The "Modified-Munter" nipping-loop grip-hitch

[Knicknack]

Reading Dan Lehman's comment in another thread--concerning the grip-hitch principle whereby tension parallel to the object rope is redirected into a perpendicular nipping grip around the object rope--reminded me of this hitch that I came up with and put aside some time ago.  I remember initially thinking it looked promising, but as I recall, I sidelined it for four reasons: 1) It was more fiddly to tighten and dress into the right shape than I wanted, 2) it didn't release and slide as easily as I wanted, 3) I had some nervousness about whether the tending loop (pink in the illustration) was going to hold, and 4) on one occasion the hitch slipped when I felt it should have held.  I had intended to look into it some more at some point to see if any of those were fixable problems, but then I just plain forgot about it--until Dan's comment reminded me.

So now, looking at it again, problem 1 doesn't seem to be as bad as I remembered it.  2 isn't bad on some ropes, but it's still an issue on others.  However, pushing a bit of the tail of the nipping loop (orange) into the tending loop (pink) to loosen it up does seem to make it easier to slide. Still not sure whether 3 could be a problem. And 4 might not be as serious as I thought.  I'm pretty sure I knew back then that the grip strength of this hitch is reduced if the tending loop (pink) is wrapped the wrong way around the attaching rope (orange), and if the tending loop is left too loose to form a proper nipping loop.  The illustration is left loose for clarity, but I think the tending loop should be pulled up against the hitch prior to loading.  (It will pull out to its working length when loaded.)  But experimenting now, it looks like another important factor is to not let the tending loop legs fully cross before they pass between the object rope (purple) and the anchor loop (green).  The tail of the tending loop needs to be in the pocket of the anchor loop. If it is out of position in the wrong pocket (i.e. where orange, green, and purple come together), that seems to significantly increase the risk of slippage. I didn't take the time to examine what the problem was back when I shelved this hitch, but in trying to reproduce the problem now, this is all I've been able to find. Slippage could also be a problem on slick ropes, but I don't have any slick ropes to test that.  (I did, however, try it out on a steel rod, about the same diameter as the rope.  On the smooth-chrome end of the rod, it could not generate enough grip-friction to hold against the pull parallel to the rod, but on the surface-rust end of the rod, it held firm.)

So, this might be an iffy hitch that still has some lurking occasional problem I haven't been able to reproduce yet, or it might be a usable grip hitch that I sidelined for not-very-good reasons.  But even if it is usable, it still might be eclipsed by other hitches that can do the same things as well or better.  As with the previous nipping-loop hitch, I expect this would be a poor descender hitch due to rapid heating (due to small surface area).

If this hitch already has a common name, I don't know what it is.  If anyone does, feel free to post it.  I'm just calling it a Modified-Munter here because that seemed like an obvious possibility.  I just made up the names tending loop and anchor loop, so if there are more standard names for those, feel free to post those also.

[Kost_Greg]

Good day knicknack

I believe there's a lot very good stuff going on in your knotting presented here, so i shall try to provide a quite interesting aspect that you haven't probably thought or investigated yet.

If this hitch already has a common name, I don't know what it is.  If anyone does, feel free to post it.  I'm just calling it a Modified-Munter here because that seemed like an obvious possibility.

Guided by the above quote, i assume i have your permission to continue posting in your thread, as i'm quite familiar with your returning, TIB, binder, that you tie on the standing part of the rope.

As a matter of fact, it was in my plans to start a thread some time, as i had been interacting with Xarax, about this concept, a couple of years back in time.

Anyway, try to isolate your returning structure by pushing the SP, out of the two wrap nipping channel. If you compare it with the first image, so called "trefoil" TIB structure, you'll find they are the same.

Close the two wraps like a book (the opposite way is not possible) and insert a spar/pole through them, instead of the SP that you did in the first place.

Since i'm no hitch expert, i'm curious about your evaluation  about this two wrap, TIB hitch, which i'm not sure if it has been recorded before.

The way Xarax tells me, it's not as tight as he would have expected and it features some resemblance with the Andalusian hitch. It goes without saying that, anyone, hitch expert or not, would feel free to weigh in.

Now, a very interesting aspect, is to create a loopknot out of this very trefoil structure, by simply feeding the working end  through all the loops of the trefoil, in particular, up through the right one (main nipping loop), down through the left one (secondary nipping loop), and finally up through the last one (the collar, which is part of the nipping structure), exiting side by side with SP.

Very easily adjustable, it takes the form of a fixed loop when loaded and it comes with a very interesting, TIB tying method.

[Knicknack]

i assume i have your permission to continue posting in your thread

I'm not an owner, administrator, or moderator here, so forum posting permissions are not mine to give. If your privileges haven't been restricted, you have at least as much right to post here as I do.

i'm quite familiar with your returning, TIB, binder, that you tie on the standing part of the rope.

Are you talking about the Munter? (orange and green in the image)  I'm pretty sure it doesn't count as TIB if you put an end through.

If you compare it with the first image, so called "trefoil" TIB structure, you'll find they are the same

Okay, so what  you mean is that the Munter would be TIB if there were no object rope?  (or standing part, if they are part of the same rope)  Does that count?

Since i'm no hitch expert, i'm curious about your evaluation about this two wrap, TIB hitch

I use hitches, and I occasionally devise some, but that hardly qualifies me as an expert.

Now, a very interesting aspect, is to create a loopknot out of this very trefoil structure, by simply feeding the working end  through all the loops of the trefoil,..Very easily adjustable, it takes the form of a fixed loop when loaded and it comes with a very interesting, TIB tying method.

I tried to recreate the knot from your image (attached).  If I did that correctly, I'm not sure how it is supposed to be dressed down.  You mentioned very easily adjustable, so I tried maximizing for that, and the result was stable and easy to adjust, but not at all secure (lower left).  So I tried maximizing for security and stability, and it would be a stretch to call that one easily adjustable. (lower right)  I found other ways to dress it down, but those were mostly unstable snarls. So if there is a way of dressing it down that is stable, secure, and very easily adjustable, I didn't find that--which is kind of a problem. When there are several different ways to dress a knot, resulting in very different characteristics, that usually means it is easy to tie wrong.

This could be a hitch of significant theoretical interest, and I like theory (provided it's simple enough I can follow) but I'm also always looking for the practical advantage--i.e. what does a given knot do better than others of similar function? I've devised and discarded dozens of knots that had something interesting about them, because they had some deficiency, or because some other knot did everything they did as well or better.

But I also recognize sometimes a superior knot will be eclipsed by more famous knots.  I never use a Bowline, for example.  I use a different loop knot which has every advantage of the Bowline without the disadvantages.  This is another I devised on my own, but I was not the first.  I believe it was Xarax who identified it as one of a class of loop knots used on samisens going back to the Edo period.  Several of these are not so good, but the one I think is best (the one I call Samisen Prime) is excellent--and apparently, it has never caught on anywhere.  I devised a tying method which is fast and easy to remember (I have done it in the dark many times) but the connection to the Samisen Prime is not intuitively obvious, so I expect it won't ever catch on either.

In the case of your trefoil hitch, even if the correctly-dressed version has excellent performance characteristics, I suspect its complexity will doom it to obscurity. Even if it seems simple and obvious to you, I think it won't be for most people.  That's just how it goes when your mind can do something few others can.  Sometimes a gift can be a curse.

[Kost_Greg]

In the case of your trefoil hitch

The knot i depicted in my previous reply is not a hitch, it is an adjustable or fixed, loopknot/eyeknot.

The hitch was described, not illustrated, but i believe i gave clear instructions for its development.

I repeat, remove your SP out of your two wrap nub, and replace it with a pole.

The result is a hitch with two wraps/turns. The hitch requires an oblect for its formation. In your case, the object , is your SPart. As soon as i have an image, i shall make a new edit.

For example, think like you are comparing the buntline (yours), with the clove hitch (mine) [noose/hitch] respectively.

even if the correctly-dressed version has excellent performance characteristics, I suspect its complexity will doom it to obscurity. Even if it seems simple and obvious to you, I think it won't be for most people.  That's just how it goes when your mind can do something few others can.  Sometimes a gift can be a curse.

I assume, you also suspect that your original post, knot structure, will have the same fate too, because both knots, (yours and mine, this time i'm refering to my loopknot), are of exactly the same complexity, same lines, sames turns, amount of rope and everything, unless you have another definition about complexity that i'm not aware of.

I wouldn't be so hasty if i were you, time will tell if a knot will become established in the knot field.

Ιn my view, the primary goal of this forum is that we are able to interact and compare notes, exchanging ideas about smart, pre-existing or even new knotting mechanisms, with the intention of improving them, or making them more practical.

Who knows, something good might come up!!

Εdit 1
 

Are you talking about the Munter? (orange and green in the image)  I'm pretty sure it doesn't count as TIB if you put an end through.

Your returning structure, technically is not a munter structure. If you want to call your knot modified munter, that's fine, but the munter is up to the point just before you capture the returning eye leg. It then becomes the trefoil for me. Yes, if you isolate it, is tiable in the bight (see previous, first image attached).

Edit 2

tried to recreate the knot from your image (attached).  If I did that correctly, I'm not sure how it is supposed to be dressed down.  You mentioned very easily adjustable, so I tried maximizing for that, and the result was stable and easy to adjust, but not at all secure (lower left)

Conventionally, when a returning, almost straight line, interweaves a nipping structure, is characterised as adjustable.

In my case, this very line is being curved a bit more, forming almost two vertical angles, because it is tucked through the collar for the tibness, hence we can say that it operates on the margin of adjustability feauture, or that of a fixed loop.

More important, is the first contact with SP, where the line is forced to take the L shape. In other words, its movement is blocked in loading conditions.

I might had stopped the knot, with the two wrap insertion, the exact opposite of what you did in your original post, even with a slipped version for the tibness, but i think the knot is more complete in the way i have demonstrated it in the first place.

All these require the appropriate dressing, i displayed, which requires some extra attention, i'll give you that.

[mcjtom]

I never use a Bowline, for example.  I use a different loop knot which has every advantage of the Bowline without the disadvantages.  This is another I devised on my own, but I was not the first.  I believe it was Xarax who identified it as one of a class of loop knots used on samisens going back to the Edo period.  Several of these are not so good, but the one I think is best (the one I call Samisen Prime) is excellent--and apparently, it has never caught on anywhere.

I had too look up some Xarax past posts to find out what samisen loop might be.  This is really interesting and new to me (which gets to show how vast a resource this board is - I thought I read a lot of it).   

Is the loop that you like this one?: https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4883.0;attach=14809;image

After trying some loop constructs I more or less settled on Scott's locked bowline.  I like pretty much everything about it and it 'passed' my informal testing.

What would be the advantage of the samisen loop over BL (locked or otherwise)?

[Knicknack]

Is the loop that you like this one?

Yes, that's my favorite.  I did recently start another thread about the tie method I use, but maybe I should also have included an image of the finished knot.

After trying some loop constructs I more or less settled on Scott's locked bowline.

It's a sound knot.  The Yosemite too.  Or a bowline with a stopper knot.  But they seem like kludge fixes tacked on as an afterthought to address the inherent insecurity of the bowline.  The samisen prime integrates better security into the root design.

What would be the advantage of the samisen loop over BL (locked or otherwise)?

The simple bowline is passable if all it has to contend with is a static hanging load.  But when it is unloaded, it is vulnerable to shaking apart, and intermittent loads can make it creep apart, especially intermittent spreading loads within the loop.  The Scott's or Yosemite patch fixes that insecurity, but with my tie method, I can tie and dress the samisen prime considerably faster, it doesn't require nearly as much attention to make sure it is tied correctly, I can easily tie it just as fast and consistently by feel in low-light conditions, and untying it is way faster and easier, especially if the knot has slippery mud, dried mud, or ice.  And if you allow a little extra tail, it is also easier to increase the loop size with the samisen if needed.

[mcjtom]

Thanks.  I think I agree with all you said.  I'm still developing an opinion on Samisen Prime, but it's super interesting.

Two thoughts: despite the 'lock' being somewhat of an afterthought, one nice thing about Scott's locked BL is that it's a 'two-level' knot.  I tie regular BW when I think it suffices, and then lock it when I think more security is needed.  Not really an advantage, but a nice mental crutch.

And, although I'm not sure how that can be determined without testing and also may be quite naive, the two 180 deg u-turns of the tail that is also 'woven' in Scott's BL inspire confidence that it would not slip either under load or when shaken.  With Samisen Prime, the tail path is much simpler - while making it more easily adjustable, wouldn't that be a potential weakness?  For instance, would you use Samisen to tie into a climbing harness?

[mcjtom]

Also, I tried the Xarax Abracadabra maneuver (i.e. tucking the Samisen tail back through the collar, parallel to the S-Part) and to me that makes a pretty brilliant knot, addressing my previous security concerns, which also makes the tail go where I think it should - out of the loop, not in or on the side.  The TIB aspect is also there, but it's secondary as it is primarily the end loop.  Have you tried it?

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4883.msg31891#msg31891

[Knicknack]

I tried the Xarax Abracadabra maneuver...  Have you tried it?

I tried both that and doing an extra turn around the spine of the knot when I was first switching over to the Samisen Prime from my previous go-to loop knot, and I wasn't sure how well it would work for my applications.  I left enough slack in the extra turn that I could see whether it was ever needed, and the slack was never taken up, so I quit bothering with the extra turn-and-tuck.  If I needed more shake-apart security, I would be more likely to use a Samisen plus an extra tuck than I would a bowline with two extra tucks, but in my case, I would probably just go back to the knot I was using before I found the Samisen.  (attached)  I think this was the first usable knot I came up with on my own (so as usual, I don't know the common name).  It's a bit clunky to tie and tighten, but the concept is very simple, and functionally, I never had it slip, capsize, or jam on me.  The main reasons I switched to the Samisen was that it was quicker to tie, quicker to dress, quicker to untie, and it just seemed like a more elegant knot, but the brute-loop would probably be my security fallback--mostly because of my base of experience with it.

[JohnC]

I'm not saying much or contributing much these days - when I get my workload under control I may have some small insights to offer, but I'd just like to say that I'm still enjoying posts like this one and many others. The "Samisen Prime" looks very interesting and I will definitely be tying it until I've learned it, and experimenting with it.