Knots tied in bight

[Korg]

I'm not entirely sure what you guys are arguing about but, for the remainder of the thread, I want to make a definition.  You might choose to take this definition into your working vocab.  In any case, this should make the rest of the thread a little clearer:

I'm making a distinction between the phrases "in the bight" and "with the bight".  To illustrate:

"In the bight" means folding the rope into a shape that can immediately be placed over a post.  An example is the constrictor hitch tied IN the bight.
"with the bight" means tying a hitch with a doubled rope, in the same manner that would be tied with a single working end.  An example is the timber hitch that Hrungnir posted. The diagram indicates that it is "in the bight" but this thread will call that way of working "with the bight".  So that's the clarification.  

Whether you agree with this terminology is moot.  It will be the convention for this thread, and if you want to use it elsewhere, so be it.

So let's move on using these definitions, and stop bickering over a very easily solved misunderstanding.

So what I was looking for is hitches tied in the bight.

[roo]

So what I was looking for is hitched tied in the bight.  You have no access to the ends and you need to hitch the rope. 

http://notableknotindex.webs.com/pilehitch.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/tumblehitch.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/timberhitch.html  (Tumbling Timber Hitch, per your exclusion)
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/haltersiberian.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/clovehitch.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/catspaw.html
http://notableknotindex.webs.com/bullhitch.html

That should keep you busy for a while.   

[knot4u]

I'm not entirely sure what you guys are arguing about but, for the remainder of the thread, I want to make a definition.  You might choose to take this definition into your working vocab.  In any case, this should make the rest of the thread a little clearer:

I'm making a distinction between the phrases "in the bight" and "with the bight".  To illustrate:

"In the bight" means folding the rope into a shape that can immediately be placed over a post.  An example is the constrictor hitch tied IN the bight.
"with the bight" means tying a hitch with a doubled rope, in the same manner that would be tied with a single working end.  An example is the timber hitch that Hrungnir posted.  the diagram indicates that it is "in the bight" but this thread will call that way of working "with the bight".  So that's the clarification.  

Whether you agree with this terminology is moot.  It will be the convention for this thread, and if you want to use it elsewhere, so be it.

So let's move on using these definitions, and stop bickering over a very easily solved misunderstanding.

So what I was looking for is hitched tied in the bight.  You have no access to the ends and you need to hitch the rope.  

That was clear to me from the beginning, but your last sentence there is unnecessary and makes everything confusing again.  Both "in the bight" and "with the bight" refer to having no access to the ends.  I recommend you delete that last sentence.   I also recommend you edit your original post to keep people on track from the beginning.

Every knot can be tied "with the bight".  NOT every knot can be tied "in the bight".

[Korg]

I recommend you delete that last sentence.   I also recommend you edit your original post to keep people on track from the beginning.

Agreed.  And done.

[Hrungnir]

Oh Lord, you're making this thread way more complicated because you're confused.  The Ashley numbers are absolutely necessary for communicating with precision.  I provided the Ashley numbers.  I then said clearly that you can tie that particular Ashley number by using a bight without having access to the end.  When I provide the Ashley number, I'm not talking about a variation.  I'm talking about the exact same knot you see in the Ashley figure.

If you are talking about the exackt same knot I see in the Ashley figure, you are looking at a completely wrong structure and tying method. I explained what I meant, and that should be enough.

One more time, a Timber Hitch (ABOK #1665) cannot be tied without having access to the working end.  I'm talking about the knot shown in the Ashley diagram.  I'm NOT talking about a "Timber Hitch on a Bight" shown in the second pic of Roo's page.

I don't talk about the #1665. I explained what I meant in my very first post. The #1665 is completely irrelevant and introduced by you.

As I explained above, that is a different knot.  I am talking about this exact knot as you see it here:



You can tie a Slipped Buntline without having access to the working end.  The practical purpose is if you have a long rope and don't have access to the working end, or if you want to untie the knot from a distance.  It's important to note that you do need access to the object end if you're tying a Slipped Buntline by using a bight.  Again, a Slipped Buntline is NOT the same as a "Buntline on a Bight".

This is the buntline I assumed you was talking about, but I didn't think "having access to the object end" was how you wanted to tie the knot. If you don't have access to the object end, the Buntline on the picture will produce extra round turns around the standing part and might confuse the knot tier.

[knot4u]

As I explained above, that is a different knot.  I am talking about this exact knot as you see it here:



You can tie a Slipped Buntline without having access to the working end.  The practical purpose is if you have a long rope and don't have access to the working end, or if you want to untie the knot from a distance.  It's important to note that you do need access to the object end if you're tying a Slipped Buntline by using a bight.  Again, a Slipped Buntline is NOT the same as a "Buntline on a Bight".

This is the buntline I assumed you was talking about, but I didn't think "having access to the object end" was how you wanted to tie the knot. If you don't have access to the object end, the Buntline on the picture will produce extra round turns around the standing part and might confuse the knot tier.

What's your point?  You have the same problem with a Constrictor, a Butterfly, a Pile Hitch, a Double Dragon, and many other knots when they are tied "in the bight".  You need access to the object end.

Anyway, Korg recently clarified the terms of this thread above.  Let's all play along.  The "Timber Hitch with the Bight" shown on Roo's website, and other such knots, are not part of the discussion here.

[Hrungnir]

What's your point?  You have the same problem with a Constrictor, a Butterfly, a Pile Hitch, a Double Dragon, and many other knots when they are tied "in the bight".  You need access to the object end.

I did not criticize your Slipped Buntline. I just made it clear that it wasn't obvious that you meant tying the buntline with access to the object end.

However, if you want me to criticize your Slipped Buntline, there are other hitches which are simpler to tie on the bight when you have access to the end of the object

Anyway, Korg recently clarified the terms of this thread above.  Let's all play along.  The "Timber Hitch with the Bight" shown on Roo's website, and other such knots, are not part of the discussion here.

And why isn't the "Timber Hitch with the Bight" relevant? What kind of practical problem doesn't the "Timber Hitch with the Bight"  solve, which the other knots solve? Why is an Eskimo Hitch a so much better and relevant than "Two Half Hitches using a bight"? I believe the original poster got rather confused because of the argument, than "Timber Hitch with the Bight" not solving his practical problem.

He mentioned the Clove Hitch and Constrictor in his very first post. Is this because he wants to load both ends of the rope? If this is true, several of the mentioned knots won't fit his needs.

[knot4u]

And why isn't the "Timber Hitch with the Bight" relevant?

Take it up with the original poster.  He defined the terms.  You might want to re-read his original post and his most recent posts.  Basically, he's eliminating the idea of tying a knot as if a bight is a single strand of rope.  There would be no point to this thread if that was an option here.