The "Front-Back Bowline"

[jcsampson]

Here's how to make the Front-Back Bowline:

(1) As if you were beginning to make a Butterfly Loop, take the rope (with an adequate working end on the right) and rotate your hand counter-clockwise to make a loop.

(2) Take the loop and rotate your hand counter-clockwise a second time.

(3) Take the loop and rotate your hand counter-clockwise a third time and simultaneously place the loop over the standing part, so that you get what APPEARS to be a Figure-Eight Knot in the making--though it's not a Figure-Eight Knot.

(4) Take your working end, place it into the loop that you placed over the standing part, wrap it around the part of the standing part that is delineated by the loop, and take it out of the loop. Depending upon how you do this, you'll wind up with either a right-handed or a left-handed Front-Back Bowline.

(5) Tighten the Front-Back Bowline in much the same way as you would a regular Bowline. If you wind up with a knot that doesn't have that "Bowline-knot look," then the knot didn't dress properly, so untie it and try again.

The Front-Back Bowline has the regular Bowline's front at its back, and the regular Bowline's back at its front, hence the name "Front-Back Bowline."

JCS

[knot4u]

Did you make that up?  That's a winner.  I'm putting that knot in my phone, seriously.

Advantages:
-no pre-knot
-doesn't jam (at least not for me)
-easier to untie than Bowline (maybe)
-more secure than Bowline (maybe)
-relatively little rope used
-easy to remember
-easy to tie
-double variation is quite nice (see pic below)

Disadvantage:
-no known history

[knot4u]

Front-Back Bowline



Double Front-Back Bowline

[jcsampson]

"Did you make that up?"

This Front-Back Bowline was inspired by xarax's combinatorial thinking: Had it not been for xarax's post about five Overhandless loops, I probably wouldn't have had reason to think along those lines and stumble upon the knot.

And your Double Front-Back Bowline is spectacular.

If it turns out to be a winner--and there are no objections--then we might say that the Front-Back Bowline and the Double Front-Back Bowline were discovered by xarax, jcsampson, knot4u, and the IGKT (since the IGKT hosts the forum, which is the very tool by which the discovery was made possible).

Nice pics, by the way.

JCS

[jcsampson]

"Have you noticed any [measurable difference between the right- and left-handed forms]? Have you tried other variations, with the tail following a different path through those two nipping loops? Go on, keep tying, keep trying!"

In terms of performance, there appears to be little difference between the right- and left-handed forms. In the right-handed form, the standing neck appears to be less centered and SLIGHTLY straighter than it does in the left-handed form, but eventual test results may reveal no measurable performance differences.

As soon as I came upon it, I thought, "THIS is what I'm looking for." So, I effectively STOPPED looking any further and tried no other variations.

JCS

[roo]

So, what do we get for this added complexity?  One thing I noticed is the leg belonging to the U-shape can sometimes slither out when pulled harder than the other leg, to simulate rotation, swinging, or a snag.  It seems to be a bigger problem with the loop in question than with the simple bowline, so far.

I would recommend trying this in various rope types.

At least this loop has some Bowlinesque look to it.

Update: Related Thread:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1920.0

[roo]

Wrong ( again ), roo ! This is a bowline 101%!. And this is not the only interesting aspect of this loop, so what is this "at least " expression refering to ?  

There is a bowline.  This is not the same loop, let alone the mathematical impossibility of a 101% match.

My "at least" referred to your non-bowlinesque loops of another thread being claimed as bowlines or bowline variants, of course.

[jcsampson]

Xarax, if it fails all of the tests, then I'll take the blame; but, if it comes out ahead of the Bowline in all or most of the tests, then . . . you might reconsider saying that you had . . . "something to do with it."

I suspect that there will be no major performance differences between the Bowline / Double Bowline and the Front-Back Bowline / Double Front-Back Bowline, respectively. I'm guessing that use of the new forms most likely will have to be based upon visual and aesthetic preferences.

What I do like about the Double FBB, in particular, is that the standing part winds up pulling on the nearest coil ring instead of on the farthest coil ring, as it does in the regular Double Bowline, and that the standing neck is a little flatter than it is in the regular.

JCS

[jcsampson]

This is for xarax:

L(b)H(f)S(b)C(b)L(f)

and

L(b)C(f)S(b)H(b)L(f)

JCS

[knot4u]

I just realized that tying this FB Bowline involves almost tying a slipped Figure 8.  In contrast, tying a Bowline involves almost tying a slipped Overhand.  Why didn't I think of this knot before?!  This is a great knot, JCS.

Xarax, I'm putting your first pic there in my phone.  In one pic, you illustrated how to tie the FB Bowline so that the knot dresses properly.  Can you make a similar pic for the Double FB Bowline?

[Dan_Lehman]

I'm truly surprised that this "F-B Bwl" is received w/o severe
skepticism; for it :

 - turns the SPart around a single diameter (one eye leg)

 - nips the tail somewhat to the side of main forces (i.e.,
  not by the SPart's turn, but by the SPart-nipped eyeleg's)
  --it's holding for me at the moment, but ...

As for the "front/back" aspect, huh?  I see the collared SPart
just where I see it (back or front --whatever you call it) in the Bwl.?

 

[jcsampson]

Here's how to make the Double Front-Back Bowline:

(1) As if you were beginning to make a Butterfly Loop, take the rope (with an adequate working end on the right) and rotate your hand counter-clockwise to make a loop.

(1.1) Take the working end, and coil another loop on top of the one that you made in step (1) above.

(2) Take the stacked loops and rotate your hand counter-clockwise a second time.

(3) Take the stacked loops and rotate your hand counter-clockwise a third time and simultaneously place the stacked loops over the standing part, so that you get what APPEARS to be a Figure-Eight Knot in the making--though it's not a Figure-Eight Knot.

(4) Take your working end, place it into the stacked loops that you placed over the standing part, wrap it around the part of the standing part that is delineated by the stacked loops, and take it out of the stacked loops. Depending upon how you do this, you'll wind up with either a right-handed or a left-handed Front-Back Bowline.

(5) Tighten the Double Front-Back Bowline in much the same way as you would a regular Double Bowline. If you wind up with a knot that doesn't have that "Bowline-knot look," then the knot didn't dress properly, so untie it and try again.

JCS

[knot4u]

I'm truly surprised that this "F-B Bwl" is received w/o severe
skepticism; for it :

 - turns the SPart around a single diameter (one eye leg)

 - nips the tail somewhat to the side of main forces (i.e.,
  not by the SPart's turn, but by the SPart-nipped eyeleg's)
  --it's holding for me at the moment, but ...

As for the "front/back" aspect, huh?  I see the collared SPart
just where I see it (back or front --whatever you call it) in the Bwl.?

 

I was waiting for you to chime in.  Are those the worst things you can say about the Front-Back Bowline?  If so, then I'm about to put this knot on my favorites list.  

[DerekSmith]

I find a good test for the design of a knot is to tie it in Spectra, then load it and watch carefully as the load is steadily increased.

A well designed knot places the load so that it grips the tail progressively as the load is applied, such a knot would hold quite well in Spectra.

As Dan has pointed out, this knot wastes its applied load around one of the loop legs and as a consequence very little gripping load is directed into holding the tail which gracefully slides through the knot and fails as the load is increased.

Derek

[jcsampson]

I said it before, and I'll say it again: We cannot eat our cakes and have them, too. In order to have new designs, sacrifices must be made. Why have new designs? New designs could bring with them new useful properties or stimulate thoughts that can lead to the creation of other useful things. What is the cost? New designs could bring with them new rules and techniques that will have to be accepted and learned. Without the willingness to accept and learn new rules and techniques, there will be no new ways to solve problems.

Over time, things change; so, what used to be taboo, may eventually be doable without problems. We never used to have Spectra--but we've got it now.

Since no one complains about the interlocking of single loops, then no one should complain about the use of a single-diameter eye within a knot, which is similar to the interlocking of single loops. The "[waste of the] applied load around one of the loop legs" is not waste, but rather a trading of one good thing for another. The situation enables the existence of a new design, which offers something that isn't being appreciated. Is it a bad design, or are knotters failing to understand and appreciate what the new design offers? ANYTHING can be criticized.

A good knotter will know how to take charge of a knot; know how to use it and how not to use it; and know how to dress and SET it such that its performance is maximized, its shortcomings minimized, and its dangers eliminated.

Refer to this post

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1920.msg13279#msg13279

to see an example of how to take charge of one knot's new rules, which--without a knotter's taking charge--may very well be problematic.

JCS