Bends

[Dan_Lehman]

... of a "Zeppelin/Rosendahl" or even "figure 8" type of knot ...
I find those knots are incredibly hard to untie when sufficiently loaded.
There are almost always better options for the task at hand. ...

If you mean untying literally "when sufficiently loaded,"
then I'd agree; but I want to know what sort of tasks
require such untying?  What tasks do you do that cannot
so well accept these conventional knots/solutions?

Otherwise, if you mean only that if the knots had been
subjected to heavy loading and then --when slack--
are meant to be untied, then this isn't true : one should
find most of the interlocked-overhands end-2-end knots
adequately easy to untie --esp. the zeppelin!


--dl*
====

[NotSure]

Gosh, I was afraid that last comment of mine might ruffle a few feathers. Yes, I absolutely mean when you load the living daylights out of it, then remove the load and attempt to untie (especially if you include 4-way loading for that bugger). If you guys were truly honest with your comparisons, then you'd agree that there are other knots that are significantly easier to untie afterward under the same harsh conditions.

All I intended to say was that while knots like the Zeppelin or Fig 8s may be popular, in my opinion, they should not be the ideal knots to pass on to future generations when those type of knots' primary intent is for a temporary fastening. Temporary, to my mind, is all about being untied afterward and the ease thereof.

I think the whole problem here is that "easy" or "difficult" may be very subjective terms. Some people have a much higher pain tolerance and/or patience and/or finger dexterity than me (especially perhaps when that person has been accustomed to regularly untying even harder knots like Ashley's #1408, 1425, & 1452, for instance ).

I also have come to realize that untying ease is not everybody's priority. Yes, situations can require some other aspect prioritized over this, such as ease of inspection (trust issues) or economy of rope usage (short ropes), but for the most part - who really wants to work harder at doing something than they absolutely have to? So when I stated that there are almost always better options than those type of knots, perhaps I crossed the line... My apologies to those I may have slighted.

[Festy]

Hi Notsure,

What simple-to-tie bend is easier to untie than the Zeppelin?

The 'Secure Carrick' is not that simple to tie or even to remember to tie, personally speaking of course.

F

[roo]

Gosh, I was afraid that last comment of mine might ruffle a few feathers. Yes, I absolutely mean when you load the living daylights out of it, then remove the load and attempt to untie (especially if you include 4-way loading for that bugger).

This is getting stranger all the time.  The free ends of bends are almost never loaded at all, let alone heavily loaded.

[Luca]

Hi NotSure,

(especially if you include 4-way loading for that bugger)

Maybe some highly symmetric,and unstable bend such as the false Zeppelin( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1992.msg13968#msg13968 ),potentially Jamming under normal load,can find a balance when used for this unusual task,at least if loaded more or less the same way from the four ends (and it should be stronger than any bend based on two simply interlinked loops).

                                                                                               _ _ _ _ _ _

Hi Festy,

What simple-to-tie bend is easier to untie than the Zeppelin?

The Zeppelin bend (normally loaded) seems a great compromise between safety (I'm parroting ..), stability, and ease of untying;a bend that is perhaps even farther away from the risk of jamming can be the top side twist falsely tied Hunter's bend( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3204.msg19163#msg19163 )(and maybe also the top side twist true Hunter's bend!).

                                                                                                                Bye!

[Luca]

The first diagram below represents a sort of "basic" highly symmetric Overhands-based bend that, making the appropriate changes, can lead to what I think to be the Tweedlum bend(the third diagram)( http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3672.msg21235#msg21235 ),I wonder if,between the three, the more unstable, under normal two ends loading ,"basic" version,is the best suited for the unusual four ends  equally distribuited loading task?(well, there is also the question of the angles of this four ends loading ..)

                                                                                                                 Bye!

[Dan_Lehman]

Gosh, I was afraid that last comment of mine might ruffle a few feathers.
Yes, I absolutely mean when you load the living daylights out of it,
then remove the load and attempt to untie ... .
If you guys were truly honest with your comparisons,
then you'd agree that there are other knots that are significantly easier to untie
afterward under the same harsh conditions.
//
I think the whole problem here is that "easy" or "difficult" may be very subjective terms.
Some people have a much higher pain tolerance and/or patience and/or finger dexterity than
(especially perhaps when that person has been accustomed to regularly
untying even harder knots like Ashley's #1408, 1425, & 1452, for instance ).

The topic of this thread is "bends", by which it is meant
"end-2-end knots" (hence, not the fisherman's bend).
And while there can be subjective differences between
what is considered "easy", etc., it is less defensibly so
in the relative terms "easier".  And the knots that you
claim to be difficult to untie above are ones that can be
shown to be fairly easily untied after loading to break
point (i.e., 2 knots in test specimen of the same kind,
and one breaks while the other survives the test)!!
And, of these, the zeppelin & #1408 are especially
easy to untie.

(especially if you include 4-way loading for that bugger). 

So, now we see your only excuse for such surprising
assertions : you want not end-2-end knots, but net knots!?
Well, okay, yes, changing the game so that all ends
area loaded will change the outcome, here.  Note that
"loading all ends" can mean different things : it might
matter the order of loading, and so on; if all are evenly
loaded, carefully, one can do well with the sheet bend
which is the most common net knot; loaded with some
variation, that knot can assume a different geometry
(it tends to be one in which the "collar" is more tightly
drawn than in the end-2-end and eye knot (bowline).

All I intended to say was that while knots like the Zeppelin or Fig 8s may be popular, in my opinion, they should not be the ideal knots to pass on to future generations when those type of knots' primary intent is for a temporary fastening. Temporary, to my mind, is all about being untied afterward and the ease thereof.
//
...  who really wants to work harder at doing something than they absolutely have to?

Okay for "temporary", but you have hardly a common
need in looking to all-ends loading.  I asked previously, What
are the tasks for which an all-ends-loaded ("net") knot
is needed, that you find common end-2-end knots lacking?
To this one should also add "... and which need untying!"
--for although I can think of making netting a need for
a net knot, I don't see untying it at all in the picture.
(Recently, I did some fiddling with a basketball net;
that only amounted to tying off its connection-to-rim
bights with overhand eyeknots so to keep them attached
and to limit movement ~=> reduce wear, extend life.)

After all, if one is going to pass on to some future
generation of people a single knot, it should be one
that is reasonably expected to meet their knotting
needs.  Having some knot that can arguably do any
thing, and thus one thing better than any other,
but which does the most commonly needed things
poorly, is not a good proposition.


--dl*
====

[xarax]

   You don't need 12 wraps for the Well-pipe Hitch, 2 or 3 will suffice, LOL. Obviously though, the more turns you use the greater the friction gripping power will be.

   I counted the wraps of the "Well-Pipe hitch" presented by Ashley and you - and I found that my fingers were not sufficiently many ! LOL
   THAT is the problem with this knot : it works by ADDITION ! The more wraps you add, the better it works - and, frankly, I can not consider such a knot as a sufficiently clever one. It may well work - but ANY tangle of rope, if it is convoluted enough, works... We are searching for something more sophisticated, as a knotting mechanism, than the mere juxtaposition of wraps, don't we ?

   I like the Well-Pipe Hitch specifically because it is entirely composed of simple wraps. This maximizes the surface area for friction contact as opposed to a cross-lashing or "cross-gartering" scenario (which raises a significant portion of the rope away from the surface to be gripped). See this thread on the KC Hitch here for an extreme example on the cross-lashing effect:

  I like the fact that you are searching for the truth, so you will find it very soon, I am sure.
  First, the comments about the KC Hitch, as well as the comments by Ashley himself, are completely wrong in the case the underlying / penetrating material is soft - if it is a rope and not a pole. Read the thread about the rat-tail stopper, where I had explained the great difference in detail. So, I am NOT speaking about the ABoK#1755 - 1756 or the KC hitch, because the crossing of the wraps does not work on a rigid material. However, around a compressible material, as a rope is, it works miraculously - and it is not by accident that the strongest hitch around a rope, used by sailors during mooring, is the rat-tail stopper.
  So, we can agree that the most efficient solution for a gripping hitch is the mechanism provided by one or more wraps around the pole, indeed. Now, here comes the point it seems to me that you have not yet understood. PROVIDED that we have a number of wraps, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO so that those wraps can be helped to work better ? Read the last sentence again, please. THOSE wraps, not those wraps AND some others, added on top of them ! Because, if we follow this not-so-clever "solution', we will soon find that a sufficiently great number of wraps can hold any rope, however heavily loaded, on the surface of any pole, however slippery ! Of course, there will be always people that believe the solution of every problem is quantitative - just sacrifice more material, be it made of rope or bodies of soldiers, and you are going to prevail ! If we accept this "solution", we will soon be satisfied with TWO knots, and two knots only ! MANY half hitches, the one after the other, will solve any problem which involves bends and loops. And MANY wraps, the one on top of the other, will solve any problem which involves hitches, able to withstand a right angle pull. or a lengthwise pull. Thousands of years of knotting would seem to be nothing but thousands of wasted years...
  Well, personally I have not been able to reach this point - at least, not yet !  I believe that there are many more clever knotting mechanisms that are able to MULTIPLY the knotting ability of ropes, not just ADD it.
  To return to the original question : To help the friction forces between THOSE wraps and the pole, we can increase the pressure by which the wraps grip the pole. That is what the clever hitches do, with the one way or the other, and the not-so-clever hitches, like the infamous so-called "Well-Pipe hitch" do not.
   So, given two gripping hitches ( around poles ), with the same number of wraps, the best hitch would be the one where those wraps would be wrapped around the pole in the more efficient way - and this depends upon how TIGHTYLY those wraps wold be wrapped.

   

In fact, most of the time I'm inclined to use my favourite finisher, an inverted Sailor's Hitch

  There is no " Sailor s hitch " - first, because no sailor ever used it ( and no sailor will ever use it, of course...), and, second, because it has another name ! Read the ABoK !  Anyway, it is but a mediocre hitch proposed by Ashley, which has been advertised under this hilarious brand name by other people...