Favorite Way to Tie Trucker's Hitch

[diff_lock]

I would like to see someone tighten a clove hitch around polyester cord using polyester cord. It wont stick. I understand what you want but with the material I use a clove does not hold.

Do you find that the Span Loop that you uses does not perform satisfactorily?  In order to help others to better advise you, what is the application for which you use the small gauge polyester?

The span loop works very well for me. My purpose was to show that a bell ringer and current variants are not secure (excluding the butterfly variant which held). But as many pointed out it might be just for my small slippery cordage.

I use this cordage in truckers hitch / versatackle setups everywhere. I used it to attach power strips to polls and beams for cable management, hang a bicycle for maintenance, and mount a hat rack ( should provide pics later if I don't forget). I setup a clothes line for the community too. Cord was white, braided and 4mm. Not sure if polyester.

For quick clothes lines and tying down small cargo such as back packs I find an adjustable grip hitch to be sufficient.

[diff_lock]

As to WHY I use this cord: It feels really nice, like silk, it is what I found locally, stretches less than paracord, strong enough for most of my uses, and easy to edc over 10 yards.

Oh I am using a versatackle right now to stiffen up a Ikea Expedit shelf by using the cord as a huge clamp. Old shelf got a bit loose and a versatackle around keeps it tighter together.

I have used the same cordage to lower a table top onto/ into a table frame, Ikea Jerker 2.

I am using 2mm polypropylene in versatackle configuration to hold a hard disk into a USB to IDE card / external housing.

[TMCD]

Try the Bell Ringer using the Constrictor and ABOK 1244, it works well in each but can be a pain to untie I'm sure. What happens is that both of these knots collapse or distort but won't slip or give out from my experiences. The same with my method, a really tight Clove Hitch is a great way to tie the TH, you're just not skilled enough as a knot master to be able to know how to efficiently tie a tight Clove Hitch using the Bell Ringer, it's not hard.

I don't know what if anything I can take away from your video's at this point because TH are simply not pulled apart by a pulley system as the driver is driving down the road. The only Bell Ringer I wouldn't use is ABOK 172, that one scares me. On top of that, we've got over 100 years of Bell Ringer experience in the form of truck drivers, farmers and construction people using it with absolutely no problems...and guess what, they were using ABOK 172 with hairy rope...

Your tests are much appreciated though, although I hope you're not coming here to dismiss the Bell Ringer varities as useless or harmful, not gonna fly with most here. In somewhat slippery cordage as it appears you are testing with, it's actually a testament to those various Bellringer's security that they did as well as they did. To really gain any perspective from those tests and the various securities of each, you would need to test in various ropes, not just small, slick cordage.

[diff_lock]

So using a bell ringer or #173 the rope would break before the knot capsizes? Only in cases of small slick cordage do these knots capsize before the rope breaks?

[TMCD]

So using a bell ringer or #173 the rope would break before the knot capsizes? Only in cases of small slick cordage do these knots capsize before the rope breaks?

Oh no, I'm not saying that at all, far from it. I'm sure ABOK 173 would eventually slip in almost any rope given enough pull from your pulley system. How much pull are you actually putting on these various tests knots before they slip? Have you recorded the results, documenting which one holds best etc.? What's the cord you're using rated, 80lb breaking strength? It takes a whole lot to break a rope and generally takes much, much more than the rated breaking strength shown on the package.

These knots will hold up much better in rope that's not as slick. They should also hold up better in rope that's more rigid. Tying the BellRinger using the Constrictor or ABOK 1244 would be interesting to see the results, I used to tie my TH this way but it's very fiddly.

[Keystoner]

Andy, it's been more than a week; if you've lost interest, I understand...

>> So I understand, do you only endorse the structure, or both the structure and the motion?

>> For the motion, to product (sic) that structure, my impression is that...

This gives me great insight into your mindset Andy.  From the beginning, where you've been overly focused on the motion to the exclusion of the structure, I've been focused on the structure.

>> 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?

Because of the way the ropes crossed jumped out at me!  I can spot that Bowline nip no matter how it's formed.

For now, if you don't mind, I'd like to focus on the structure.  I will be happy to address your fallacious wasted motion theory once we get on the same page with regard to the structure.  Ok?

I've drawn four figures (see below, and don't laugh!) as follows:

Figure 1:  This is Lee's loop/nip as achieved after one counterclockwise turn with his right hand.  The loop is as it appears in picture Lee #1 that Andy has reproduced several times.  Please pay particular attention to the way the lines cross.  Notice the label "Down Rope" is as Andy has previously defined.  Reproduce this exactly and then rotate the loop 90 degrees in the clockwise direction about the plane of the loop.  The result is Figure 2.

Figure 2:  Flip the loop about the axis of the line 180 degrees away from you (clockwise with your right hand).  The result is Figure 3.

Figure 3:  Pay particular attention to the relationship of the crossing lines.

Figure 4:  This is Andy #1 that Andy has reproduced several times.  Pay particular attention to the relationship of the crossing lines.

Is it now clear that Lee's loop and Andy's loop are EXACTLY the same?  They are not merely "like" each other.

They are not the same..

...with a different orientation.
...by symmetry.
...due to a reflected image.
...due to opposite hand.
...because "a loop is a loop is a loop."

They are EXACTLY the same.

>> [From Reply #245]:  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.

Is it clear why one might think they are different since in Andy #1, the "down rope" appears to cross behind and in Lee #1 it appears to cross in front, and that this is simply due to a different vantage point of the exact same loop?

[Andy]

Flip the loop about the axis of the line 180 degrees away from you

If you have to flip it 180 degrees to get something that is "exactly the same", then it is not exactly the same.
End of discussion.

I will be happy to address your fallacious wasted motion theory

I assume this refers to this:

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".

on this post, made even clearer for you by my video on this post.

If your hero's multi-second fumbling multi-twist to produce a single twist is not wasted motion compared my split-second super-simple single-twist on my video, then I have only one answer for you: Fallacious yourself.
Also end of discussion.

[Keystoner]

Again, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

If your hero's multi-second fumbling multi-twist to produce a single twist is not wasted motion...

End of discussion.

I'm thankful we can conclude on something with which we agree. 

Knot4u, I will grant your request to start a new thread with respect to our discussion.  I will give you all the credit you deserve.  I'd still like for you and others to evaluate my argument so you can see why I thought what I thought.  I have some sketches but it might take another week before I can get them scanned and uploaded.

[TMCD]

For those of you who have bashed, written off or kicked the ole Bell Ringer, I've found another little charmer that all starts off with the BellRinger. Try tying ABOK 1150 as the midline knot in the Trucker's Hitch and it seems to be rock solid with little problems of jamming....good looking and promising knot. Would work well in almost all situations IMO, it's tied just a little differently than ABOK 1074...proper name is the Bowline Shortening.

[Benboncan]

For those of you who have bashed, written off or kicked the ole Bell Ringer, I've found another little charmer that all starts off with the BellRinger. Try tying ABOK 1150 as the midline knot in the Trucker's Hitch and it seems to be rock solid with little problems of jamming....good looking and promising knot. Would work well in almost all situations IMO, it's tied just a little differently than ABOK 1074...proper name is the Bowline Shortening.

Any chance of an image for those of us without ABOK?

[TMCD]

The only real difference between ABOK 1074 and this knot is the way the final dressing appears. In 1074 you tuck the final dressing in front of the knotted structure but in 1150 you tuck the final dressing behind the knotted structure. It's a small difference and I'm not sure  how much of an impact it has but Ashley says it's relatively jam proof, so there's the difference in my eyes. It looks to be rock solid and would be an excellent choice for the trucker's hitch IMO but many of these knots are as long as we're not pushing them to the extremes, which of course you're not suppossed to do with rope anyway.

[TMCD]

If you've got the book Knot4U, then it's the last step in the knotting process of each knot that's different. You've got to open the book to each page and glance at the knots all at the same time to even notice the difference in the final dressings. Again, the knots are ABOK 1074 & ABOK 1150, with both appearing to be excellent choices but I thought you guys had shot down 1074 so 1150 looks like the best bet.

[Keystoner]

I'm with Benboncan. Would somebody provide the images for ABOK #1150 & #1074 please?

[diff_lock]

In for diagrams.

[Dan_Lehman]

I'm with Benboncan. Would somebody provide the images for ABOK #1150 & #1074 please?

verbal images :

tied like the common bowline #1010,
but using a bight vice single-strand working end,
hence getting (if desired for use) two eyes --the
normal one, and this tail bight;

in #1150, Ashley indicates that the tail bight is
tucked through the central nipping loop so that
it is crosses itself slightly and is against the
crossing-part of the nipping loop (i.e., where the
SPart has come full circle to complete the loop);
This is the position that the draw of the SPart upon
loading would tend to pull this tail bight.

Whereas in #1074, although with less indiction in
his tying image, he shows the finished knot with
the tail bight crossing itself on the away-from-this-spot
point (so its first pass "through the hole" is what is
against the SPart's crossing point).  (One might put
a bowline's tail here in anticipation of loading's draw
moving it around, and then under load it would come
to be where many illustrations show it : centered
between the eye legs (and not pulled up & across
the tail-side eye leg --which is the direction one takes
it, e.g., when making the infamous "Yosemite bowline",
so beloved by Agent_Smith.

Now, aside from where the tail-bight as a hole is
taken, there is also the aspect of which side of this
tail-bight has the actual tail and which is the parallel
side --in loading it (the tail, i.e., partly) as part of the
trucker's hitch this aspect might play more of a role
in determining how "jamming" it is.  (Frankly, I was
quite surprised and skeptical to read Knot4U's remark
about this "jamming up" on him!?  It's a bowline,
so it shouldn't jam (esp. in working loads!).


--dl*
====