Double Dragon Bend

[Saddleworn]

Hi.  Being a novice knot tyer I may not use the correct nomenclature so I hope I get my meaning across.  I have only seen the Double Dragon Bend tied as shown in the Double Dragon Bend_Small.JPG image attached.  It makes no sense to me to have the lines of force entering a bend at 90 degrees to each other.  So, I tied the knot so the lines of force were in-line 180 degrees to each other as shown in the In-Line Double Dragon Bend_Full Series.JPG image attached.  One way of looking at the In-Line Double Dragon Bend is as if you tied an end loop Double Dragon with a huge end loop, cut one side of the end loop near the knot (thereby creating the second rope), and used the long cut side of the end loop as the standing part of your second rope.  The knot itself is unchanged.  This configuration eliminates the distortion and jamming caused by applying a heavy load to the 90? Double Dragon Bend.  Is this an existing method of tying this bend?  Whether it is or not, what are your opinions regarding the quality of this knot?  I'm trying to assemble a small collection of knots to meet basic needs hiking, camping, and around the house.  I already use the Double Dragon end loop, so to be able to use it for a bend as well would be great.

Thanks for your input.

[agent_smith]

Hello Saddleworn,
I was about to go to bed but I thought I'd point you to this link: https://daveroot.neocities.org/knots/Knots_Bends.html#DoubleDragonBend

Very briefly, all 'bends' (ie end-to-end joining knots) have corresponding 'eye knots' (aka loop knots).

In my sleepy haze right now - it appears that the first knot image you presented has simply transposed a Standing Part (SPart) for a 'tail'.
This could be a simple error from whom ever tied that knot OR, it could be a blueprint for tying one of the corresponding eye knots.

Using the so called 'double dragon bend' as a blueprint - grab another length of cord and try to tie an eye knot by linking a tail to an SPart. You have 2 SParts and 2 tails to select from - which results in different eye knots. It might also be possible to link the 2 tails for another corresponding eye knot.

I would also comment that the 'double dragon' is really a #206 Crossing hitch (ie Munter hitch) linked to a 'Round turn'.
And a 'Carrick bend' is simply a #206 crossing hitch inter-linked to another #206 Crossing hitch.
You can play around with crossing hitches and experiment with creating your own 'bends'.

...

I would also comment that if you want to join to ropes together, it is hard to beat the Zeppelin bend.
Go to this web page to download a comprehensive paper on the Zeppelin bend: http://www.paci.com.au/knots.php  (I will be also be updating that paper soon).

[Saddleworn]

Hi agent_smith,

Thanks very much for your reply.  My first image was actually tied based on Dave Roots page that you attached the link for.  It was my intention to tie it identically to his instructions, and as far as I can tell I did (my tails are a little long) - but you are, after all, talking to a novice.  Referring to the orientation of the knot in my first image, I agree that what is a standing part entering the bend from the top would normally be the tail if it was tied as an end loop (the end loop would be to the right).

In the image showing the sequence of how I changed the knot in the first image, I effectively move the standing part from the top of the knot to the right-hand side and move one of the tails from the right-hand side to the top.  In this way the force from a load applied to the two standing parts travels straight through the knot from left to right.

Because I'm a novice, I'm having a difficult time following the rest of your reply.  But before I ask questions, let me do my homework and research the knots and tying techniques you mention.  Then I'll get back to you if I still have questions.  At least then you could be talking to someone with more knowledge than a sack of rocks as is your present dilemma.

Best Regards

[Saddleworn]

In rereading my posts here I want to make it clear to anyone reading this thread that I am in no way disparaging Dave Root or his website.  I have gotten immense benefit from his site and recommend it to anyone wanting clear illustrated instructions on how to tie a myriad of knots.  I have the site bookmarked and it is my go to site for this purpose.  Further, Dave and I have had a conversation on this very topic and it was he that graciously suggested I bring my question to this forum.  I just wanted to make that clear given the debt I owe Dave for his help.

[Kost_Greg]

Hi Saddleworn

Since you follow Dave root's site (one of the very best knotting sites), i am sure you have pinned down Tugboat A,B, which may be implemented as asymmetrical bends too, having a more compact (at least for me) form.

I really like/have tied those Sheet bend- like type of bends. To be more specific, if you remove left link's tug end, out of its collar at your paradigm, you get a form of a double sheet bend. Yet still, removing right link's one wrap, you get a simple sheetbend.

Frankly, i find no reason of using two wraps (double dragon), for the basic applications that you are reporting, as you will probably encounter some trickiness in the untying process.

So why not using a single dragon bend, or a tugboat A,B, if an asymmetrical bend is your weapon of choice?

[Saddleworn]

Hi tsik_lestat

I actually learned of the Double Dragon in the process of learning the Tugboat knots.  I agree that for my most common applications the double wrap of the Double Dragon is unnecessary.  However, one of my main goals is to minimize the number of knots I need to know.  It is conceivable that I could find myself in an emergency situation when hiking that required using an end loop to rescue a person.  By having my only end loop knot being secure enough for this job, I will be familiar with tying it properly.  Whereas if I commonly use a lesser knot for normal uses, if the emergency doesn't occur for 10 years I may be hard pressed to recall how to properly tie a more secure one.  With the ability to easily convert the Double Dragon to a two or three loop knot useful as a harness, the Double Dragon is an ideal end loop knot for me.

It is the idea of consolidating the number of knots in my repertoire that has lead me to investigating using the Double Dragon Bend.  Although the way I tied it in my second image seems reasonable to me and does not seem like it would weaken the knot, as a novice I don't know this to be a fact.  Again, in the interest of versatility, I'd like my only bend to be a good one in the off chance the need arises that requires it.  For me, quality trumps consolidation so I'd rather learn a different bend that was significantly stronger or more reliable if the In-Line version of the Double Dragon Bend is lacking in some way.

What I am starting to think is that the In-Line version of the Double Dragon Bend is an unknown quantity and that a definitive answer to my question of strength and reliability does not exist (yet?).  I am therefore considering the Zeppelin as my bend of choice as it is well known and generally held in high regard.  I also find it easy to remember how to tie it, and least importantly, but a nice bonus, I like the beauty of its symmetry.  All of which is probably more than you wanted to know, but thanks for listening so politely

[agent_smith]

Hello Saddleworn,

I thought I'd chime in here...with a few thoughts that are purely my own!

However, one of my main goals is to minimize the number of knots I need to know.

You'll find that by definition, the regular posters on this forum try to maximize the number of knots in their skill set.

There is a really interesting paper on this subject authored by Dick Chisholm.
Link: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e895/6f4c88599eb6dfc9048f242a1935f6ec79c0.pdf

I like how Dick tries to discover the 'mindset' of the typical knot tyer (in this case - ski patrollers). They seem to hold the same view as you do - keep the number of knots to 'need to know' only (I am not implying this is 'bad' or 'good' - I just find it interesting).

I think it really depends on what mindset you are looking at it from.
Some classes of people see knots and knot tying as an art form - blending art and science as a craft.

Again, in the interest of versatility, I'd like my only bend to be a good one in the off chance the need arises that requires it.  For me, quality trumps consolidation so I'd rather learn a different bend that was significantly stronger or more reliable if the In-Line version of the Double Dragon Bend is lacking in some way.

I'm not entirely certain what your particular contextual need is... but, in broad terms - MBS yield of a knot (strength) is irrelevant.
Many users confuse the notional concept of strength with security and stability. When they say 'strength' - if they thought more deeply about it, what really matters is security and stability.
You can also add to that: resistance to jamming.

If you want to make the Zeppelin bend your friend, you can't really go wrong.
You just need to master your preferred tying method - and develop pattern recognition skills (ie learn to recognise the shape and distinguishing features of the Zeppelin bend). Like most things in life, its really just a question of practice.

Happy knotting

[Saddleworn]

You'll find that by definition, the regular posters on this forum try to maximize the number of knots in their skill set...

Some classes of people see knots and knot tying as an art form - blending art and science as a craft.

Hi agent_smith,
It's funny that you would say that because since finding Dave Root's site and this forum I've found myself tying all kinds of knots that are outside my stated goals just for the fun of it (oh, that knot looks interesting!).  I think I may well be on the way to becoming hooked, or dare I say entangled, in this new found art form.

[Dan_Lehman]

I'm trying to understand how "inline" belongs in :
"the In-Line version of the Double Dragon Bend is an unknown quantity"?!
For I understand the adjective to apply to eye knots
that might be through loaded (and, so, within a line
that's tensioned), and also hitches similarly.

As for "maximizing the number of knots in their skill set",
IMO that's shooting a bit beside the mark : rather, one
should seek to understand some number of knots, how
& why they work & where/when,
and THEN one will have the knowledge to implement
some indefinite number of knots per need,
should you face something not so well met
by those knots you can *index* to in your set.

--dl*
====

[Saddleworn]

I'm trying to understand how "inline" belongs in :
"the In-Line version of the Double Dragon Bend is an unknown quantity"?!

The problem lies in my incorrect use of the term "inline".  As a novice I was wholly unaware that the term had a specific definition.  I called the knot "Inline Double Dragon Bend" strictly to differentiate a Double Dragon Bend that connected the ends of two ropes that was tied in a manner that had the standing parts entering the knot at 180 degrees (inline) as opposed  to it being tied with the standing parts entering the knot at 90 degrees.  To me the 90 degree version would want to distort the knot and put undesirable stress on the rope when a load was placed on the two standing parts.(my unqualified opinion that may or may not be true). 

Because no one has outrightly stated that the 180 degree Double Dragon Bend is a great bend that they recommend (like some are willing to say about the Zeppelin Bend), in the absence of negative comments about it as well, I feel compelled to conclude that this bend is an unknown quantity and one that I do not want to add to my repertoire.  As things stand right now, I'm inclined to actually use the Zeppelin Bend, while viewing the Double Dragon Bends as an educational exercise that demonstrated how the same knot can be tied to different effect (which is significant to a novice who thought that a knot was a single structure tied one specific way.  It's a whole new world).

[Kost_Greg]

All eyeknots (loopknots), have their corresponding asymmetrical bends, where most of them are not practicable, due to their geometry.

You have implemented a bend structure, where its standing parts (links), as you correctly point out, are entering the knot at 180 degrees, and that is a legitimate/desired property that occurs in all tugboat-like knots. This is an innovative idea, that certainly does not sound so novice afterall  .

On the other hand, one link of an asymmetrical bend, is theoretically weaker than the other, more likely to slip under heavy loading. However, in some cases, this observable slippage, if there is any, would be a desirable effect, giving you a sense of loading control, defining the appropriate work loading zone. Though, i believe that such knots can not surpass the functionality of a genuine symmetrical, zeppelin-like knot, like the notorious zeppelin bend.

Both feature fancy names, (double dragon/zeppelin), but, in my view, there is a wide margin in their functionality.

[Dan_Lehman]

Because no one has outrightly stated that the 180 degree Double Dragon Bend
is a great bend that they recommend (like some are willing to say about the Zeppelin Bend),
in the absence of negative comments about it as well,
I feel compelled to conclude that this bend is ...

... essentially a sort of further-tucked sheet bend.

Here's an end-2-end knot that I use frequently:

1) tie a reverse (same-side) sheet bend
(i.e., where tails lie on same side; SParts also (opp. side))
BUT THEN
2) further tuck this RSB's hitching-end's tail
(i.e., the tail of the part wrapping the other part,
which other part is the bight/U-shaped part)
by wrapping it fully around its own SPart and
the bight leg that SPart runs over on entering
the knot.

.:.  This full wrap (& maybe more) binds for slack-security
such as with the blood knot / strangle knot,
but it can usually be forcibly loosened by pulling the
bight legs apart, enough --not much, but one can
usually get enough-- to pry out some SPart sufficient
to enable loosening of the knot.


--dl*
====