Favorite Way to Tie Trucker's Hitch

[Keystoner]

 

Do you guys also twist twice? You must do, as you have said that you do what he does?

No!  I use Perry Peacock's technique.  No twisting required.  You can affect as many nips as you desire by simply repeating the maneuver.  As I said, this was revolutionary for me as it demonstrates the superior way to tie a Bowline.

I know your technique is ingrained in your muscle memory, but please take another look at Perry's simple maneuver to affect a single nip:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjIi46dZ08M

Cheers!

[Keystoner]

My video is absolutely ABOK 173. Do I need to make another video to prove it?

No, I don't believe that is necessary since there is no part of your video that confuses me.  But if you're so hell-bent to continue this discussion, why don't you answer this question:

With which part of the following do you disagree?

Lee's nip:  Equivalent to a Bowline nip, the nip is formed with the running part passing OVER and to the LEFT of the standing part.

Lee's half hitch lock:  The bight passes behind the standing part from right to left, comes around passing OVER and to the RIGHT of the standing part.

If you agree with both of those descriptions, then we have a different concept of Clove Hitch vs. Cow Hitch as applied to Lee's and your TH's.

[Keystoner]

By looking at the two pictures below, I had an epiphany.
They are the picture of my single twist (the shape I produce with one single clockwise twist of my right hand), and the picture of what the man produces with one single twist of his right hand. I had always assumed that these are the same (we both seem to be doing the same motion in a clockwise direction). Looking closely at the two pictures, I see that they do not show the same loop. [Edit to clarify:] On mine, the "down rope" crosses behind. On his, it crosses in front.

They are ABSOLUTELY the same loop, viewed from different angles.  Please refer to my Side 1/Side 2 discussion.

[Andy]

They are ABSOLUTELY the same loop, viewed from different angles.  Please refer to my Side 1/Side 2 discussion.

Well yes and no.
Yes in suspended 3-D space they are topologically the same thing (a loop of rope), but if you push a bight through the front of the guy's loop, it won't hold, whereas if you push a bight through mine, it will.

No they are not "viewed from different angles", they are viewed from the exact same angle, we both used our right hand, in front of us, and twisted clockwise, everything about the load, knot etc is in the same place, and so is the camera.

That's why he twists a second time, to enter from the other side.
I can sit with a piece of rope and twist once clockwise, with different motions of the right hand, to make either his loop, or my loop. That's my point about wasted motion---he twists twice to make a single twist.

What you said here suggests that perhaps you haven't yet shared my epiphany about why we couldn't understand one another in this discussion?

The motion of the guy in the snow from your other message is interesting, I'll experiment with it in real loading situations.

Warmest wishes,

Andy

ps: on the pictures, notice whether the "down rope" crosses at the front or at the back. Also notice that the bight is pointing the same way.

[Andy]

In other words...
Looking at the two pictures above...
You know the slo-mo video I sent you, that pretty much starts on this frame?
If I sent you a slo-mo video starting on the equivalent frame for me, there would be nothing to see---frozen frame, I'm done, ready to push the bight in.
None of that second twist of the video so that the guy can push that bight in.
If I did twist at that stage, that would be to make my old double twist.

I believe there's a point here. Perhaps some of the praise so lavishly spent on the method in that video could be retracted.

[diff_lock]

I am not addressing anyone specifically. I'm just super saiyan.

EDIT: There seems to be a term for this already. Loop versus Elbow. See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/BightLoopElbow.jpg

Here is some testing I have done. I would not trust the bell ringer knot (EDIT: With 2.8mm single braid polyester cordage, dry).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dlAyTquJ_HM

Lee (the guy with the pickup truck and logs?) Does NOT use a bell ringer + half hitch lock.

His initial loop is one extra turn compared to the bell ringer's initial loop (nip?) making one complete twist.



180 for bell ringer, 360 is an other option which Lee chose.

[Keystoner]

Andy, your graciousness goes far to assuage my frustration with you.  However, either you don't carefully and thoroughly read my arguments or you don't understand how to apply them, vis a vis how I defined Side 1 and Side 2.  I exclude the possibility of that being false, and that you simply disagree, because I am 100% sure of my position.  (I'm 95% sure with the Knot4u discussion.)  If anyone else would like to engage, please do so, because I feel like I'm running a relay race and no one will take the baton from me.  In any case, I will be taking a break from this thread for a while.

Please, for my sanity, TABULA RASA.  Without any preconceived ideas, as if we were starting from scratch, please ponder my following arguments.  Please do not respond impulsively.  Sleep on it if you have to.  Out of courtesy to you and Knot4u, I have exhaustively been verifying my statements and yours.

>> By looking at the two pictures below, I had an epiphany.
They are the picture of my single twist (the shape I produce with one single clockwise twist of my right hand), and the picture of what the man produces with one single twist of his right hand. I had always assumed that these are the same (we both seem to be doing the same motion in a clockwise direction). Looking closely at the two pictures, I see that they do not show the same loop. [Edit to clarify:] On mine, the "down rope" crosses behind. On his, it crosses in front.

>> Well yes and no.
Yes in suspended 3-D space they are topologically the same thing (a loop of rope), but if you push a bight through the front of the guy's loop, it won't hold, whereas if you push a bight through mine, it will.

They are EXACTLY the same loop.  Choosing my words very carefully:  They are EQUIVALENT.  There is NO need for the qualifier "topologically."  They are not a mirror image of each other.  They are EXACT.

>> No they are not "viewed from different angles", they are viewed from the exact same angle, we both used our right hand, in front of us, and twisted clockwise, everything about the load, knot etc is in the same place, and so is the camera.

>> ps: on the pictures, notice whether the "down rope" crosses at the front or at the back. Also notice that the bight is pointing the same way.

Andy, PLEASE bear with me here.  Look at your photo, Andy #1, the one under the warm Australian sun, the one that you've been showing with Lee #1.  Imagine at that same moment in time a camera on the other side--a camera that would show the back of your hands. The loop in a picture from that camera would unmistakably be the same loop as Lee's.  Please try to see this.  You would immediately retract your "p.s."

>> I believe there's a point here. Perhaps some of the praise so lavishly spent on the method in that video could be retracted.

Absolutely NOT.  There is no wasted motion at all (at least not in the sense that you claim--I wish I could show him Perry's motion).  He demonstrates a topologically equivalent ABOK #173--the Clove Hitch variation.  (I'd prefer to state that without the "topological" qualifier: It's equivalent to a pseudo-ABOK #173.)  Lee is the man.

Cheers!

[Andy]

Keystoner,

After my messages from yesterday and today, I cannot believe we are still arguing.

1. Of course it is "the same loop", in the sense that a loop is a loop is a loop. Would you prefer if I said that it is "the same loop with a different orientation"? In that case, the guy twists once to produce the wrong orientation. He has to twist twice to produce the right orientation, i.e., the orientation that brings him to the point where he is ready to push the bight through.

2. You say: "Andy, PLEASE bear with me here.  (...) Imagine at that same moment in time a camera on the other side"
Yes. I have not been disputing that. My point is that I have twisted once, and I am ready to push the bight through. He has twisted once, and he has the wrong orientation, he still has to do another twist to push the bight through.

3. You say: "There is no wasted motion at all".
Pardon me, but how can you say that, when I am ready to push the bight through after one twist, whereas, after his first twist, you still have to watch that video of the second twist until he is able to push the bight through? That makes no sense to me "at all".

Kind regards,

Andy

[Keystoner]

Knot4u, I will respond to this and then take a self-imposed 48 hr time-out from this thread.  Where until now we've all been cordial, I don't want to let my frustration with you and Andy break that trend.

>> Look at the pic of ABOK #173.  There is a definite Clove made with the standing end.  It's not kinda sorta like a Clove.  It's actually a complete Clove that goes completely around the bight that passes through the Clove.

I'm in 100% agreement.  This has NEVER been a source of disagreement.

>> Now, because my video is topologically equivalent to ABOK #173 (which you agree by the way), the knot in my video therefore has the topological equivalent to a Clove in there.

I do NOT agree.  Let me be quite clear, once again:  My opinion is that your video demonstrates a topologically equivalent Cow Hitch.  Lee's video demonstrates a topologically equivalent ABOK #173/Clove Hitch.

Since neither your or Lee's TH look ANYTHING like the ABOK #173 figure, you HAVE to qualify equivalence by introducing the word "topologically."  I get that.

>> I think the problem here is that you're just now seeing the Ashley pics.  So, your mind was thinking about this a different way.  Unfortunately, it's the wrong way if the discussion is based on Ashley references from the original post.  Any knot discussion is too unorganized if everybody is allowed to barge in with their own perspective without regard to the common framework for communication.

To be sure, I understand the ABOK figures quite well.  In fact, I suspected exactly what they were clear back to when Andy described them in Reply #143 followed by the ensuing discussion until Andy posted pictures in Reply #150.

You've speculated on the problem.  Now I'll speculate.

Knot4u's nip:  Equivalent to a Bowline nip, the nip is formed with the running part passing OVER and to the LEFT of the standing part.

Knot4u's Half Hitch lock:  The bight passes behind the standing part from left to right, comes around passing OVER and to the LEFT of the standing part.

Since both elements (the running part and the bight) pass from right to left over the standing part, that is, in the SAME direction, your video demonstrates a toplogically equivalent Cow Hitch.

You don't agree with that definition of Cow Hitch.  That's the problem.  You're looking at it wrong.

In case anyone asks, I'll be on Walkabout.

[Keystoner]

Keystoner,

After my messages from yesterday and today, I cannot believe we are still arguing.

1. Of course it is "the same loop", in the sense that a loop is a loop is a loop. Would you prefer if I said that it is "the same loop with a different orientation"? In that case, the guy twists once to produce the wrong orientation. He has to twist twice to produce the right orientation, i.e., the orientation that brings him to the point where he is ready to push the bight through.

2. You say: "Andy, PLEASE bear with me here.  (...) Imagine at that same moment in time a camera on the other side"
Yes. I have not been disputing that. My point is that I have twisted once, and I am ready to push the bight through. He has twisted once, and he has the wrong orientation, he still has to do another twist to push the bight through.

3. You say: "There is no wasted motion at all".
Pardon me, but how can you say that, when I am ready to push the bight through after one twist, whereas, after his first twist, you still have to watch that video of the second twist until he is able to push the bight through? That makes no sense to me "at all".

Kind regards,

Andy

You just couldn't wait to respond, could you?

[Andy]

Hi Keystoner,

I am sad that the discussion is making you so unhappy.
To bring us to the same page, I made a video. I hope this will dissolve any frustration and put a smile on your face.

This video shows how I perform the single twist.

For those of you who are wondering, I am not trying to wrench the vise away from the bench. 
I took the video indoors to help with lighting, and only to showcase the "single twist" part of the truckie.

Now I am crossing my fingers, hoping to hear that this time it is your turn to have an epiphany.
If you tell me that compared to my video, there is no wasted motion in Lee's vid... Then I'll have to drive myself to the vet and get him to put me to sleep.

Looking forward to hearing from you whenever you choose to break your vow of silence. (Hopefully this will help.)

Wishing you a beautiful evening,

Andy

[Andy]

Hi Knot4U,

Thanks for watching! First time making and uploading a video.

Before I answer, what are your thoughts here?  This nip is like or unlike Lee's nip?

Well, you guys have repeatedly told me that my picture #1 (attached for clarity) is the same as Lee's nip. This is the same as picture #1 (I hope!), so I was thinking that it would be the same as Lee's nip.

My idea with this video was to illustrate the confusion about single vs double twist: if you agree that this is Lee's nip, then Lee twists twice to get to this point, as per the slo-mo video. This is because of different wrist motion / grab on the first twist. Attaching where he is after one twist to illustrate that, which is before the whole second twist action on the slo-mo video takes place.

So my understanding at this stage is that to produce my single twist, I twist once, whereas Lee twists twice, and that is why I had been convinced all this time that he does my "double twist". He does twist twice, it seems, but only to produce my single twist.

If there is agreement on that, then my video would also illustrate that there is wasted motion in Lee's video---see how fast the bight gets grabbed by the nip on my single twist video, and how slow on his, because he twists twice.

Knot4U, I have a feeling that we are finally getting to the bottom of why you and I were having such a hard time seeing the same thing a while ago---you probably saw my "epiphany post" acknowledging that you were correct (and I incorrect) about the final formation, and explaining the source of my confusion---that the man twists twice in order to get there, while I only twist once.

Crossing my fingers now that you will respond saying that we are now on the same page.
 

Wishing you a fun evening,

Andy

[Andy]

Andy, we are on the same page.

Knot4U, that is truly great to hear. Thank you for the excellent news. For two reasonable people to see such different things, there had to be a reason. What a relief to have solved the mystery.

Also, I prefer your new convention of calling a single twist a "single twist."

For the record, and I think you will agree, what I call my single twist and my double twist has not changed. What has changed is that I now see that Lee produces a single twist (even though he twists twice). A two-twist single twist if you will---that really threw me off.

I am really impressed that you saw right away that Lee produces a single twist. For me, looking at the grainy video, seeing him twist the rope twice, and not being very good at noticing details such as how ropes cross, it was "obvious" that he was producing a double twist. Do you think you noticed because at the time you used a similar hand motion to Lee's, or because the way the ropes crossed just jumped out at you?

After all that, as mentioned a few weeks ago, I am still experimenting with tying truckies with a single twist rather than the double twist I had been using for years. It takes time to make an old dog change his routine, but I figure that if I give myself a couple of months to try it out and it does work as well as the old way, it will have become ingrained.

Thank you again for bringing this great news.
Wishing you a beautiful weekend,

Andy

[Keystoner]

Here is some testing I have done. I would not trust the bell ringer knot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dlAyTquJ_HM

Welcome to the forum.

You tested 3 TH's:

1. ABOK #172
It will work if the bight is held up while hauling the working end down.

2.  ABOK #172 + Half Hitch Lock -- Lee Bundy Style
I noticed this same collapse and pointed it out in Replies #183 and #188.  Notice that the TH still worked!  The pulley remained intact.  Good luck untying it though.  I have not experienced that collapse with thicker line and therefore would not extrapolate your results as a blanket dismissal of a Bell Ringer + Half Hitch lock Trucker's Hitch the way you have.  Andy uses a variation on a regular basis in real life applications and Knot4u mentioned his very robust testing earlier in the thread.  And don't forget, the great Lee Bundy uses it.

3.  ABOK #173
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drkcOzCjuuU
"Make sure you leave this one up and pull."

[Luca]

Hi Keystoner,

If I am intruding in this dialogue,is just because I'm sorry that you did not understand what knot4u means when he pointed out that the pulley that he builds for the Quickie Truckie (the term is by Andy) is equivalent to ABOK # 173,so I try to give you a (pathetic, and I apologize to knot4u for this attempt that would overlap with his explanation,from whom I learned,) alternative explanation. Below I attached two diagrams:the one on the left shows how knot4u "closes"the pulley ,the one on the right indicates how "closes" Lee.The portions of the lines in red correspond to the portions of rope which in the reality are doubled during the construction of the pulleys:imagine you do the two loops with rope,as I drew(with the tails,without bights), but with rather long tails; then grab the tails of the two loops (in red in the diagrams) and grab the legs of the loops that correspond to the red legs in the diagrams, and pull so that the turns of rope correspondents to the red turns in the diagrams disappear and the entire portions of the red lines become straight: if you do this with the rope"arranged"as the left diagram(knot4u),you will see a Clove hitch around the portion of rope that corresponds  to the red line;if you do the same with the rope arranged as the right diagram(Lee),you will see a Cow hitch around the portion of rope that corresponds to the red line.Having left the tails long, now you can "re-double "the portions of the rope in "red" (in the diagrams) forming a bight and retracing:you will see a proper"Clove hitched "Bell Ringer #173 looking at the rope originally arranged as the left diagram,and you will see an improper"Cow hitched " Bell Ringer looking at the rope originally arranged as the right diagram.

             

                                                                                                           Bye!