Author Topic: Attempt to label and recreate bowline variations without pics. New knot too?  (Read 7561 times)


  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
per KnotLikely:
Scott's Lock just scared the crap out of me.  I was playing around with snags on the wall and I caught the collar (try sticking your thumb through the returning leg side).  My knot was suddenly 3 feet away from me and out of reach, with a hoop of eye legs big enough to crawl through.

I'm calling this bogus (sorry - but I'm being honest).

In order for this anomaly to even stand a snow balls chance in hell - there would have to be a carefully choreographed sequence of events - to the extent that it is deliberately induced.

I'm going to make an absolute declaration that Scotts locked Bowline is 100% fit for purpose and inherently secure.
Note: This is when using EN892 conforming rope.

EDIT NOTE: Ropes or cordage other than EN892 might have unpredictable loading dyneema, fishing line or random local hardware el cheapo cord.
But, in EN892 rope - Scotts locked bowline is certainly fit for purpose.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 12:05:19 PM by agent_smith »


  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
I'm surprised that this comes as a surprise to you.
I'm not surprised even in the slightest...because your test results are yielding a false positive which itself is conditional upon unrealistic parameters.

This is all going off-topic.... so I created a new topic thread.


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30

Does this have a name, yet?  I'd call it the wrapped collar lock, maybe?

I'm really liking it in the double bowline, 2accbjnb.  It looks very easy to partner check, as well as all the usual, circumferential load, stable, secure without a backup knot.

Have the collar make an extra turn around the S-Part.  Working end goes back up through that loop from the back side and comes back down through the nipping loops.

Six hard bends, back and forth, of the two nipping loops and the two collars, seems to work it loose after heavy loading.


I experimented with having the wrap of the collar run under itself, instead of over.  It tightens both wraps of the collar with one less tug of the working end, but it also loosens a lot easier.


...experimenting with the girth hitch forms of nipping loops, as always, and with collaring the eye-legs...

When forming the nipping loops as done in the mirrored bowline, 12acbha, Girth hitch, closest loop loaded first (so they tend to pull apart), and with the switchback facing you, and making this lock in left hand (cowboy) form bowline, you form 12addbjnb.  The primary nipping loop circles 4 lines, one of the 4 being itself before it forms the switchback of the girth hitch.  This is the first knot that I have found where the switchback is absolutely unloaded.  Judging by the tension on the knot parts, the primary turn of the collar seems to be absorbing some of this force upon loading, via the returning eye-leg (of course!).  The cowboy girth hitch version of this lock pinches the nipping loop between [itself] and the [returning eye-leg to primary collar], preventing loading of what should be the break point bend of a girth hitch bowline.  This knot stays in place well, but releases easily.

The cowboy (left hand) version of this knot locks the ongoing eye-leg extremely hard in both single and double versions of a bowline.  The girth hitch adds nothing to this outside tail bowline knot.  The switchback of a girth hitch gets in the way of the lock if pointed away.  If pointed toward you, it adds unneeded complexity and does absorb some of the force while bending around one rope width.

Collaring the ongoing eye-leg (accidentally?) instead of the S-Part results in a stable and secure knot, when using either girth hitch or reverse girth hitch with the switchback pointed toward you.  This is not surprising, as circumferential loading is not an issue and this move simply switches the positions of the S-Part and the ongoing eye-leg in the knot structure.  This structure is bulky but remains very compact against the harness loops.  It adds 1.5 inches.  This is tiny, compared to a retraced 8 and most other knots, though this knot takes up much more vertical area.  The tail and the switchback form backup collars, though they remain unused as the S-Part pulls in a direct line to the harness loops.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2020, 04:29:51 AM by KnotLikely »


  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Hi KnotLikely

I believe i have tied the structure of the first image before, but without the lust tucking, where the WE is being fed through the nipping loop for a third time, shown in the second instance of your snapshot series.

Frankly, i would not be amenable to trading off the tibness (first photo), with a third rope diameter into the nip (second photo), but that is a subjective concept, that falls under my fancy for TIB knots.

The collar segment of your structure, after its first insertion up through the nip, follows this scheme.... first wrap around SP, then collar and back down through the nip, and finally back through the two wraps, parallel to SP.

It might also function properly with a variation like this...... first collar then wrap around SP, tracking down afterwards the rest of WE's maneuvers, mentioned previously.

Both, distinctive cases, as retucked TIB 1010 bowline variants, where their collar components, rather take the form of a hitch, in contrast with a U bight structure, braced to SP, an exclusive characteristic found in conventional bowlines.

Nice offering, but it needs testing to confirm its jam resistance, due to its complexity in the collar structure level, let alone if you switch the simple helical nipping loop, with a more intricate form, like girth hitch, or pretzel, or even double coil.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 01:27:38 AM by tsik_lestat »
Going knots