Surrey Six Challenge

[xarax]

    Hi Derek,
   Allow me, please, to make some comments on your 6 choices above. ( You have been just and so kind to me in the past, ( I do not forget it ), and so I hope I can take that liberty, without receiving back much punishment!  
    Leaving aside semantics, nobody could possible deny that #1 and #2 are most basic elements of knots / knots. In those, you should add the riding turn ( that secures the tails that pass underneath and/or in between them in a friction hitch around a pole ), and the collar ( that secures the tails that pass around a rope segment, making a 180 degree turn - like in the bowline, for example ).
   I have recently noticed another most basic knot, that could well have been ABoK #0.5 ! It is the "Blackwall / Becket hitch on a (single or double) bight". I have seen that it can serve as a one-and-only-end release mechanism, where the one end of a rope that pass through a (single or double) bight can be pulled quite easily, while the other can not. A magnificent, most simple and basic one-end-blocking / one-end-releasing knot. ( See (1), and attached picture).
   Your #3 choice, is simply wrong!  
  I have never liked the Carrick bend, for many good reasons, but I have recently discovered another one, that is the final nail on its coffin! I have arrived at a Carrick-like bend that is, by far, better and more symmetric than the Carrick bend, as easy to tie, easier, by far, to inspect, in short, a Carrick extinguisher !  ( Adjectives are chosen deliberatly, for provocative-marketing purposes... ) (See (2), and attached picture) I have labelled it lR-uL bend (lower Right-upper Left), for the time being. Throw away the Carrick; put this beautiful, most symmetric and secure bend in its place !   Seriously, now, I can not understand why one should prefer the Carrick from the Zeppelin bend, which should be at your #3, ( alongside "my" "new" bend, if you wish to be too kind to me!)
   The Constrictor is the finest "tails secured under riding turns"  hitch we have, no question about it. (The Boa knot might be overkill, most of the times, I think). But there are is a whole "new" class of hitches, I call "tails secured into nipping loops and opposing bights - crossed or parallel U s". We can also secure the tails of a hitch around a pole, passing them through a nipping loop, (like in the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir"), or through two - crossed or parallel - opposing U s (like in the 2U hitch) (see (3), and attached picture). So, I think that, together with the Constrictor, we should place those two classes of hitches in our front row, in #4.
    Nothing could overstate the importance and beauty of #5, It is not only one knot, but a whole new way of looking into the field of knotting, that made possible, among other hitches and binders, the "simple hitch a la Gleipnir" and the 2U hitch.
   Your #6 is something analogous, I suppose, with the ABoK# 1755 around a rope (not around a pole !), SS369 s SS hitch (yet to be published), the recent modification of spong knot ((see (4)), and the "ww hitch" (see (5), and attached picture). I have tried all the known friction hitches around tensioned ropes, (and then some...  ), and I now believe this class of hitches that use crossing coils ("cross gathering" of coils) around the rope, is holding better, and with far less initial pull until they "lock", than the prussic knot, or any of the other similar climbing knots. I have tried the ww hitch with many or fewer coils, and with all the possible interlinked nipping loops as "lower ends" (see (6)), and I can say that we do not have a more secure hitch than this. I believe that, eventually, it will replace all the known climbing hitches.
   I have also a criticism to tell about an obvious omission. If I were an alarm clock next to the knot tiers beds, I would have been awaking them each morning, repeating "Do not forget the bowline, do not forget the bowline, do not forget the bowline..." This marvellous combination of a nipping loop and a collar should not leave its crown place in any pedagogical collection of knots, however small !
   Of course, I am in no position to teach you anything about knots ! I only express my humble opinion, based in far less a knowledge and experience in this field than yours, and most of other senior members of this forum. However, I think I can tell that I share with you a, not so common nowadays, common wish to reveal that, oftentimes, things are simpler than they look (but not simpler than they are!  )
   Take care

1) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3012.msg17895#msg17895
2) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3104.0
3) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3104.0
4) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3068.msg18348#msg18348
    http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3068.msg18353#msg18353
5) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2849.0
6) http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=2948.0

[knot4u]

Hi K4U,

I think that you are mixing up teaching people six knots with teaching people how to use them.

The knots need to be simple and memorable, and at the same time totally effective.  Then when the audience can tie these basic knots, only then can we start to show them how to use them.

Teach a class full of children how to make a round turn - then take the very biggest and the smallest and show how the smallest can easily hold the heaviest one aloft with one hand and can then lower them in total control - the look of realisation on their faces is priceless - rope and knots are powerful - suddenly they want to learn more.

The challenge is in part choosing the knots to teach, but the greatest challenge is choosing the examples that demonstrate the usefulness of cordage and knots.  Perhaps the next thread might be - ways to demonstrate the Surrey Six...

Derek

All due respect, I think you're incorrect.  The original post says we're directing six knots to the "average, disinterested customer".  I'm expecting no light to go on for that person.  They don't care.  They just want to get the job done.

If you're not going to show the many uses of the Round Turn and the Half Hitch, then I think those knots would not be good for this list.  Again, it's for the average, disinterested customer.  You're assuming the person is going to take your knots and explore and discover, like you have.  Nope, your customer is not interested.

I was reinforced about this idea of the "disinterested customer" this morning.  I was trying to teach my girlfriend a good binder so that she could secure our baby's stroller for checking on a plane.  It turns out that I lost her after about 20 seconds.  That was it.  She's decided to go with a jamming knot that she already knows (probably a Granny), and she said she's going to cut the rope later. 

[xarax]

   To knot4u :
   Do you think that your average disinterested customer can learn the Zeppelin bend through the pq/69 method ? Is it a knot too difficult for her to learn ?
   I am asking this because I think you are underestimating the abilities of a person to learn, IF she discovers the wonder, the miracle of a thing, and thus uses her heart along with her brain. When we use the sentimental sphere of a student as well as her intellectual skills, the abilities to learn, and memorize a thing, are multiplied. Knots are simple things, a little more complex than basic arithmetic. When a student does not learn a thing, that does not means she can not, it simply means that she wish not to. The blame is on the teacher, not the student, the teacher that fails to unveil the wonderful, beautiful properties of nature, to motivate the inherent, natural admiration of every human being towards it. Move the heart as well as the brain ! Teach her the beautiful rope-made hinge, the Zeppelin bend.
   P.S If you fail, (which is most probable, because women s heart and brain are often jammed...), start again, with the knot4u junior this time!

[knot4u]

Well, again, this thread is not about students of knots.  We established that in the other thread referenced in the original post.  This thread is about a disinterested "customer" who only wants to get the job done.  It's a huge difference, and perhaps the original post should have been spelled out more clearly.

I know it's hard for many of us to believe, but many (or most) people simply do not see the wonderfulness of knots, even after you show them.  They want to use one of your knots as a means to an end.  I'd go even further and say they don't even want to use your knots.  It's more like they're willing to do the "chore" of tying a knot so that they can get their job done and move on with their lives.  Now, the question is, what six knots do give to that person to get most of their jobs done?

[xarax]

   Oh, I really do not know, may be because I am a customer of few things, and a seller of none. I simply want "my job" done, which is the next best thing to natural immortality, understanding nature...and that wonderfull little corner of nature, knots.
   

[DerekSmith]

I have to concede to the both of you, not in the choice of knots, but in the realisation of the overarching importance of one word

     DISINTERESTED

By side-lining the word, I have started in completely the wrong place - it is not the choice of the six knots, nor even the choice of examples that is key here - the real challenge is to break through that barrier of  DISINTEREST.  Only then will a choice of knots and usage take on any relevance.

I have to classify my good lady as a Knot Luddite - while she is quite happy to sport a decorative cordage Dragonfly laced over her PC monitor, the things she does to my spare cordage when she 'tidies it up' would make any lover of knots cringe in visceral pain at the monstrosities she creates in the process of converting my cordage into a 'tidy' tangled lump...  but occasionally, even she enjoys  the use of cordage.

A few weeks back we went out for a meal with two lady friends, one of whom had invited along her daughter and her ten year old grandson Tom - Four women, me and Tom...

The wine and the conversation soon started to flow and I could see young Tom's eyes glaze over as his mind escaped to places of far greater interest.  So I pulled out two pieces of (freshly washed, in order to mitigate the deadly 'put that dirty thing away' stare) twiddling cordage.  I showed him how to join the ends using the Carrick by the ultra simple 'Wrap, Loop, Poke' method, showing him how strong it was and yet how easy it was to untie, making it repeatedly so he developed a little muscle memory of the method.  He had a nice long loop, which was about his hands as he tugged at it for tension - up until then the ladies had expressed nothing other than polite indifference, when suddenly decades old childhood memories came flooding back - hands plunged in, and the most wonderfully complex 'Cats Cradles' started to be pulled out of his loop of cord.

For a full twenty minutes excited schoolgirl voices chittered around the table with "Ooh, I remember that one..." and "Did you ever do this one...".  Tom joined in, eager to learn the complexities of these clever manoeuvres, and I sat back enjoying the spectacle of four grown women enjoying playing with a piece of string...  Twenty minutes of 'Fish', 'Diamonds', 'Field', 'Candles', 'the Manger', 'Knitting Needle's, and 'the Scorpion' - how many thousands of times must they have made those moves to have embedded them so solidly for so many years?

But then the memories ran dry, conversation went back to gossip and Tom and I had our string returned to us. 

Now Tom, although only ten, wanted a Jack Russell puppy, a goal that mum was resisting most firmly.  So I showed Tom how to turn his string into a strong lead and how to safely fix it to the collar loop (when he eventually got his puppy).  Tom made and remade his dog lead over and over, and at the end of the evening his mum asked him why he was walking around holding a knotted piece of string - his answer - "I'm practising taking my puppy for a walk".  Apparently Tom kept this up for two weeks  - taking his string for a walk - until mum relented and Tom and his new best friend can be seen nights curled up in bed together.  The string lead?  Well, naturally, that got replaced by a nice 'propper' (i.e. store bought) lead.

The moral of this story?

If you are going to teach someone how to tie knots, of what one thing must you first be certain ?
Answer -- You must make sure that your string is the right colour...  (OK, I am a sucker for Norfolk irony ؟  ) 

(just another way of stating that you always need to be sure to start from the right place...)

Derek

[DerekSmith]

What's a KC Hitch? If I recall that was some invention revealed on this site, right? You gotta post a link to that, or else you're in your own cave, buddy!

Hi K4u,

It is a pretty small cave, but I think we are all in here together - address
IGKT,
Forum,
General,
Practical Knots...

You can find the KC Hitch posts through the search facility, but here is the very simple KC Sling Hitch


the thread

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=551.0

and the original post;

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=542.0

Derek

[DerekSmith]

   Hi Derek,
SNIP...

   Your #3 choice, is simply wrong!  
  I have never liked the Carrick bend, for many good reasons, but I have recently discovered another one, that is the final nail on its coffin! I have arrived at a Carrick-like bend that is, by far, better and more symmetric than the Carrick bend, as easy to tie, easier, by far, to inspect, in short, a Carrick extinguisher !  ( Adjectives are chosen deliberatly, for provocative-marketing purposes... ) (See (2), and attached picture) I have labelled it lR-uL bend (lower Right-upper Left), for the time being. Throw away the Carrick; put this beautiful, most symmetric and secure bend in its place !   Seriously, now, I can not understand why one should prefer the Carrick from the Zeppelin bend, which should be at your #3, ( alongside "my" "new" bend, if you wish to be too kind to me!)
 
SNIP...

Hi Xarax,

I hope you are in a 'good place'.  You might know that I respect your opinion as being just as valid as my own, so I would not attack you for holding a view at odds with my own.

I would though, like to explore your comments on my choice of the third knot - the Carrick.

As I explained, prior to finding a simple tying method, I would never have proposed the Carrick for a list such as this.  Indeed, the only reason I ever made the Carrick was to be able to study its form and function, never as a working knot.  Indeed, no matter how 'perfect' a knot might be in performance, if a tying method has not been developed that is easy and memorable, then it is never going to catch on.  Personally, I really like the little Vice Versa bend, but I have never found a memorable way ting it (I even find it hard to remember its name...) so I almost never use it.

This is possibly why the Reef  and the Bowline are so widespread, despite them being very flawed in function - they are just so easy to tie and remember.

This brings me around to your 'new' knot.  It does not look easy to tie, but you claim that it is.  So, can you please post your tying method here so we can judge its ease and memorability against the Carrick by the 'Fold, pull, poke' method.

Also, would you mind expanding on the 'many good reasons' that you have against the Carrick, because I am finding it hard to find any.

Derek

[TMCD]

It's hard for me to add to the conversation in this thread but I'll give it a go concerning the bend choice. If we're looking for an easy to tie, easy to untie and easy to remember bend, then it's got to be the Alpine Butterfly Bend. It's been tested and grades out just as strong as Ashley's Bend from what I understand. It's almost impossible to screw up once you learn the movements....and they're simple movements. I would have to put the Alpine Butterfly Bend on the list because of it's simplicity and pure strength. If I'm working with a SheetBend, I always tie the Double Sheet Bend or the Tucked Sheet Bend because I have little trust in the common Sheet Bend.

Regarding the Bowline, it's the King of knots, I don't understand how some say it's inefficient and so forth. If you're worried about it slipping, either leave plenty of working end or tie an OH with the working end. The Bowline has to be on the list, it's a time tested knot according to most experts.

[Transminator]

Indeed, no matter how 'perfect' a knot might be in performance, if a tying method has not been developed that is easy and memorable, then it is never going to catch on.
This is possibly why the Reef  and the Bowline are so widespread, despite them being very flawed in function - they are just so easy to tie and remember.

Hi Derek
I agree that the tying method is a very important factor. That is also one reason for the knots I chose for my list. I put a lot of thought in it. I find the zeppelin bend and loop easy to tie, as I use the same method (based on the 69 principle). Well, the bowline is simpler, but only slightly so and has shortcomings, but I would not go as far as calling it "flawed". I still believe it earned its title of "king of knots", because there are not many knots that combine simplicity, security, ease of untying in the way the bowline does. In fact, as I wrote before, whenever I need a fixed loop and it is not for critical use (which is almost always), I use a bowline, for those reasons and I would probably be OK even for critical use, at least when using a good old hemp rope, but why gamble? The only reason why I did not put it on my list is that adding a securer version (double knotted or yosemite) would mean two slots of the precious 6, so I chose a knot that does not need backup.

The Carrick 'Fold, pull, poke' method.

Now you got me curious. What is this mysterious method? Do you have a diagram or video that shows it? I am highly interested as I do have several methods to tie it, but none strike me as very simple (i.e. as simple as a bowline or at least as a zeppelin)

Regarding your other points:
Again, I agree with you that teaching knots is all about teaching principles, making it exciting, creating interest and such, but as knot4u pointed out, this thread is meant to give a "customer" his 6 tools to work with. All he wants is a small, universal toolbox that gets him through life without ever learning another knot and he runs away if you try to show him that he would be better off learning some basic principles and basic knots, because he would be able to solve his own knotting problems.
We know that once you learned the basics, you discover that many other knots are merely extensions, variations or combinations of those, but our customer does not but the crux is: he does not want to know. For him, ignorance is bliss.

If we're looking for an easy to tie, easy to untie and easy to remember bend, then it's got to be the Alpine Butterfly Bend. It's been tested and grades out just as strong as Ashley's Bend from what I understand. It's almost impossible to screw up once you learn the movements....and they're simple movements. I would have to put the Alpine Butterfly Bend on the list because of it's simplicity and pure strength. If I'm working with a SheetBend, I always tie the Double Sheet Bend or the Tucked Sheet Bend because I have little trust in the common Sheet Bend.

I also was in two minds about the butterfly bend or the zeppelin bend when I nominated my 6 knots. In my opinion they are equal regarding strenght, security and simplicity of tying and untying. The butterfly is slightly faster to tie, which is why I use it at least as often as the zeppelin, probably more often. The Zeppelin bend made it on to the list because I already have the zeppelin loop on it and I would teach our "customer" the same tying method for both. That is the only reason.

[knot4u]

It's interesting that when it came down to it, nobody yet has listed the Buntline.  In that other thread, at least one person criticized the Surrey Six and other similar lists for not having the Buntline.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3075.0

I guess things are different when you have to come up with the six knots yourself.

[DerekSmith]

The Carrick 'Fold, pull, poke' method.

Now you got me curious. What is this mysterious method? Do you have a diagram or video that shows it? I am highly interested as I do have several methods to tie it, but none strike me as very simple (i.e. as simple as a bowline or at least as a zeppelin)

I think we might have a problem.

I just did a search for Willeke and Chinese Button Knot - after all, why repeat something when it has already been done.

But - either the search function is faulty, or a great raft of posts has been eliminated.  Is this the consequence of the threatened 'tidy up'?  I do hope not, because some valuable material will have been lost if that is the case.

Can either the Webmistress or Webadmin cast some light on this please.

Derek

[xarax]

It's interesting that when it came down to it, nobody yet has listed the Buntline.

   The Buntline is a fine simple hitch, I agree. I would characterize it more as a noose, because it does not accumulate any gripping power offered to it by an initial pull of the standing end and/or the tail.  
   However, it has two problems: The first problem is that it has two dressings, that end up with two secure, but completely dissimilar (looking) knots ( following the same path through the knot s nub, at the final tuck we can pass the working end over or under the standing end ). The second problem can be named as the "Buntline extinguisher"  , and it is shown in the attached picture. I mean, if you go all that way until the Buntline s final tuck, why do you pass the working end the one way you do it, and not the other one ?
   The Buntline is only one of the 16, or so, different combinations of hitches/nooses based upon the figure 8 form. My 2 pence opinion is that the "Buntline extinguisher"   is the best of all. If I were to include a simple hitch / noose into the 6, this is the one I would choose.

[xarax]

 As I make my Clove, Constrictor, Double Constrictor and Boa, all by the same method, they are to me all the 'same' knot, just with different degrees of grip and security, much as round turns are round turns, the only difference is 'how many round turns'.  

    In comparison to the Boa knot, what do you thing about the related ABoK#1687 ?

[SS369]

Hello Derek,

in regards to the searching for Willeke  there comes 12 pages with her name found, so I can't say what challenge you've got going on there. And a large amount of discussion concerning the Carrick family.

Scott