Hunter s bend variations where the tails are crossed.

[xarax]

   It has been a long time since there was any thread about a bend, so I decided to stir an old issue - just to alleviate some pressure from the recent boviewline mania...
   See the attached pictures for two variations of the Hunter s bend, where the tails make a twist around each other ( are "crossed" = X-ed to each other, or they are in an "elbow" configuration to each other, in the sense of ABoK#34, ABoK#35 ).
   I believe that this twist is beneficial to the security of the bend, but, more importantly, it reduces the risk of the bend being jammed under heavy loading.( There have been sporadic reports about the Hunter s bend jamming, and, judging from its structure before the tail crossing, I believe them).
   Any thoughts ?

[Luca]

Hi xarax,

A first thought that comes to mind is that, contrary to what happens with the Shakehands bend, about which both the two versions with crossed tails seem to be better than the version with the tails that pass parallel, the first version of the crossed tail Hunter's that you show above seems be weakest with respect to the "standard" version of the Hunter's bend, which seems to be in a middle way regard to the valence of the three versions of this bend,and where the second version that you show perhaps is at the highest level of stability and worthiness.
I admit that the setting that you show  is what makes it more justice to the potential stability of the first version, but I find that (perhaps because I'm not very practical to handle this version) there is to "work" a little bit to get  this setting , and that there is obtained almost exclusively by pulling  the tails,that,otherwise, when are crossed in this manner, almost seem to work in favor of a "disconnection" between the two overhands of which is formed the knot at a higher level of as is the case for the two other versions.
As for the possible problem of jamming (which in fact may afflict mostly the "standard" version), should be resolved by taking the knot by the "collars",and try to "rotate" them towards you when you look at the knot in favor of the front(EDIT:top view(why top /bottom and not front/rear in this case?))(I agree) view.

                                                                                                                         Bye!

P.S.This has nothing to do, but just for the record I like to point out that the X1 version has the same topology of ABoK1408/9:it should be almost automatically visible if, when the knot is not yet tight, one pulls one of the two standing parts of this bend, and simultaneously pulls the tail of the other standing part .   

[xarax]

I find that ... one has to "work" a little bit to get this setting , and that there is obtained almost exclusively by pulling  the tails, that, otherwise, when they are crossed in this manner, almost seem to work in favor of a "disconnection" of the two overhands 

   True, but this happens to many other knots where the tails are crossed like this. Because of the added friction, one has to remove the slag by pulling the standing ends AND the tails, otherwise the knot can be dressed in a deformed, unstable shape.
   

   As for the possible problem of jamming (which, in fact, may afflict mostly the "standard" version), should it be resolved by taking the knot by the "collars", and trying to "rotate" them towards you

   I believe that most knot tyers dress the Hunter s bend in it smost compact, dense, round form, where they do not have enough room to manipulate the collars.
   For a "easy-to-untie" Hunters-bend-like bend, which was specifically designed so one can push/pull the collars like you describe, see :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3670.0

[Luca]

True, but this happens to many other knots where the tails are crossed like this. Because of the added friction, one has to remove the slag by pulling the standing ends AND the tails, otherwise the knot can be dressed in a deformed, unstable shape.

For what I remember also the "standard" Hunter's is one of the bend which has more this problem,that must be "adjusted" by pulling the tails (not that the Butterfly or the Zeppelin did not they also have the same problem, for example, but to a lesser extent , I find), it seems to me that with the X1 version this problem is very accentuated, while with the X2 version is decreased.

I believe that most knot tyers dress the Hunter s bend in it smost compact, dense, round form, where they do not have enough room to manipulate the collars.

Me too!But what I suggested is not a prevention, but a possible remedy once occurred the "damage"!In other words I speak of "breaking" the knot as if it were a bar of chocolate.


   

[Dan_Lehman]

The "X2" version is the one that should be preferred
for the SmitHunter's bend --I think it will show better
strength (slightly), as well as greater ease of untying.
(Interestingly, Harry Asher dismissed it as having no
great consequence.)


--dl*
====

[Luca]

Hi xarax,

For a "easy-to-untie" Hunters-bend-like bend, which was specifically designed so one can push/pull the collars like you describe, see :
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3670.0

Excuse me,tying the bend that you show in the link at the bottom of your last post,I realized that in fact you had perfectly understood what I was trying to say about the case of a jammed Hunter's (that's me that I misunderstood because I thought that you could talk to some proposal of an alternative setting on my part): Let's say that that bend loosens really by "breaking" it as if  were a small chocolate bar, while a jammed Hunter's perhaps breaks as if it were a thick bar of those used in pastries;outdoors, during the winter ..

                                                                                                                  Bye!