Look closer, please. This " double, crossed coils nipping loop " shown in your photo is not the same structure shown in my photos, the difference being the degree of torsion present in each.
I do not
look the knots, I tie them and try to
feel the forces that run through their body, as if it was mine s !

This is an "intrinsic" "view", which can tell us things that are not shown in pictures. Imagine you are a snake, and you are knotted and pulled by your head and tail - what do you
feel ?
The geometry of structure is the same, obviously, but you are right, this is never the whole story - not even the most important part of it. I can
feel that the torsion in the structure you show in much less than in what I show, indeed. However, I believe that this is another
advantage of the later in relation to the former !

This torsion is beneficial to the gripping power of the two wraps, because it works as an invisible "skeleton", it stabilizes the form of the "coil tube", and it will not allow it to lose its initial symmetry when it will be loaded in this eccentric way it is to be loaded. Torsion is a very effective force, and that is why the torsion springs were used in tanks and the VW beetle !

It is a good thing, if we can use it to our behalf. I know that there is a common misunderstanding, that torsion "absorbs", in some way, the tensile forces, so what is added in torsion should be subtracted from tension. This is not correct. You can have torsion forces
alongside tensile forces- a rope or a rod can be "twisted" AND pulled/pushed, at the same time, without the amount of the twist absorb, and diminish, the amount of pull/push.
So, the test I propose to you is not visual, it is corporeal !

Tie the two structures with a
lose collar, and "see" / "feel" what holds better.
The twisted / torsioned rope segments of the wraps of the knot I show will be constricting the encircled body of yours, like the turns of another snake ! The head and the tail of this snake will almost cut you in two, with this scissors-like action - the one pulling towards the standing end, the other towards the tip of the bight.
I had tried the "common" application of this crossed coils double nipping loop many times, before I had discovered the "Eskimo" version...I agree that the visual simplicity of the "common" version is very attractive, while the "Eskimo" version looks like a ...whatever. However, I was amazed by the constricting power of the "Eskimo" version - which also utilizes the L-shaped continuation of the standing part and the returning eye leg, the "handle" and the "step" which facilitate the job of the nipping structure - and that is why I had preferred it. I can assure you that I have a soft point in the simplicity of the knot structure, and I would nt hesitate to sacrifice a reasonable portion of gripping power, to retain it. However, here we have a GREAT difference ! The one structure can work even without the collar, as an adjustable loop, while the other is only stabilized by the collar - moreover, the nipping structure is much more complex than the collar structure, which remains rudimental ... This discrepancy between the amount the ante-eye and the post-eye knotted structures is something that bothers me, and I always try to tie bowlines where the rope segment will be almost as much convoluted in the nipping part as in the collar part. If I see a bowline where the one part is elaborated, and convoluted more than the corresponding part in the common bowline, while
the other part is left unchanged, I sense that the design of this knot has not been finished yet !

the Open Elbow is the most efficient nipping structure (for the Bowline), exhibiting the highest level of the combined attributes of simplicity, security, stability, and untiability, and in the broadest range and nature of cordage.
I have tied
many nipping structures, if not ALL of them, in a systematic way, I can assure you. However, I can not confirm what you say - and I very much doubt it. However, you can persuade me VERY easily : Tie all the structures I propose, test them, and report your results !

Your very high-flying tone about the "Open Elbow Structure" will lower a little bid, but, in the mean time, we will have learned many thing we still ignore ..

Is this structure more
simple than the Water bowline s or the Mirrored bowline s ? No, of course not, and I would nt even argue about it. Is it more
secure ? We have to
test them to tell. Is it more
stable ? Here, my dear alpineer, I will resist my temptation to lough loudly. It is
a most unstable structure, that has to rely in the collar structure s belt to remain in one piece! It imposes a great strain on the base of the legs of the collar - I almost "feel" the pain they feel ! My KnotGod, it is but a poor loop-sided fellow that needs the collar stick to walk ! Is it
untiable ? Yes, it is - but have you tried to untie the Twisted Pretzel structure, for example, to see the difference ?

"
Broader range and nature of cordage" are not of much concern... I tie and try the secure bowlines in climbing ropes, 9-12 mm, because those are the ropes that will be used, if any of those is going to be used as a replacement to the retraced fig.8 knot. I do not tie and try them on small, soft cordage, or on monofilament fishing line, for example, because I see no point of using a
secure bowline in non-critical applications - the common or the "Eskimo" bowlines are just fine for them.
I want simplicity, married with the properties I listed above.
Simplicity is imperative to me, too.. But tell me, please, alpineer, do you
really believe that the asymmetric 8 shaped structure you show, is really
simpler than the Girth hitch of the Mirrored bowline, or the Constrictor of the Constrictor bowline ? Have you tied MORE times this almost crippled 8 structure ( which is beautiful only in the eyes of a blind mother...

), than a Cow hitch, or a Constrictor ? Simplicity is depending upon the amount of information of something, that is needed in order to store or retrieve it. May be the simple Clove hitch is simpler than the Constrictor, indeed - or the Water bowline than the Constrictor bowline. However, the "Open Elbow", or the "Pretzel", are not - they are more complex, and an indication of this fact is that they can be tied wrongly in more than one ways !
Perhaps you have not noticed my argument about the difficulty of adding
a second collar in this structure. Do you believe that such a modification would be redundant ?
Now, it often happens that we come to see a cup that may look like it is made of pure gold - or that it IS made of pure gold, indeed. Is it the
Holy Grail ? You can believe it - but the prudent thing is to not bet anything you have on this...
I would also like an experimental comparison of this bowline to the "similar" Locktight bowlines tied by Dan Lehman - because I can not find why they would be very different. I prefer the U-turn of the eye leg around both legs of the collar as at the structure you show, that is true, but this might not be the whole story (1).
1.
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1234.msg8419#msg8419