Double Constrictors

[dbj999]

I like the double constrictor(top).  ABoK #1252.  It Is great for starting a permanent lashing, etc.

I came across ABoK #1253 the other day (bottom).  No name is given.  It looks really cool.  Just wondering if anyone can tell me more about it.  Does it have a name?  Is it considered the same knot?  Does it have any advantages or disadvantages over ABoK 1252?  Or other knots?

Thanks in advance
 
 

[Dan_Lehman]

I came across ABoK #1253 the other day (bottom).  No name is given.
It looks really cool.  Just wondering if anyone can tell me more about it.
Does it have a name?  Is it considered the same knot?  Does it have any
advantages or disadvantages over ABoK 1252?  Or other knots?

Thanks in advance

I like #1253, too.  IMO, the two crossing parts
are more resistant to moving out of position
(and it looks better).

--dl*
====

[roo]

I like the double constrictor(top).  ABoK #1252.  It Is great for starting a permanent lashing, etc.

I came across ABoK #1253 the other day (bottom).  No name is given.  It looks really cool.  Just wondering if anyone can tell me more about it.  Does it have a name?  Is it considered the same knot?  Does it have any advantages or disadvantages over ABoK 1252?  Or other knots?

Thanks in advance

What I find somewhat interesting in the ABoK #1253 is what happens when you slide it off the spar and carefully tighten the leftover knot.   It's very close to a pure trefoil knot.

[KC]

I like #1253, too.  IMO, the two crossing parts
are more resistant to moving out of position
(and it looks better).

--dl*
====

.
Seems to me it would pro-vide 'squarer service';
>>1st especially with any side forces is in less premium position, that 2nd maintains.
i think this would play out in higher loading
AND extended usage, that binding seems used more used for than other knots.
that the logistics seen and smoother form

[dbj999]

I like #1253, too.  IMO, the two crossing parts
are more resistant to moving out of position
(and it looks better).

--dl*
====

I agree Dan, I think it is more beautiful.  I haven't done extensive testing with it, however, it seems like it unties slightly more easily than ABoK 1252.
-dbj

[dbj999]

.
Seems to me it would pro-vide 'squarer service';
>>1st especially with any side forces is in less premium position, that 2nd maintains.
i think this would play out in higher loading
AND extended usage, that binding seems used more used for than other knots.
that the logistics seen and smoother form

KC I think you are right, like for the case of a rope bridge.  I think ABoK #1253 would be better for securing the middle cable of the bridge with the suspenders as it would resist sliding in any direction very well.

[dbj999]

What I find somewhat interesting in the ABoK #1253 is what happens when you slide it off the spar and carefully tighten the leftover knot.   It's very close to a pure trefoil knot.

Hi Roo, that might be a good name for it if it doesn't have one already.  The trefoil constrictor.

[mcjtom]

Did anybody come up with an easy-to-get-it-right method of tying it?

[Dan_Lehman]

Did anybody come up with an easy-to-get-it-right method of tying it?

I usually begin with a "cloverhand" and then
take an end out and around appropriately.

The knot sans bound object is a symmetric Fig.9,
hmmm, ABoK #525 (but put symmetrically).
In contrast, the Dlb.Constrictor = non-knot;
the TRIPLE C. gets a surviving OH, and the
OH count begins here.


--dl*
====

[Ruby]

well , maybe Schaake would argue that 1252 or 1253   is not going to be called a constrictor.

first, if you slide it off the spar, it should be an unknot, not overhand or trefoil,
second, if you pull it straight, there should be no kink twist.

the real double constrictor , which suffices meet these two standards, is to follow that 1249 route again, so left two, right two ,and center one, perfectly balanced double constrictor.

tie it with a flat strip to find and avoid the kink

[Dennis Pence]

ABoK #1253 can also be considered an extension of sack, bag, or miller knots.  Ashley had four (#1241, 1242, 1243, 1244) although he mentions that the Clove Hitch (#1245) is sometimes used (he calls it a poor binder).  He promotes the Constrictor (#1250) as a better binding knot.  George Russell Shaw in his Practical and Ornamental Knots (republished by Dover, original 1924) also has four sack knots (the last of which is Ashley's Strangle Knot #1239).  Shaw always gives two methods for tying each of his sack knots, one method where you wrap the free end around the neck of the sack to then tuck and the other method where you form the knot in the air first and slip it over the neck of the sack.  {Interestingly, the first Miller Knot #1241 would begin with a Figure Nine [ABoK #521] if we developed the second tying method for it.} All of these sack knots have two wraps in the back.

The Double Constrictor #1252, the knot we are considering #1253, and a version of the Strangle Knot #3440 all have three wraps in the back.  I considered it a challenge to come up with the second tying method for ABoK #1253 beginning with a Figure Nine Knot.  This turns out to be really complicated, and so this in no way answers mcjtom's request for an "easy-to-get-it-right method."  Notice at the beginning of the third row below the trefoil-like shape.