Author Topic: The best bowline  (Read 6582 times)

erizo1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
The best bowline
« on: October 05, 2015, 07:27:41 PM »
Which bowline is the best bowline? Put another way, if you could only tie ONE bowline variant for the entire rest of your life in every situation, and never tie any other as long as you live, which one would it be, and why?

(Obviously this would be an unrealistic and undesireable state of affairs, but limited choices clarify priorities, and I'm even more interested in people's reasons than I am in the knots they propose.)

For me, it would be an end-bound single bowline without the Yosemite finish:
  • I find that the extra tuck through the nipping loop costs me very little extra time or effort when both tying and untying.
  • I feel like the extra tuck is a fairly efficient security improvement (i.e., adds a lot of extra security for relatively little extra time tying, rope used, bulk in the tightened form, and overall complexity).
  • I prefer the final form of the EBSB(-Y) to other variants that are perhaps more secure but feel bulky or messy to me (Scott's simple lock, Janus, water bowline). By comparison, the EBSB(-Y) is pleasingly compact, and I'm going for all-around usefulness rather than maximum-security.
I refer to the absence of the Yosemite finish because I believe Mark Gommers came up with the EBSB and included a Yosemite finish. I'm happy to honor the name he chose, but for what it's worth (not much, probably), relative to the EBDB, perhaps it would be clearer to call what I'm describing an EBSB and to call Mark's original an EBSB+Y or EBSYB. I guess that's a topic for another board.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 12:36:47 AM by erizo1 »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1537
Re: The best bowline
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2015, 01:33:49 AM »
Quote
I refer to the absence of the Yosemite finish because I believe Mark Gommers came up with the EBSB and included a Yosemite finish. I'm happy to honor the name he chose, but for what it's worth (not much, probably), relative to the EBDB, perhaps it would be clearer to call what I'm describing an EBSB and to call Mark's original an EBSB+Y or EBSYB. I guess that's a topic for another board.

This would be technically correct.

I did add a so-called 'Yosemite finish' to the EBSB Bowline variant.

Of course, my angle is with knots used in human life support applications (ie mission critical uses - ie...where knot failure could lead to a serious fall).

As Dan will no doubt point out, I went through a phase in life where every Bowline I tied seemed to end up with such a tail maneuver!
My reasoning at the time was to have the tail exit in a more familiar (ie 'conventional') direction...as many climbers like to secure the tail by 'strangling' it around the SPart.

I think the EBSB Bowline is more secure with the tail following a conventional 'Yosemite' finish. However, in doing so - the tail must first be fed underneath the binding loop and then through the collar - and dressing can be fiddly. Nevertheless, it is a secure and stable structure - and so the benefits outweigh the negatives (for me).

Quote
Which bowline is the best bowline? Put another way, if you could only tie ONE bowline variant for the entire rest of your life in every situation, and never tie any other as long as you live, which one would it be, and why?

This really ought to be in the main Bowlines thread... it is a question that many herein have been asking and seeking answers to for several years.

I think the answer is that there may never be one Bowline to rule them all!

For example, I use and am a strong advocate for using Alan Lee's 'Lee Zep X Bowline' shown here... http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5357.msg35812#msg35812 
I have also posted an image showing the dual clip-in attachment method.
NOTE: This is strictly intended for indoor top rope climbing on artificial surfaces and also for 'high ropes' courses. For any 'lead climbing' applications outdoors, a direct knot-to-harness tie-in method should be used (ie with no connectors).

For anchoring a rope directly around a tree or a boulder, I now use 'Scott's Lock' Bowline routinely.

And for lead climbing activities, I use my own EBSB with Yosemite finish. I have not used Scott's Lock Bowline for lead climbing.... :-\

For securing a rope directly to a stretcher, I routinely use a Left-Hand Bowline (#1034 1/2)....refer photo (note the 2.0m 'long tail'). This method was actually pioneered by Reed Thorne (USA).

SO I think I have shown that there are in fact a number of Bowline variations which work remarkably well in their intended application.
And...they don't need to have a so-called 'Yosemite finish'  :D   (look at my attached photos... no 'Yosemite finish' ).

Mark G
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 02:27:00 AM by agent_smith »

Dan_Lehman

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4332
Re: The best bowline
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2015, 01:58:10 AM »
Which bowline is the best bowline? Put another way, if you could only tie ONE bowline variant for the entire rest of your life in every situation, and never tie any other as long as you live, which one would it be, and why?

(Obviously this would be an unrealistic and undesireable state of affairs, but limited choices clarify priorities, and I'm even more interested in people's reasons than I am in the knots they propose.)
In these sorts of queries, one could be learning as much
about responders (of their needs, or proclivities, or blindness
to how dum it is to finish every knot in the world with a Yosemite ...  :o   ;D  ).

Someone who needed a TIB knot will be guided by
that (the Yo-Bowl qualifies!), but maybe not others.
Someone who needs *quick*, well, probably won't want
the back'n'forth reeving duties for a mirrored bowline
(even if it IS the Greatest Bowline, leaving Gommers stumped
as to how to Yosemitize IT without being point-blank egregiously
short-listed for some prize like the IgNobel).

Quote
For me, it would be an end-bound single bowline without the Yosemite finish:
But if tied in bend-resistant cordage (I'm guessing that
you are playing with quite flexible stuff), the task of the
"end-binding" in going around just two diameters is
harder than were it surrounding the more circle-approximating
trio of diameters as for the EBDB.  (And, in tying elastic
cordage, one should anticipate the diameter diminution from
tension and set the knot extra tight, loading it as best one can
in the tying!)
The crowing superiority of the EBDB is of course its
phonetic impact --not "ess bee" , egadz, who wants to utter that
in a crowd?  No, "DEE BEE", as in --Mr. Grammar Man here--,
"Dee bee in dee bonnet is worth two in dee boot!".


Your welcome,
--dl*
====

Z

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: The best bowline
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2015, 11:27:52 AM »
Given the stipulatuons in the original post, it wouldn't even be a Bowline for me. It would be a Double Dragon. It is tiable on a bight, post-eye tiable, relatively compact, functional with many different types of rope, and non-jamming.
If you're reading this, it's too late.

Mobius

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 338
Re: The best bowl
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2015, 12:55:02 PM »
Given the stipulatuons in the original post, it wouldn't even be a Bowline for me. It would be a Double Dragon. It is tiable on a bight, post-eye tiable, relatively compact, functional with many different types of rope, and non-jamming.

I find the stipulation interesting as well. The precept appears to indirectly be (a common idea, right or wrong): 'Bowline', or the loop is not very important.

I have played with (something informal, just for me) empirical standards about fixed loop qualities that determine a loop's worthiness. For me, some good fixed loops are perhaps not bowlines, and are not worth arguing about as being bowlines, or even 'bowlinesque',  in my opinion.

The loop works, or it doesn't, right?

Cheers,

mobius
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 02:07:21 PM by mobius »

erizo1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
Re: The best bowline
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2015, 01:55:25 PM »
Given the stipulatuons in the original post, it wouldn't even be a Bowline for me. It would be a Double Dragon. It is tiable on a bight, post-eye tiable, relatively compact, functional with many different types of rope, and non-jamming.

I find the stipulation interesting as well. The precept appears to indirectly be (a common idea, right or wrong): 'Bowline', or the loop is not very important.

Thanks for your replies. The stipulation is narrow because I'm interested in bowlines at the moment, and this kind of intellectual exercise helps me clarify my thoughts about it. It's my way of turning something over to look at it from all angles, so to speak.

I certainly do not feel that other loop knots are without merit. In fact, part of my interest in bowlines is a desire to answer the question - for myself, not for everyone for all time - is there a loop knot in the bowline family good enough overall for me to prefer it instead of a Zeppelin loop or double dragon in just about all cases. I find these two easy to tie (again, I'm speaking for myself; I know others have expressed that they find them difficult or inconvenient), very versatile, and pleasing to tie, each in its own way.