Italian fire department tutorial:a knot to tow vehicles

[Dan_Lehman]

It is a knot that draws up well,
but is easily untied
.
.
.
To avoid that the knot draws up too hard,
making untying more difficult, before the knot draws up,
a conical piece of wood is inserted into the knot,
which in the phase of untying is expelled with a hammer

Thanks!
"expelled with a hammer" is an expression to mull over!

This sort of double-speak can be found regarding the
bowline, where in one place it's defined as a knot
that cannot jam, and then some variation of it (such
as the water bowline) is presented as less likely to jam
(less than 0% chance!).  I have seen enough of capsized
bowlines to wonder at the first claim, despite also having
no jamming experience myself, and reading of break tests
where an unbroken bowline (where knots were at both
ends of a test specimen) could be easily untied.  "YMMV"
In the case of mooring lines of the fishing trawlers in
Cape May, I think that this OP's eyeknot would resist
the capsizing --but acknowledge that I don't understand
how that came to be.

But do note that the version of this knot that I favor is
shown in finished (or nearly so) form by the image in
my post --NOT drawn up (much) further : no, leave it
so that the bowlinesque central nipping loop is just
that, and not drawn into a crossing-knot / Munter=
hitch form.  And, as such, it isn't a great knot for
tying and forgetting, unless perhaps one seizes the
tail somehow; but I take "towing a vehicle" to be
an operation that will see the knot put in at the time,
loaded under observation, and untied afterwards.

The document though still begs the obvious question
as to why this and not some of even its own other
presented knots --the various bowlines, some with
half-hitch workings in a long eye, and multiple turns
around the connected-to object!?


--dl*
====

[Luca]

Hello Dan_Lehman,

the loading of an eyeknot differs from that of an end-2-end
knot (end-A1 vs. end-A2+end-B1 || end-A1 vs. end-B1);
the behavior will also differ.

First of all I want to thank you for your direct answer to this question.

And however...at the end the knot is good for the purpose!
In my person i thought,slipping the knot by pulling on the favorable part of the loop,
this  behavior was sufficient to refuse his use ,but in facts,by pulling on"the end"of the loop,
as occurs during the towing,I can't slip the knot.
And however a part of my mind said to me it was strange that a fire department proposed a  knot which seemed to me weak in his tutorial.
Perhaps from here the main of my curiosity.
"All is well that ends well",as we say in Italy,and i'm glad that italian fire department in facts proposes a good knot.
At the end(if anyone of you still wants to spend a little of his time for me,and thank you for the time you have already spent)
still remain in my mind a couple of questions:

it should be
tied with the reeving of the tail left rather loose

but I take "towing a vehicle" to be
an operation that will see the knot put in at the time,
loaded under observation, and untied afterwards.

Your words address  me to believe that this knot requires some cares,which is secured by someone who knows what he does(like a fireman).
It's really so?
And,in any case,this knot is suitable for average people?
Proceeding with my second question:


https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjoGxZD_HZQinECP1ho62mESDUlSFaoSfcSOZp17CKFA30-IgWT4F_uBb6EMHudWWafSvwySIpZfsJNXybWS_SBTn7QXNsjqtiN9CccXNI1wYYw0rSybXrmdQH67oAKfsVOfjj0&q=cache%3A3mUZ-3n-CBYJ%3Awww.vvfnapoli.it%2Fdocument%2FDISPENSE%2FDispensa%2520Funi%2520Nodi.pdf%20nodo%20da%20traino&docid=4a56d20a658372e1354165f23467f897&a=bi&pagenumber=72&w=722



This knot in the document is called"Knot for Tow with Variable(or Changeable)Pull".
The text above the pictures says:

Caracteristics:Allows for varying the direction of the pull,keeping the load distribution in the two branches

Utilisation:Towing of vehicles with connection at two points
(this time I hope I have done my job, rather than have it done to other people.I apologize to you,SS369 and Inkanyezi)

The basis of this knot is a standard Bowline.Why, in your opinion,it's not used the previous knot as a basis for this version"with variable pull"?
The previous knot,If i vary the direction of pull from right to left,basically follows the direction that i do, and the forces inside the knot don't changes
(at least under ideal conditions, for example using a vertical  smooth  handle with a round section  ,i think).
If i do the same using the knot shown above, attached at two points furthest from the center of front/back of a vehicle,
I noticed that the branch closest to the direction in which I pull,is more in tension than the other.
Thinking about the behavior of the bend version of knot discussed in this thread(maybe my obsession in regard of this topic),
i wonder if the use of a Bowline instead of knot discussed  is related to this.Or is it another reason?


                                                                                                     Thanks again to you all!
 

[Luca]

 Hello again to all.
 Only another little curiosity:

 Hi Inkanyezi,
 
 
 

Nevertheless, it is in my opinion a better knot than the "simple" one for towing, and maybe the Eskimo variant would be better, although not quite as easily opened.

 
 
 I'm sorry that i made ​​the occasion of your little mistake, but i would not call it a brain fart,
 but simply a slip of the tongue,at that time you only have interchanged the names(lapsus),
 it happens sometimes!
 However, your words about the Eskimo Bowline pushed me to go to revisit this loop on the Wikipedia page,
 where i had learned.
 
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_bowline
 
 
 At that time,in order to learn the knot,i focused my attention on the picture on the left of this page,
 without giving attention to the picture on the right.
 Now i observe that the loop shown in this picture is not exactly the same:
 in this loop the end of rope,before being returned back to finish the knot,
 when it crosses the starting loop,pass under/over(the standing part)/under.
 The loop on the left is not a mirror version of the other,to be it,the end of rope should pass
 over/under/over,but it pass over/under/under.
 Seems to me that the regular Lapp Knot, which i understand to be the basis of this loop,
 is this second way.
 These are both two recognized versions of the Eskimo Bowline?
 The one provides some advantage over other,and vice-versa,a little as it happens between the standard Bowline
 and the Dutch version?
 
                                                    Thanks again
               

[Dan_Lehman]

However, your words about the Eskimo Bowline pushed me to go to revisit this loop on the Wikipedia page,
 where i had learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_bowline

 At that time,in order to learn the knot,i focused my attention on the picture on the left of this page,
 without giving attention to the picture on the right.
 Now i observe that the loop shown in this picture is not exactly the same: ...
 ...
 Seems to me that the regular Lapp Knot, which i understand to be the basis of this loop,
 is this second way.
 These are both two recognized versions of the Eskimo Bowline?
 The one provides some advantage over other,and vice-versa,a little as it happens between the standard Bowline
 and the Dutch version?

Good eye!  I've not played around so much with the so-called
"Eskimo bowline" to prefer one form or another, but it seems
that the eye-knot's mechanics are different enough so that
the weakness of the bad version of the Lapp knot doesn't
obtain in the eyeknot.  AnyonElse find one or the other preferable?
(I tend to tie it so that it would match the tail-outside ("cowboy")
bowline --I find that this form facilitates making extensions
(adding further wraps & tucks).)

"Knot for Tow with Variable(or Changeable)Pull".

The text above the pictures says:

Characteristics :  Allows for varying the direction of the pull,
keeping the load distribution in the two branches

Utilisation : Towing of vehicles with connection at two points

Okay, I can see that this suggests that a (common) bowline
might capsize upon imbalanced loading of the eye legs --possibly
part of the mechanism acting on those trawler mooring lines
I see, and of a chopped capsized bowline I found while cycling
out in the country!?  I do see that if the subject knot is finished
in the crossing-knot-base form (which I argued against!), it does
have some good resistance to deformation no matter which eye
leg might be isolated for loading.  (Note that this is quite contrary
to the wording "keeping the load distribution in the two branches"
--which suggests some kind of (impossible!) equalization going on.

Your words address  me to believe that this knot requires some cares

Yes, there are various ways it can be dressed,
to serve different purposes.

which is secured by someone who knows what he does(like a fireman).

Perhaps they will know, perhaps not.

--dl*
====

ps:  Luca, you might care to Edit your prior msg.s to get
the QUOTEs adjusted --there should be the [ q u o t e ]
& ending [ / q u o t e ] (spaced to avoid being acted upon here)
markers on either end of the quoted text.  Your posts have
something different which seems odd.

[Luca]

Hi Dan_Lehman,


Thanks again for your patience to reply to my little questions ,after deciphering my"No English".


Unfortunately(always my English)I did not fully understand a few things:

(I tend to tie it so that it would match the tail-outside ("cowboy")
bowline --I

I'm not entirely sure if you referred to the inverted Cowboy Bowline(as i thing resembles to me,but I'm not sure), or  if you referred
to this"Cowboy"version of the Eskimo(inverted standard Bowline)in the picture on the right of Wikipedia's page.

I do see that if the subject knot is finished
in the crossing-knot-base form

In this case maybe the problem is not only my English,but my ignorance about the terms of classification of knots.
I can imagine that the term"crossing-knot-base form", it might mean that a Bowline begins with a Simple Knot ,
which after is crossed  by passing the end of rope through,but it's just a guess,actually I did not really understand.
If it was as i say, you speak of the fact that  is repeated the pass to finish the Bowline, which is the base of this knot,
but in the opposite direction?

I post the link  to this knot again for convenience:
 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjoGxZD_HZQinECP1ho62mESDUlSFaoSfcSOZp17CKFA30-IgWT4F_uBb6EMHudWWafSvwySIpZfsJNXybWS_SBTn7QXNsjqtiN9CccXNI1wYYw0rSybXrmdQH67oAKfsVOfjj0&q=cache%3A3mUZ-3n-CBYJ%3Awww.vvfnapoli.it%2Fdocument%2FDISPENSE%2FDispensa%2520Funi%2520Nodi.pdf%20nodo%20da%20traino&docid=4a56d20a658372e1354165f23467f897&a=bi&pagenumber=72&w=722


I thank you in advance if you answer me (and i renew my thanks if you can not find the time),
because, unless happens something interesting in regard of the original topic ,i think it will be my last post in this thread

                                                                         Also thanks to all those,resent to you soon!

[Dan_Lehman]

... after deciphering my"No English".

Unfortunately(always my English)I did not fully understand a few things:

Luca, your English is working well.  (I will spare people
from trying to read my non-English --whatever that
might be (bit of French)!)

(I tend to tie it so that it would match the tail-outside ("cowboy")
bowline --I

I'm not entirely sure if you referred to the inverted Cowboy Bowline
(as i thing resembles to me, but I'm not sure), or  if you referred
to this"Cowboy" version of the Eskimo (inverted standard Bowline)
in the picture on the right of Wikipedia's page.

I meant that it would be like the leftmost (red) knot of
the Wikipedia page --if one took that knot and loaded
it like a bowline then the tail would lie "outside".

I do see that if the subject knot is finished
in the crossing-knot-base form

In this case maybe the problem is not only my English,
but my ignorance about the terms of classification of knots.
I can imagine that the term"crossing-knot-base form",
it might mean that a Bowline begins with a Simple Knot ,
which after is crossed  by passing the end of rope through,
but it's just a guess,actually I did not really understand.
If it was as i say, you speak ...

AHA!,  Wait, some bona fide Italian to explain :
mezzo barcaiolo !  (whew, what a mouthful!    )

The key element of a *bowline* is the central nipping
loop --a 360-degree circle of rope in the SPart.
But in the knot-of-issue here, the eyeleg end of this
loop can be pulled back over the circle to make a form
like the mezzo barcaiolo --a crossing knot--; in
this way, the end will be loaded such that it bears
into the SPart rather than --as with a *bowline*--
collaborating with the SPart's loading to directly
contract/shrink/tighten the nipping circle.

The problematic aspect of the knot, thus --IMO--,
is that it falls into one or the other group of knots
depending upon how it gets dressed & set (and
can lie at any point between clear extremes, to
challenge one to make either classification!).

I post the link  to this knot again for convenience:

Such rope-on-rope equalization structures run some
risk of extension upon anchor failure, and they do
much less equalizing than one might suppose!  (There
is considerable friction to overcome --even with a 'biner
making the contact (which is how things are often
presented).)


--dl*
====

[Luca]

Hi Dan,and thanks again!


But I must confess to you that,in spite of your explanation,I am not able to really understand how you plan to finish
this knot.

The key element of a *bowline* is the central nipping
loop --a 360-degree circle of rope in the SPart.
But in the knot-of-issue here, the eyeleg end of this
loop can be pulled back over the circle to make a form
like the mezzo barcaiolo --a crossing knot--; in
this way, the end will be loaded such that it bears
into the SPart rather than --as with a *bowline*--
collaborating with the SPart's loading to directly
contract/shrink/tighten the nipping circle.

To me it almost seemed that,with your words,you tried to direct me towards the solution of a puzzle.
I would try to make you do a couple of laughs, if you feel like:
try to imagine this guy,with a top a bowline in a hand,..and a Mezzo Barcaiolo held in the other hand,
straining his brain determined to resolve:"Maybe so? Uhmm, no ... (mumble mumble) .. Then it must be so!
Noo...(mumble...)".
After a while I started to feel my brain shrinking until I felt a sort of Australopithecus:
"So?Ummgr..so umgr..so..mgr",...and then only"mgr".

OK, I apologize for having taken some time to reply,but I wanted to try to solve alone this"rebus".
I failed.
Briefly by saying,I have not been able to isolate from the load the nipping circle by pulling  back over the nipping circle
the end of rope,Instead of retracing,as shown in the fourth step of the link above.
I tried to apply the Mezzo Barcaiolo(the italian name of Italian Hitch,for those who read)in the end of rope in many ways.
Simply applying to the SPart,I get only a stopper knot,which by pulling collides against the top of loop;
applying to the SPart and passing the end through the top in various ways,I have not changed substantially the the behavior
of nipping circle.
During these attempts I got the feeling that if I were able to isolate the circle from the load,
the Bowline  perhaps tend to capsize inversely in the form of"Climber's/ Lightning method".
In short, I was puzzled.

But wandering through the forum, I found  this your drawing at the extreme bottom of this page:

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3888.0

the simplest rightmost loop(it starts like the second version of the Eskimo!)caught my attention because of its  finishing,
which it seems to me that relieves the nipping circle by the double load SPart/leg of loop,you're referring about the regular Bowline.
Is a similar solution that you prospects for finishing this knot?( in fact there is a Mezzo Barcaiolo).
But how does it apply if,pulling back, the end is passed over the nipping circle without retracing through the nipping circle?

                                                                       
                                                                                                                                 You are well!

[Dan_Lehman]

Luca, let me try again, and more simply.

If one creates the nipping loop for making a bowline
--a roughly 360deg circle of rope--,
one has a circle, a nipping loop.  (Okay, that didn't say much!)

Now, for the Eskimo Bwl, one brings the tail through
the circle in the opposite direction (enter at rear instead
of front, say), and one takes it around the eye-leg
(instead of around the SPart for the bowline).

Now, so far, one still has this central nipping loop/circle.
BUT, if one now draws the tail bight tight, the eye leg
will be pulled sharply back to the other side of the circle
(or, somewhat back across its center).  THIS is roughly
a crossing-knot form,
and the SPart will bear into the turn of this hauled-back
eyeleg.


--dl*
====

[Luca]

Ok Dan,

I realized two things:
the first,is that you have a great patience!
The second is that I must learn to express myself more accurately:

I tried to apply the Mezzo Barcaiolo(the italian name of Italian Hitch,for those who read)in the end of rope in many ways.
Simply applying to the SPart,I get only a stopper knot,which by pulling collides against the top of loop;
applying to the SPart and passing the end through the top in various ways,I have not changed substantially the the behavior
of nipping circle.

Re-reading this my words,I realize how easy it is that someone get the idea
that I do not know quite what is a Mezzo Barcaiolo,
if I don't specify that, after building around the SPart the "crossing-knot-base"form,
(that,as it is,has no chance of taking)I was trying to "close"in some way
to transform it into a real knot[for example,making a Cow Hitch,
which can be seen as one of the possible completions of this base form.
[And even the Cow Hitch is not a real knot,but only an"arrangement"of rope,
if removed from its support;(and it is not a Cow Hitch I performed during my attempts,
but it is only an example that we need for us to understand)].
In short, when I read "crossing knot-basic-form" in a your previous post,
I did not know what to think, but when you wrote after"Mezzo Barcaiolo",
you have clarified all to me about it;then my problem is another.

Let's recap(I put the link):

https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjoGxZD_HZQinECP1ho62mESDUlSFaoSfcSOZp17CKFA30-IgWT4F_uBb6EMHudWWafSvwySIpZfsJNXybWS_SBTn7QXNsjqtiN9CccXNI1wYYw0rSybXrmdQH67oAKfsVOfjj0&q=cache%3A3mUZ-3n-CBYJ%3Awww.vvfnapoli.it%2Fdocument%2FDISPENSE%2FDispensa%2520Funi%2520Nodi.pdf%20nodo%20da%20traino&docid=4a56d20a658372e1354165f23467f897&a=bi&pagenumber=72&w=722

But in the knot-of-issue here, the eyeleg end of this
loop can be pulled back over the circle to make a form
like the mezzo barcaiolo --a crossing knot--;

Perhaps you gave it for granted that this was sufficient for me
to understand how to finish the knot,but unfortunately is not so.
I thought I had understood that"back over the circle"meant
passing"uppermost"the circle,without going through
(after taking the long tail of the bowline made previously,
and pulling it back so as to form the two"branches"of the loop),
this is the reason because I tried to apply the Italian Hitch to the SPart.

If one creates the nipping loop for making a bowline
--a roughly 360deg circle of rope--,
one has a circle, a nipping loop.  (Okay, that didn't say much!)

Now, for the Eskimo Bwl, one brings the tail through
the circle in the opposite direction (enter at rear instead
of front, say), and one takes it around the eye-leg
(instead of around the SPart for the bowline).

Now, so far, one still has this central nipping loop/circle.
BUT, if one now draws the tail bight tight, the eye leg
will be pulled sharply back to the other side of the circle
(or, somewhat back across its center).  THIS is roughly
a crossing-knot form

OK,I can see that using this method i can obtain this crossing form
[this,starting the"regular Lapp knot-based"Eskimo(and if I do the same
starting a common bowline I get a Thumb Knot,is right?)].
But I asked me:"Why Dan don't starts directly from the"360deg circle of rope"
to show me the crossing form?It would be simpler."
But you have added:

and the SPart will bear into the turn of this hauled-back
eyeleg.

Then I thought that you at the same time show me the way to finish this knot;
after pulling back the tail to form the two branches,I tried this start
of the Eskimo returning through the nipping loop:
my first doubt concerns the fact that there is an already finished bowline;
what should I do with the two passes of the tail already present there?
Also,hauling back the eyeleg I get to reset the length of the rope's portion
that divides the loop in two branches,and however,making various attempts,
I have not solved anything regarding"the SPart will bear into
the turn of this hauled-back eyeleg"(which has become my main curiosity),Indeed, 
during my usual thoughtless attempts,it is precisely because the
nipping circle continues to pinch,the tail does not slip off.
In short,I am always at the same point:I understood little or nothing.
I realize that it's embarrassing for me,ask you for clarification,
then the clarification on the clarification, and then clarification
on the latest clarification;perhaps I'm missing out on a glass of water.
But,if you feel like,allow once again that this shameless guy,
a small lover of knots,to disturb you with its banal and silly questions.
If you're sick,let me swim in my glass,no problem!


                                                        Stay well!

[Luca]

Hei Dan, 


not stay to answer me,I think I give you too much disturb.
I had this idea if you feel like:

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/knotting/notate.htm

I guess you know well this:if you want you can give the "coordinates",
maybe starting from the beginning of this"two branches bowline",
to cover the part that "I miss".
Will then my care find how to finish the knot as you intend.
Ever if you feel like!
                                                                           Thanks for all

[Dan_Lehman]

Luca, I think we were at the point of understanding,
here :
"OK,I can see that using this method I can obtain this crossing form".

It was then that my "SPart bears into the turn ..." seemed
to lose you.  In the crossing-knot form, in the MB, this is
what the SPart does --it presses against that part (which is much
of the friction the MB relies on for absorbing force and braking).
Whereas, in the bowline, the nipping turn can even get to the
state where it doesn't touch itself, opening more into a helix.

--dl*
====

[Luca]

Hi Dan,

Unfortunately at this moment I find time on Sundays only
(I write still slowly in English).

So, I got the solution? maybe yes or maybe not.

But do note that the version of this knot that I favor is
shown in finished (or nearly so) form by the image in
my post --NOT drawn up (much) further : no, leave it
so that the bowlinesque central nipping loop is just
that, and not drawn into a crossing-knot / Munter=
hitch form. 

I must confess that at the time when I read these words,
when you had written, I had so little understood
(it's my fault and my English, certainly not yours),
that I had promised myself to keep apart,
to analyze them more thoroughly later,
perhaps because I thought I had other priorities.
In reality, then I just forgot(in short,a fine example of superficiality).
However,at that time you still spoke of the loop
because of which I opened this thread,
but you already were talking about this argument
of the crossing knot/Munter Hitch
(I find now that it is synonymous with Italian Hitch,
or perhaps did not remember,perhaps I was impressed"Italian",who knows why?).
In any case,it was all over in this cauldron of these things
I did not understand, disappearing from my memory.
I must say that,reading your words not many days later,
I had less trouble for understanding what you said,
what I believe to be a pleasant side effect regarding my English
(and knots,points of view,how this is expressed,and all what I do not know),
due to my wandering through the threads of this Forum,
trying to better understand what is written.
Other times before I jump in this Forum,
maybe linking from some other site,
but I did"hit and run" for my little purposes,without deepening.
But I digress.
In the quote above,referring to the former loop,
you were talking adverse the way,about the setting of this loop,
that,the section of rope corresponding to the nipping circle
of the bowline,forms a crossing knot with the SPart.
Indeed in your following post you wrote:"which I argued against!"
(I thought to who knows where else thread!).
Then I thought:"nipping circle-tail/tail-nipping circle",
and I tied merely a totally reversed version of this loop,
and I found myself in my hands a knot
that I think pander to the behaviors of which you speak above:

In the crossing-knot form, in the MB, this is
what the SPart does --it presses against that part (which is much
of the friction the MB relies on for absorbing force and braking).
Whereas, in the bowline, the nipping turn can even get to the
state where it doesn't touch itself, opening more into a helix.

and also other things you wrote earlier.
Now:I begin to think there was a misunderstanding between us:
I want to tell you that I always assumed so far,during our last speeches,
which was present,already completed,a common Bowline Knot:
If so, then I'm back where we started
(I can not see how, backing backwards with the long tail to divide
into two branches the loop previously finished,
I can get everything that you say);
but if you meant starting from zero for finish the loop directly as you intend,
I may have centered.


                                                   Thanks as always, regards!