You discredit yourself severely, here : such blatant non-seeing, for some crazy worship of the "z" is a blindness unbecoming one wishing to comprehend knotting.
For one without such dis-ease can clearly see
I knew you will bite hard to this intentionally blunt, but clear and fair criticism...
You should rather read my previous answer/post, and understand that the "pivot(s)" of the Zeppelin bend is (are) not loaded from its (their) one end - they are
tails, not attached to something ! ( As they are condemned to be connected to a body that grows/feeds them, they could not be unloaded from
both ends, could they ?
)
The amusing/good thing s that, although you critisize the marvelous Zeppelin bend from time to time ( it will need additional manipulation/dressing to take its form, you keep saying...), you do like the additional glory the Zeppelin
name offers !
OK, use it, it does not belong to somebody ! After all, the so-called "Zeppelin loop" in not more Zeppelinsque than your loops...
I have made a search in the Forum : It is unbelievable how many times one has tried to link the knot he tied with the Zeppelin bend, under various adjectives...To my view, only the Lee Zep bowline(s) (1) bear some - remote - resemblance with the Zeppelin bend - but, as loop knot(s), it is (they are) not similar to it.
P.S.
Trying to imitate the simple clever mechanics of the Zeppelin bend, one confronts the following three problems :
1. The "pivot" should be made by at least two lines, otherwise it could not be stiff enough to deal with the
shear forces induced by the two not-interlocked, parallel bights - the parts of the two links of the ex-bend that remain adjacent using it. The one line being the tail of the loop knot, the other should necessarily be another segment of the 3 limbs ( the continuation of the standing end, of the eye leg of the standing end or of the eye leg of the bight ). However, this second passage of the line alongside the axis of the hinge cannot be inert, an inert pivot, as a tail : It would be loaded from both ends, so it will energetically participate to the linkage, pushing and pulling other parts - and the whole thing messes up in a not-so-clever tangle, where the hinges and the pivots cease to be hinges and pivots any more ...
2. At the Zeppelin bend, there is a marvellous
balance between the pulling of the two loaded ends, the two standing parts. I say " marvellous" , because in the so-called "falsely tied Zeppelin bend" - which, incidentally, can be considered as more symmetric than the original knot...- this balance is not so perfect and effective. As the loading is transferred to the pivots through those two ends that remain always on the axis of the knot, the initial balance is preserved. If there is a second limb pulling through a second attachment point from the one link - because we have the two legs of the eye, so two pulling limbs ), and the distribution of the pulling forces is not steady ( the bight of the loop can be loaded in many ways, so the two legs of the eye, the two limbs will not be loaded neither with exactly the same weight, nor from the exactly same angle ), this balance cannot be maintained - so there are more forces - not perpendicular ones - acting on the pivots, and soon the whole thing degenerates ( meaning that we need more inner wraps around the knot s core to keep it in one piece - end of the symmetry and/or simplicity game).
3. Last, but not least : How we can keep the bilateral, two-sides symmetry and inner balance of forces in one thing that has three loaded parts ? Simple and easy answer : we cannot !
I have once presented a most simple variation of the Zeppelin bend, the Zeppelin X bend, where the tails are arranged in a different way ( they are in an X : crossed configuration ) than they are in the original knot. It was argued by members of the Forum that Zeppelin X bend is a new knot, that should not even be called by an adjective using the Zeppelin name - and they had a point. Because, although the Zeppelin X bend cannot be considered "asymmetric" , it is clearly less symmetric than the original knot. - and symmetry is a main characteristic of the Zeppelin bend. If it is hard to accept the Zeppelin name for such a similar, indeed, knot, imagine if we can ever use it for a three loaded limbs loop knot...
I have tied all the nice DL loops - and then some ( some with the pivot replaced by a slipped tail, a double line made by the same tail...) -, and I have only this to say : close, but no cigar...
.
I repeat : the Lee Zep loop(s) presented at (1) are, to my knowledge, the closest thing to the holy Grail of a non-Zeppelin Zeppelinsque knot...
1.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3908.0