One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is that the following knots will be on the test list:
[A ] Right hand Bowline - ABoK #1010
[B ] Yosemite Bowline - (ABoK #1010 variant with tail wrapped around eye leg and then through collar)
[C ] EBDB - (ABoK 1013 variant with 3 rope diameters encircled by the nipping loops)
[D ] EBSB (agent smith varient to DL's EBDB)
[E ] Rosendahl bend (Zeppelin bend)
[F ] Figure 8 eye knot (ABoK #1047)
[G ] Butterfly knot - ABoK #1053 (with specific attention to loading profiles)
On A, you should have a specimen pair in which the end is dressed-set to cross UNDER
itself on exit re the Front perspective--a position the draw of the SPart will then bring,
under load, more into the position that is typically shown for the end to start (from which
an end is brought up & a little to the side).
B, you see, positions the end (to the opposite direction) and holds it there.
On E, you might have on specimen pair in which you deliberately leave the knot
a little looser than the what you might expect setting in good practice to do--this
can case can be seen to model stiff rope or careless/quick tying, and should give
a geometry tending towards that of the Bowline.
However, I find the inclusion of this dubious in light of any advocacy for use in
the kernmantle [sic] worlds, as for joining slings, the Grapevine will rule, and
for joining abseil ropes, an offset bend is wanted; what does this leave? This
symmetric knot will work with dissimilar ropes pretty well, but I just don't see
much market for it in your presumed target audience. (Still, at least a carefully
reported break test & photos will advance understanding ... !)
On F, there are two prime ways of loading the knot. To my mind, if one is going
to load the strand that runs nearer around the eye, and that will press INTO its
shadow/parallel/twin partner, you should set the knot firmly by loading the
end,and by loading the eye in opposition to the nub (i.e., grasp knot, pull eye)
--the idea is to put more of a curved path for the SPart to take en route to
its tight turn around the eye legs--;
if loading the other strand (which will pull away from its twin, naturally), the
best setting might be to tension SPart against nub, to try to ease the force
that the eye legs will deliver to the SPart, which in this position seems to
have a broader curve around the body.
On G, well, there are two potential SParts here, too--although they depart
not in parallel/tandem but in opposite directions. You should see that W&Magowan
give specific orientation instructions, having the eye legs crossing in the nub,
which is in contrast to most of the images of it that I've seen modern books
give (having not appreciated the variety of orientations possible). So, here
you have an orientation of knot body/eye-legs, and THEN the question of
which end to load--already there are 4-6 distinct cases (two crossings & none,
times two ends). For this reason, I do not like the choice of this. We have now
no idea how the knot was tested elsewhere, which makes any comparison
impossible. (Well, yeah, this is somewhat true for everything, alas.)
And of course I'm very disappointed to not see the Janus Cowboy bowline
in the set, as it's the simplest and best-looking of the bowline variations so far.
And it's a knot that I've examined carefully, and so advanced, especially on
account of how the curvature of the SPart looks GOOD/strong.
It is beyond my means and budget to test larger cord diameters (eg 10-11mm diameter range).
EDIT: Larger diameters will require larger forces and hence higher risk.
Again, I will remark:
the "test" of such a rope need not be to destruction,but only to a known, significant force, at which photo documentation can be used
to compare the target rope (dynamic) with like-loaded (%-of-tensile) 7mm rope,
and with that information, maybe some projections can be made. --same bit of
rope (11mm) can be used repeatedly, thus; and just one test per knot, if ... .
Again, it's a matter of gaugeing how the greater elasticity enables greater distortion
and so affects effective knot geometry. Loading climbing rope to 500-1000# say
will produce meaningful results; in terms of knot security on "cyclic" loading by sport
falls, this is the sort of loads you'll see, and you can see if anything changes re security.
.:. so, no greater system loads; no cost of rope, other than having ONE to use (at
forces you are likely putting on it or are willing for it to endure anyway, in use).
(there is no opportunity for me to ask around for older samples either...
and in any case, I want to test new cordage with known batch coding).
A simple ping to a climbing forum could bring ONE rope fairly quickly, I think.
--or just a worn end of one, adequate.
--dl*
====
