#1452 (Ashley / Versatile bend)

[agent_smith]

An interesting problem was identified in this video:
Link: https://www.alpinesavvy.com/blog/the-moft-a-very-crafty-rope-trick (scroll down to view video).

When I saw this video, it reminded me that a long time ago (in a distant Galaxy) I knew of a end-to-end joining knot (ie 'bend') that would translate through a #206 Munter hitch without causing undue disruption. Only minor coaxing by pushing with your thumb to get it to feed through (and/or manipulating a segment of the Munter hitch to fold it over the knot).
As it turns out, that 'bend' is #1452 (Ashley bend).

Ashley indicates that it is an "original bend" but, does not reveal who the original discoverer was.
Roger Miles states that the bend was discovered Feb 03, 1934 and appears to attribute it to Ashley (but the sentence grammar/construction is not definitive).
Miles also named it a 'versatile bend' (presumably because Ashley left it devoid of a name?).
I prefer the name 'Janus bend' - on account of its identical front/rear geometry.

Ashley's original drawing indicates parallel tails.
In my photography - I show crossed tails.

I have not done load testing on #1452 to determine jamming threshold (in EN892 / EN1891 ropes).
Based on experience with crossing the tails in #1425A Riggers bend, it does appear to boost jam resistance.

...

Anyhow, my interest has been ignited with this end-to-end joining knot on account of 2 points:
1. It has identical front and rear geometry; and
2. It will translate through a #206 Munter hitch under load (without causing undue disruption of the Munter hitch).

In the video, #1410 Offset overhand bend is used.
This causes disruption to #206 Munter during translation - forcing the operator to dynamically 'pop' it through the Munter hitch. This causes a sudden spike in loading.
The offset geometry of #1410 causes snagging during translation.
#1452 appears to the only 'bend' that will translate through #206 Munter hitch under load - without causing disruption.
I find this very interesting.

Obviously, the ability to translate through a loaded #206 Munter hitch is linked to its unique geometry.
I wonder if this subject has been explored in detail before?

Has anyone conducted peer reviewed load testing of #1452 using EN892 and EN1891 certified ropes to determine jam resistance?

I have not conducted significant testing of #1452 using different rope diameters to see how this impacts on its ability to translate through a loaded #206 Munter hitch...

Some old IGKT discussions:
[ ] https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1098.msg40496#msg40496
[ ] https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=5954.0

EDIT NOTE: I have to say that Roger Miles photograph (B14) is poor quality (but, it was back in 1995).

[roo]

An interesting problem was identified in this video:
Link: https://www.alpinesavvy.com/blog/the-moft-a-very-crafty-rope-trick (scroll down to view video).

When I saw this video, it reminded me that a long time ago (in a distant Galaxy) I knew of a end-to-end joining knot (ie 'bend') that would translate through a #206 Munter hitch without causing undue disruption. Only minor coaxing by pushing with your thumb to get it to feed through (and/or manipulating a segment of the Munter hitch to fold it over the knot).
As it turns out, that 'bend' is #1452 (Ashley bend).

Ashley indicates that it is an "original bend" but, does not reveal who the original discoverer was.
Roger Miles states that the bend was discovered Feb 03, 1934 and appears to attribute it to Ashley (but the sentence grammar/construction is not definitive).
Miles also named it a 'versatile bend' (presumably because Ashley left it devoid of a name?).
I prefer the name 'Janus bend' - on account of its identical front/rear geometry.

Ashley's original drawing indicates parallel tails.
In my photography - I show crossed tails.

Aside from my issues with you renaming an already prominently-named knot, I would steer people away from the Ashley Bend for critical use as it has a pretty easy-to-make evil impostor as discussed on the Butterfly Bend page here:

https://notableknotindex.webs.com/butterflybend.html

As far as the meaning of "original", from an online dictionary:

o?rig?i?nal
/əˈrijənl/
adjective

[1. snipped]

2.created directly and personally by a particular artist; not a copy or imitation. "original Rembrandts"

[agent_smith]

per roo:

Aside from my issues with you renaming an already prominently-named knot

That's strange - I thought the title of this post read as follows:
#1452 Ashley / Versatile bend

And the attached image was: #1452 Ashley bend (also #783)

Unless my understanding of the English language is wrong - I am having difficulty seeing what you're seeing?

I wonder what prompted you to respond in such a manner?
I did say that I prefer to use than name 'Janus bend' - but that's merely my personal preference.
Is having a personal preference a source of irritation to you?

I would steer people away from the Ashley Bend for critical use as it has a pretty easy-to-make evil impostor

What an odd comment.
The alternative view (obviously) is that #1452 can be correctly tied - just like any other knot - with practice.
Pattern recognition skills are useful - and the shape/form of #1452 is different to your so-called 'evil imposter'.
#1452 is radially twisted compared to your 'evil imposter' - being quite distinctive in form.
I would comment that any knot can be miss-tied - with catastrophic consequences.
One only needs to look at the incidents with climbing harness tie-in knot being miss-tied.
Of course, simple safety checks would be carried out by the diligent person - as opposed to leaping forth without performing any check.

roo's strange and poorly conceived comment implies that the person (ie climber) would fail to perform any type of safety check.
Safety checks are widely used by climbers and the rope access/rescue community (eg ABCDE / ARCHER checks) - and are designed to catch errors at an early stage.

Butterfly Bend page here:

https://notableknotindex.webs.com/butterflybend.html

There are other knots that can be miss-tied too. This often parroted argument seems - at first instance - to be valid.
On closer analysis, it does not withstand scrutiny.
For example, offset rope joining knots can be miss-tied - and we have several accident reports pointing to human error as the root cause.
Does this mean we should stop using hand tied knots?
Should humans be removed from the decision making process?

As far as the meaning of "original", from an online dictionary:

In my 1995 (1993) revised copy of ABoK, Ashley describes #1452 as an "original bend".
Those were his words (not mine).
Which copy of ABoK do you have? Maybe you have a different version?
Roger Miles (Symmetric bends author) 'apparently' attributes #1452 to Ashley (although the construction of his writing is not perfectly clear).

[roo]

I would steer people away from the Ashley Bend for critical use as it has a pretty easy-to-make evil impostor

roo's strange and poorly conceived comment implies that the person (ie climber) would fail to perform any type of safety check.

The OP obviously isn't in a mood for discussion, but as an addendum to this thread to show that evil impostors pop up without being noticed by the tyer even with people attempting to teach knots in comfortable, well-lit studio conditions:

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1885.msg13048#msg13048

It just so happened to be the (attempted) Ashley Bend.

[Dan_Lehman]

As far as the meaning of "original", from an online dictionary:

In my 1995 (1993) revised copy of ABoK, Ashley describes #1452 as an "original bend".
Those were his words (not mine).
Which copy of ABoK do you have? Maybe you have a different version?
Roger Miles (Symmetric bends author) 'apparently' attributes #1452 to Ashley (although the construction of his writing is not perfectly clear).

And Roo's point is that Ashley has assumed that
he has originated this knot (along with some others
at this point, presented with dates of origination
--which is what Roger is citing--, and then the infamous
constrictor, no doubt Clifford's favorite!).
((Some many decades later, I too originated it,
i.e., discovering it for myself --a measure of both
inventiveness (aka "too much free time") and poor
research skills (as I HAD ABoK!    ))

Vs. this "evil impostor" warning, there is neutral
advice to give about the orientations that one can
have for Ashley's #1452 : the collars can be as
loose as MG shows; more loose, such that they more
run up around the knot body (or less so they quite
do NOT); the collar bight-legs' crossing pushed
through the nipping turns which really *fattens*
the knot but I'll guess too much and not really
getting a broader SPart turn;
and with legs initially crossed in opposite way
such that collars ride over the body AND LOCK/jam
--which is how that old, tied-in-fiddly-little-string
testing turned out to be made; when tied otherwise,
#1425 did NOT jam (as I had argued).
(I can see one choosing the jamming orientation for
joining springy-hard-slick PP cordage where there will
not be so much force as to render the nicely jammed
--to prevent loosening-- knot from being forcibly loosened
(pulling tails apart can do this, or get near to doing it).


It would go a long way towards understanding this knot
  (which, IMO by evidence of ABoK, Ashley did not!)
if the tying did NOT show the two-clever-by-half, all-at=
once tucking of (both)tails,
BUT SHOWED ONE END TIED IN AN OVERHAND KNOT
and THEN the other end reeved into this --here is where
the key placement can be shown clearly (and emphasized
verbally)!  For each tail should return to the place where
its SPart splits the spline --that ensures non-jamming version.


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

The OP obviously isn't in a mood for discussion, but as an addendum to this thread to show that evil impostors pop up without being noticed by the tyer even with people attempting to teach knots in comfortable, well-lit studio conditions:

https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1885.msg13048#msg13048

It just so happened to be the (attempted) Ashley Bend.

Obviously you are fixated on posting only comments of a negative nature.
This fixation presumes that no person on planet Earth is capable of performing a check to correctly tie #1452.

If that is your mandate, it would be manifestly wrong.

I would counter any of your presumptuous arguments that there are people who live on this planet - who are capable of performing a safety check of life critical systems (including knots).

Here is an open challenge to you roo:
Do you have anything of a positive and constructive nature to say?

For example, have you experimented with #1452 to see if it will translate through #206 Munter hitch under load (with only minor manipulation)?

Or, are you concerned that you might miss-tie #1452?
I would again emphasize that many knots can be incorrectly tied (not just #1452).
You fixation on how humans make mistakes would be energy better spent on devising methods to achieve success.
An example is #409 / #1228 Poachers noose (double overhand noose).
There is an 'evil impostor' with this knot too.
Check out this link: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/3894618/Safety%20Bulletins%20/SB8%20Rev2_Scaffold%20Barrel%20Knot.pdf

Does that mean we should avoid using #409 / #1228 ?

Similar issues exist with the Yosemite Bowline - which can easily be miss-tied.
By drawing on the tail before the knot core has been properly set, the tail segment can be displaced outside of the nipping loop - which results in an unstable knot (that is no longer a 'Bowline').

[Dan_Lehman]

To the issue of "evil imposter",
I pretty well know the OP's knot (and its various
versions), along with many others like it, notably
Roo's/Xarax's beloved zep.bend,
and have fallen into tying *imposters* either by
getting the other vs. one I wanted (1408<->1452)
or botching tying to get 1409 or the False zeppelin.

Practical users might be given just one of the
knots to learn, and sans *interference* of broader
knowledge could become sure tyers of them.

Double-checking has benefits, especially if given
particular clues to what might show a mistake
(too much tail movement, e.g.).


As for the main point of the OP
--getting a knot through a Halbmastwurfsicherung
aka Italian Hitch aka ... ---,
I'm impressed that anything works, and look forwards
to giving it a go with some play ropes.
In practice out on the sharp end,
I'd think one might favor using a sling with some
stopper/friction hitch to belay the climber while
easily advancing any knot around the main 'biner.


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

I wonder if there are any comments that actually discuss the principal point of my post.
That point is to select and tie an end-to-end joining knot that will translate through #206 Munter hitch under load (requiring only minor manipulation).
It seems that some 'minds' are directed only at 'evil imposters' and topics that have nothing to do with translating a knot through a loaded Munter hitch.

Hmmmmm.

And Roo's point is that Ashley has assumed that
he has originated this knot

I read Ashleys description of #1452.
I couldn't find a definitive declaration that he was the discoverer?
He did declare it to be "an original bend" - but that is different to declaring himself as the discoverer.
Can you provide some additional proof that his intended to declare himself as the discoverer of #1452?

Vs. this "evil impostor" warning, there is neutral
advice to give about the orientations that one can
have for Ashley's #1452

With all this emphasis on so called 'evil imposter' - I think I will ask our friend Alan Lee to conduct some load testing of that structure (using human rated rope - EN892 or EN1891).
I might also run some load tests and we'll see how it responds to loading events.

It would go a long way towards understanding this knot
  (which, IMO by evidence of ABoK, Ashley did not!)
if the tying did NOT show the two-clever-by-half, all-at=
once tucking of (both)tails,
BUT SHOWED ONE END TIED IN AN OVERHAND KNOT
and THEN the other end reeved into this --here is where
the key placement can be shown clearly (and emphasized
verbally)!  For each tail should return to the place where
its SPart splits the spline --that ensures non-jamming version.

As I see it, there are 3 possible tail orientations with #1452 (within each Z/Z or S/S chirality construct).
1. Tails can be parallel
2. Tails can be crossed
3. Tails can be crossed (opposite to #2)

Testing will verify jam resistance with different tail orientations.
Although I wonder if testers would be frightened to tie #1452 - for fear of instead tying roo's so called 'evil imposter'?
Would this fear of miss-tying override any notional concept of performing a load test?

[agent_smith]

per Dan Lehman:

As for the main point of the OP
--getting a knot through a Halbmastwurfsicherung
aka Italian Hitch aka ... ---,
I'm impressed that anything works, and look forwards
to giving it a go with some play ropes.

Holly hell Batman!
You are actually directing your mind to the topic
We have gotten past evil imposters...

Yes - I have to admit that when I noticed that the default approach was to use #1410, and to force it through a #206 Munter hitch under load - it begged for an improved technique.
Forcing #1410 through results in a sudden spike in loading (colloquially known as 'popping').

I thought to myself - surely there must be a better way (ie a better mouse trap).
And so I recalled (from long ago) that there was indeed a way to accomplish this by using a particular knot.
A few quick attempts showed that it was #1452.
I can get #1452 to translate with just minor manipulation (pushing with my thumb) - no sudden shock loading to the anchors.

I also note that #1452 has some of the properties of #1410 - in that it does present a partial offset like surface - disturbed only by one rope segment.
The knot also 'rolls' upright - in the same way as #1410 - when it reaches a cliff edge.
It also has a small footprint.

I might investigate other end-to-end joining knots to see if others might perform better... (now that's an open challenge to IGKT members).

[Dan_Lehman]

And Roo's point is that Ashley has assumed that
he has originated this knot

I read Ashleys description of #1452.
I couldn't find a definitive declaration that he was the discoverer?
He did declare it to be "an original bend" - but that is different to declaring himself as the discoverer.

No, that is quite the same --precisely.
THIS is a sense of "original", as Roo cited
(and why Ashley included those dates).


Meanwhile, right beside #1452 lies #1453
which I have SELDOM been able to make
symmetric, tied sense of --usually it
defeats me, at least a couple times.

(And, IMO, Ashley was likely fiddling around
from a carrick bend start, though in that case
one would've expected Asher's "shakehands"
to show, but Ashley only has the general *knot*
in not even the better eye-knot loading.)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

No, that is quite the same --precisely.
THIS is a sense of "original", as Roo cited
(and why Ashley included those dates).

Obfuscation comes to mind...
It really is hard to determine (with absolute clarity) what you (or anyone else) is suggesting in relation to the discovery of #1452.

In a strictly literal sense, Ashley did not declare himself to be the discoverer of #1452 (in his book).
As for the discovery date - Ashley did not provide this either...that came from Roger Miles.
Also, Miles description is not 100% clear on who the discoverer of #1452 was. His sentence construction is not clear.
Miles wrote: "Ashley #1452 (discovered February 3, 1934)".
In a strict literal sense, this could mean... #1452 as illustrated in Ashley Book of Knots, with a discovery date Feb 3, 1934.

If Miles intended to attribute the discovery to Clifford Ashley, it should have been written as follows:
The knot depicted at illustration #1452 in 'ABoK' was discovered by Clifford Ashley on February 03, 1934.
But, he did not construct his sentence in this way.

So what exactly are you saying Dan?
Be 100% crystal clear please

I am going to see if I can get some load tests of roo's alleged 'evil imposter' - and will use #1452 as the 'control'.
We'll specifically look at the stability and security (of the 'evil imposter') - and also examine the jam resistance of #1452 with different tail orientations.

[Dan_Lehman]

No, that is quite the same --precisely.
THIS is a sense of "original", as Roo cited
(and why Ashley included those dates).

Obfuscation comes to mind...
It really is hard to determine (with absolute clarity) what you (or anyone else) is suggesting in relation to the discovery of #1452.

In a strictly literal sense, Ashley did not declare himself to be the discoverer of #1452 (in his book).
As for the discovery date - Ashley did not provide this either...that came from Roger Miles.

Stupidity comes to mind.
Ashley did do exactly that --claim & dated to boot, to wit:

[ABoK] 1452. (2/3/34.) Another original bend ...

QED.

--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Stupidity comes to mind.
Ashley did do exactly that --claim & dated to boot, to wit:

[ABoK] 1452. (2/3/34.) Another original bend ...

Thanks - indeed.
What is still unclear is the location of the 'Spouting Sperm Whale' - it appears to be deliberately drawn close to #1451.
Looking at this - it seems that Ashley intended to position the whale icon in that manner.
I guess that the alternative viewpoint is that the whale icon was placed there simply because he had no more room!

That's why this is not clear to me - in that the description and the position of the whale icon aren't really definitive.
When I look at other knot illustrations, he seems to be more careful as to which knot he positions the icon.
I'll just leave this to ponder...

EDIT NOTE:
I have asked some others to get their opinion on this issue of Ashley being confirmed as the discoverer of #1452.
The origin of my doubt stems from the position of the whale icon.
It seems that some see the whale icon as intended to apply to both knots (ie #1451 and #1452).
Whereas I see the whale icon as being deliberately drawn in close proximity to illustration #1451.
When you look at other appearances of this icon throughout his book - he seems to be more careful about where it is positioned.
This is my reason for obfuscation - in that the intent is somewhat obscured.
Whether Ashley was deliberate about this is something that we will never know for sure...