equalette into a single piece of protection than tying a overhand on a bight or figure eight on a bight.

Thanks in advance.

Rob

BG, if you read to the end of the article, you'd see this:

[img]http://gsm.org.es/gsm/wp-content/subidas/2010/10/640_Tecnica6.jpg[/img]

There are two types of knot shown in the photograph that I have not come across before. Clove hitches tied with a bight and overhand knots on three pieces of cord.

Would anyone care to comment on the suitability of either of the knots?

Have any strength tests been conducted on either knot?

• slow static pull was used rather than a dynamic load

When the knot was tied incorrectly, with the load strand farthest ...

... away from the spine of the carabiner, it was found that the knot tried to align itself with the spine at 250 lbs., and carabiner failure occurred–before rope breakage–at approximately 38% below the carabiner's rated strength.

Incorrect tying of the knot will result in substantial loss of carabiner strength. This fact is little appreciated by most users of the clove hitch. The UIAA recommends use of the Munter Hitch in the same configuration with load next to the spine to maintain carabiner strength, but the clove seems to have been ignored to date. Bill Griggers of Bluewater considers incorrectly tied clove hitches to be of far more concern than rope slippage or melting, and all users, professional and recreational, would be advised to note this and to tie the knot correctly. Incorrectly tied, carabiner failure becomes a real possibility.

Strength of the knot varies between 63% and 77% of the static breaking strength of new rope (compare this to 75%-80% for a figure eight and 60% for a bowline), with thinnest rope having the highest percentage. This is attributable to the greater difference between the size of the rope and the object around which it is tied.

Were they both to prove adequate, I could see the system being a viable alternative to the traditional equalette, providing an easily accessed power point in which following climbers could clip into and a quicker and more easily adjustable method of tying one side of the equalette into a single piece of protection than tying a overhand on a bight or figure eight on a bight.