Favorite Way to Tie Trucker's Hitch

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

Hi TMCD, thanks for writing.

pull hard on the ear, it collapses into your method and the man on the video's

I am not getting that result at all. The clove hitch gives me two "bowline-type nips" on the bite that passes through it, or, if it collapses into something more compact, some kind of "X" nip.
The method shown on the video and on my old truckie illustrations (which I'd like to improve some day) produces a single nip.

If 173 is tied improperly (not paying close attention to how the clove hitch is formed and making a "fake clove hitch"), it does collapse into a single nip (172).

172 is a bit closer to our double twist---it's what you would get if you did a single twist. But it still isn't the double twist.

The man in the video is tying ABOK 173, as TMCD explained.

Hi Knot4U, no, I don't think so, as explained above.

The knot is topologically the same as ABOK 173. 

I cannot agree.

Play around with with it for awhile with various tying methods.

I have. I also have been using the truckie shown on the video for many years.

Can I request the same of you (to play around with these two methods)? Making sure to do an exact 173 as illustrated in ABOK, and an exact double twist as shown on the video. They are topologically quite distinct.

EDIT: let me add that I am always happy to be proved wrong, so don't hesitate to insist if you are able to carefully double check the two methods and satisfy yourself that they are topologically equivalent.

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

The man in the video is tying ABOK 173, as TMCD explained.  The knot in the video is just a different, more secure dressing than what ABOK shows.  The knot is topologically the same as ABOK 173.

To drive the point home: if you guys are right, then you have discovered a revolutionary way of tying a clove hitch! All this time, people have been believing that to form the clove in the bight, you need to lay one loop on top of a mirror loop. But we were all wrong, because apparently all you really need is a double twist!   

I hope I don't seem too biting here, but for some reason, on this very thread I have found once already that points don't get made unless one stands one's ground, witness to which my several replies, near the top of the thread, to posts that have been deleted, which baffles me.

[Edit: corrected typo: "to" -> "don't"]

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

Andy, to go even further, when I tie the knot shown in the video, I begin like I'm tying a one-handed Bowline by using the bight.  Then, I use the ear to tie another Half Hitch, as shown in the video.  The Clove Hitch (or Two Half Hitches) in there would not be readily to anybody watching.

Hi Knot4U, the two half hitches are not in the video. Watch again, he just twists twice in the same direction, in the same way that one turns a screw.

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

Topologically (mathematically), the Two Half Hitches ARE there.

They definitely are not. Otherwise, you have found a way to make a clove hitch by twisting a rope twice in the same direction. Have you?

we really are just talking about different ways of tying

Well yes, precisely, this is what the Trucker Hitch: Favorite Way to Tie thread is about: different ways of tying. As far as I can tell, the "double twist" which is shown on the video and on my page has not been ranked on your list of "Winners and Losers". Neither is it equivalent to the bell ringer (unless you want to call it a "double bell ringer", but it is still neither 172 nor 173). It is a different hitch.

WINNERS!

    Span Loop (ABOK #1049)
    Bell Ringer + Half Hitch Lock (ABOK #173)
    Bowline With A Bight (ABOK #1074)
    Butterfly (ABOK #1053) if dressed right
    Double/Triple Butterfly
    Scrap rope as sheave http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3878.0
    Real sheave on a loop
    Steel ring on a loop
    Steel thimble on a loop



Losers

    Bell Ringer (ABOK #172)
    Bowline (ABOK#1010)
    Bowline on the Bight (ABOK #1080)
    Figure 8 Loop (ABOK#1047)
    Directional Figure 8 (ABOK#1058)
    All slip loops, including...
    Slipped Overhand
    Slipped Figure 8
    Slipped Figure 9
    Slipped Figure 10
    Slipped Multi-Twist
    Etc.

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

And since a picture is worth a thousand words...

1. Double twist awaiting the bight.
2. Tightened double twist.

Only 4 attachments allowed per post, so look for 3 pictures with ABOK 173 in the next post.

[Andy]

This post is a companion to the previous one, to contrast the "double twist" structure with ABOK 173.

1. Clove hitch awaiting the bight (ABOK 173)
2. Tightened 173, worked "open"
3. Tightened 173, worked "compact"

Either way, you can see that this has nothing to do with the double twist, whether visually, topologically, mathematically, psychologically, anthropologically, gastronomically or otherwise. 

So Knot4U, to get back to the question, I would be curious to know how you would rank the method on the video (the double twist) in the winners and losers. Or maybe you've already ranked it as the "bell ringer", but in that case that is not the correct name as it is neither 172 nor 173. One could call it a Double Bell Ringer (double 172), but even that would be confusing as "double" could mean two turns as in the double bowline, as opposed to two corkscrew twists.

That "double twist" hitch probably has a name, I just haven't looked in ABOK.

I hope we now have all the tools in hand to make some progress on this topic then move on.
And yes, I will be very interested in seeing your video of your alternate method when it is ready. Thank you very much for offering.

Wishing you a beautiful week,
Regards

Andy

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

Hi Knot4U,

The source of the confusion is now clear. You believe that the guy in the video ties the knot shown in my second series of pictures (a clove hitch, 173). He does not. Watch it again closely. You will see that he twists twice in the same direction, the same as my first series of pictures: a "double twist".

You are confused by how the guy is tying in the video.

Knot4U, you are most definitely confused by how the guy is tying in the video.
(...confused, unless of course you are just refusing to be wrong. I used to have a wife who suffered from that condition. If it afflicts you as well, sorry, and kindly let me know, it will save us time now and in the future.    )

The original twisting he does is not a double twist if you follow the video closely.

The twisting he does is a double twist, if you follow the video closely.

See the attached screenshot from the video. He has twisted clockwise once, and he is about to twist clockwise a second time.

> Otherwise, you have found a way to make a clove hitch by twisting a rope twice in the same direction. Have you?

Well, that's how you tie a Clove on a bight...

You cannot possibly be telling me that you make a clove on the bight by twisting the rope twice in the same direction (corkscrew twist as shown in my first picture).

Meanwhile, the knot in Ashley clearly has Two Half Hitches (Clove) in there.

I have never disputed that. That knot in Ashley just has nothing to do with the knot in the video.

TMCD has basically said the same thing.

TMCD has not said anything since the last few posts when I have been making it clearer and clearer. TMCD might very well change his mind.

Also, I am the one who discovered the video

That's not an argument. You're not the man in the video, so you're in no better position to tell us what he is doing. See the screenshot.

I'm running out of ways to say this.

For the record you have also changed what you have been saying. Originally you said that my double twist was the same as ABOK 173. It doesn't sound like you are saying this anymore.

Anyhow, it's excellent that you are running out of ways to say what you are saying.
Please see the screenshot, it's time to change your mind.

Incidentally, I'll be happy to say I was a moron if someone can change my mind.

Anyway, you have what works for you, and that's all that matters.

Well, yes and no. This is a thread about the best way to tie a truckie, and we're still not able to have a discussion about the double twist.

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

Hi Knot4U,

Andy, I guess everybody else here is wrong, and you are right.

[emphasis added]

Who is "everybody"? Knot4U, knot4u and Knot4U?

By the way, for the record, I am replying to a post you have deleted.
The last time we tried to have a discussion, which was at the beginning of this thread, we also disagreed. It seems that you (or someone with control over your account) later deleted all your posts from that discussion. You had also changed your story several times in mid-air. I had the courtesy not to point out the inconsistency between your consecutive posts. But the record of the conversation was erased. It's easy to look right when you delete your half of a conversation, thereby emphasizing the parts where your courteous counterpart agrees with you. But what is the point of looking right? I don't see one. I'd rather learn something than look right.

He's not making a double twist.

That's funny, because I downloaded the video and watched it in slow motion. That's how I got that beautiful screenshot I sent you. He is making a double twist.

For crying out, man!

Crying out has nothing to do with it. I watched the video is slow motion, and I don't see what you are seeing. I see a double twist. I also turned up the volume, and I don't hear him crying out.

> Originally you said that my double twist was the same as ABOK 173. It doesn't sound like you are saying this anymore.

What in the world are you talking about?

For instance, I am talking about this quote from message 25280:
"Try tying ABOK 173 and then pull hard on the ear, it collapses into your method and the man on the video's method."
Or, in message 25276, quoting my question of "What do you call my double twist secured by a half hitch", you replied: "Just so we're on the same page, you're talking about ABOK #173".

This is what in the world I mean by "Originally you said that my double twist was the same as ABOK 173".

Now you can go edit that out of your posts if you like. Sadly, anyone who reads this thread can see who is editing their posts. It's not so easy to see who is deleting, so perhaps you'd like to try that again.

And by the way, it's not a big deal. It's okay that by getting new information your position has evolved. That's absolutely normal. What is less normal is insisting on appearing consistent and infallible. But hey, "less normal" is okay too. Jimmi Hendrix wasn't normal was he?

How many times are not going to read my posts?

Not only do I read your posts, I remember what you have posted.

Not trying to be mean, do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Not that I know.

Knot4U, I don't have a problem with you talking down to me (as you have been doing for much of this convo). Please feel free to continue. Just remember to breathe, and please do call 911 if you start feeling some chest pains.

Regards,

Andy

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

tie your double twist plus a Half Hitch on the ear, and try to get the resulting knot in the video.

Thanks, that is what I do all the time. I happen to tie truckies on a nearly daily basis.

You won't get it.

I have been getting it for a great many years, but hey, since the world supposed to end in 13 days, everything is possible, and this knot I have tied a thousand times, and that was passed down to me by professional garbage collectors, might just blow up in flames when I try to tie it again tomorrow.

You have made this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Er... really? The only simpler way to bite the bight would be a single twist (172). I have never seen a less complicated way, that's why I call it the "quickie truckie".

By the way, in case that wasn't clear already, I am not presenting myself as a knot expert. I am a knot lover who enjoys this forum because it is frequented by knot experts (as well as others who like me are not experts). I am here seeking knowledge, and I do pay close attention to what people write to me. So it saddens me when a conversation seems to get hopelessly stuck, as today, as it impedes the knowledge seeking.
(Please don't shoot me if that sounded pompous, this is just how I feel.)

[Andy]

[EDIT: I did not post ten messages in a row. It looks like that because Knot4U deleted his posts. Sorry for the confusing reading. ]

When you finally realize you're wrong, I expect an apology.

Of course.
Rest at peace, I don't expect the same of you.

[Sweeney]

Now that Knot4u and Andy seem to have reached an impasse I thought I throw in two pennyworth and say that you're maybe both right and you're both wrong! (That should get you two to agree if only because you both think I'm wrong....).

Starting with ABOK 172 the half hitch around the "ear" is tied using the standing part (let's agree for the sake of argument that the part from the belfry so to speak is the standing part). A hard pull on this will, like any half hitch, cause it to flip so that the hitch is tied using the ear around the standing part - and it can be flipped back to it's original state. This takes quite a tug but it will happen both ways - I don't see how you can do this pulling the ear from ABOK 172, it has to be the standing part. This appears to be at the nub of the argument because ABOK 173 is the same as 172 with a second half hitch added - for testing this explanation ABOK 172 is easier to use.

Now in the video I can see that the person tying the hitch ties ABOK 172 but then instead of tying 173 as illustrated by Ashley he uses the ear to tie a half hitch around the standing part - the flipped version of ABOK 173 and arguably not the same knot but a transformation of it - but the difference is a difference in orientation rather than a fundamental difference in the knot. I don't see any "twisting" involved save in the way the half hitches are formed perhaps.

Does that help or fan the flames into life again?

Barry

[Sweeney]

The pulley of that Trucker Hitch is equivalent to ABOK #173 and also Andy's knot shown here:

Agreed, knot4u, but as I tried to explain whilst the structures are, as you rightly say, equivalent they are not exactly the same. But the difference is only in the way in which the second half hitch is oriented - and I prefer this method as it certainly seems more secure than ABOK 173 as illustrated.

Barry

[TMCD]

For clarification's sake, what's the difference between Andy's method of tying the TH and the method shown in the video with the man tying off the load of logs?? Don't they both end up with the same result or am I missing something here? As I said above, you can also collapse ABOK 173 into the exact same result...with the half hitch around the standing part. It's just proves there's more than one way to skin this cat.

Andy's version differs with the double twist and that's all if I'm seeing things correctly. 

[TMCD]

What were you and Andy arguing about? I've read through the threads and it seems like Andy doesn't want to admit that his knot and the knot in the video are the same knot....what's the point of contention?

[Andy]

Hello everyone.

it seems like Andy doesn't want to admit that his knot and the knot in the video are the same knot.

Hi TMCD, to the contrary. I have been saying repeatedly that they are exactly the same knot, tied in exactly the same fashion, and that the man in the video ties the loop through which he pushes the bight (seconds 15 to 19) by twisting a bight of rope twice in a clockwise direction (as if he were driving a screw). That is what I see both at normal speed and in slow motion.

Knot4U has argued that the man in the video does not make that double twist, but fumbles the clove hitch formation. For clarity's sake, here are photos of what I call a "double twist", and here are photos of a clove hitch formation.

That is the first point of debate. My impression is that at this stage no one is arguing that a "double twist", as shown in the first series of pictures in the paragraph above, result in ABOK 173---but that impression may be wrong.

At this stage, there does not seem to be any point in arguing about what the guy in the video is doing. I live on the planet where it is blindingly obvious that he is twisting twice in a corkscrew direction (seconds 15 to 19). If someone knows this man (called Lee Bundy according to the YouTube channel), maybe one day we will know for sure.

Knot4U, thank you for making a video. What a fantastic way of sharing your knot thoughts. I wish I was equipped to do the same.

Knot4U, I also see that you are not alone on the planet where people do not see a "double twist" in the video, and I apologize if I have implied that you were.
I would however be surprised to hear someone saying "yes, I did watch the video in slow motion between seconds 15 and 19, and he is not twisting twice in a clockwise direction". In case anyone is interested, I have uploaded a temporary copy of the video here (it is easier to freeze frames when you download it). I will delete it in a few days so there is no copyright question.

I can see that the person tying the hitch ties ABOK 172

Hi Barry, I see that too (first twist, seconds 15-16), then I see him twisting a second time (seconds 19-20).

he uses the ear to tie a half hitch around the standing part

Are you saying that assuming a single twist, then the securing hitch with the ear contributes to completing a clove hitch?

Wishing you all a beautiful day,

Andy