Locked cowboy bowline similar to Scott's locked bowline

[SS369]

As Mark has surmised, I have performed ?my? simple lock? maneuver with the tail to numerous knots. Not all of them being eye knots.

For some knots it is superfluous, some a little more complicated for little gain and some with interesting aesthetics.

In my original offering, in the thread ?A simple Lock for the Bowline? I tendered my design for the #1010 Bowline because that was what the thread concerned. I did not want to pollute the thread with other wanderings.

This particular working end technique does indeed increase security to a number of eye knots, simply.

And yes, there are variations to the path the working end can take that are relatively ?simple? as well.

The main thing in my mind is; safety while using rope is the main concern, keeping things as simple and secure as possible is paramount.

Scott

[Dan_Lehman]

per Dan Lehman:

The "step beyond" details are the question.

The phrase; "A step beyond" - refers to a tail maneuver that differs in character and basic geometry compared to Scotts original concept.

Which difference is the question posed.
Now, you get to answering that:

In examining Scotts original presentation - with the tail locking maneuver applied to the Simple Bowline (#1010):
1. The tail performs a U turn around the nipping loop and re-enters that nipping loop between the legs of the collar.
2. The tail then exits through the collar - and follows the SPart on a parallel pathway.
3. The tail is firmly clamped between the legs of the collar, due to the action of the nipping loop.

Seems simple enough to me
Are you seeing something of a different character?

Yes, though I think it much the same *character*;
as I said, Alan showed this.  The difference comes
at your 1st-above criterion --"between the legs..."--:
why insist on this, when tucking beside them gives
much the same feel & shape & effect (and it's as
much the constriction of the nipping loop as any
distinct from-the-legs'-straightening that imposes
nip.

I note that you (ie Dan) rarely post any photos of your creations or indeed photos depicting technical detail.

Thus I'll refer back to Alan's --to wit:





(And I also tried going on the crossing-point side of
the tail legs, and --whew!-- don't rely on THAT!)


--dl*
====

[agent_smith]

Per Dan Lehman:

Yes, though I think it much the same *character*

I disagree.

"between the legs..."--:
why insist on this,

Why not?
Why do you insist on a different geometry?

...

The 4 Scotts locked simple Bowlines that I have tendered all share the same fundamental character.
You are of course entitled to disagree - that's what makes the world an interesting place

[Andreas]

For climbers who like scottlock but can not let go of their double overhand finish...

It makes also everyone happy who enjoys a loop to be TIB


Ps,  I'd call this a double overhand bowline, rather than a scottlock variant

[Kost_Greg]

Nice offering Andreas, but as you said, the double overhand, returning eye leg structure, is a rough component, but  still legitimate for life critical applications that require extra level of security.

You may also call your creation the strangle bowline or the barrel bowline  .

For my standards, i would experiment with a shaped eight collar TIB form, where the returning bight leg, goes down through the nipping loop and over, under itself, (as in your case), then over itself again and back down through the nipping loop for a third time, exiting finally through the collar, parallel to SPart.

It does not appear to be a prototypical approach, i assume it has been done before, but it keeps the collar component to an unknotted state.

[Andreas]

Yes barrel is fair     i mention it because the double overhand is the standard finish for thousands of climbers using a bowline. Your eight, that is not an eight but stays unknotted is much more slick.
There is another knot that seems as sturdy and TIB, looks like an eight but isn't,  tail seems to go into the nipping loop a third time, but doesn't.

 In the 1st picture on the left is your unknotted eight as i read it, onthe right the other, that is actually off the scott's lock variation topic when looked closely.

The tail wrapping around the outgoing leg is a weakness or as an advantage for security?

How does it compare to the similar knot shown in the second pic?

[Kost_Greg]

In the 1st picture on the left is your unknotted eight as i read it,

Your eight, that is not an eight but stays unknotted is much more slick.

And you have read it very well, that's the one i was refering to, (i usually am no good at providing worded tying instructions). 

However, i do not make out any vulnerability at this three rope diameter instance, that might initiate tail slippage, or some other security hole at cyclic loading or slack shaking loading impulses.

Note that Scott's locked bowline, also uses an unknotted collar component, but as far as i know, it has been characterised as inherently secure.

There is another knot that seems as sturdy and TIB, looks like an eight but isn't,  tail seems to go into the nipping loop a third time, but doesn't.

 on the right the other that is actually off the scott's lock variation topic when looked closely.

With respect to your first image, rightmost, TIB variation, it looks legitimate too, it also uses three rope diameter inside the nipping loop(?), of an overhand based collar stabilizer, which, IMO, is not alleged to introduce any tail slickness.

The tail wrapping around the outgoing leg is a weakness or as an advantage for security?

How does it compare to the similar knot shown in the second pic?

It looks like you are advancing two schools of thought here, with respect to bowline development   .

1) I do not see the tail wrapping around the out-going eye leg as a weakness (first image approach), because if i did, i would had devalued many of the inherently secure bowlines, that are used in the field, without reported failures so far.

In fact, i myself, have used this technique, at many of my very own creations.

2) Yet still, i think i am going to lean towards your second image approach, which exploits the so called Janus mechanism.

In my view, the second collar formation around the on going eye leg, expands the  bowline collar function, providing me two bights with their legs nipped that i can handle after heavy loading, along with the apropriate nip constriction, in order to reach the security standards.

Very good, i sense you're going to feed this forum with a whole lot of fresh TIB bowlines  .

[Andreas]

With respect to your first image, rightmost, TIB variation, it looks legitimate too, it also uses three rope diameter inside the nipping loop(?)

In the first picture you see two ways to dress this knot. You could not dress the tail outside of the nipping loop of scott's locked  bowline, so it's more  truly inside the nipping loop in a sense

2) Yet still, i think i am going to lean towards your second image approach, which exploits the so called Janus mechanism.

Sure enough the search function does not help to get a clue of what janus mechanism is..
Could someone give a hint or explain please 

Very good, i sense you're going to feed this forum with a whole lot of fresh TIB bowlines 

You're  well aware that this kind of prediction has self-fulfilling mechanics...  )

Second picture knot is inspired by your unknotted eight tail finish

Third still resembles a scott's lock  finish vaguely, But it is much more sturdy, clamping the nipping loop from all sides. Tail unknotted as well and just as TIB as second picture knot. It seems to open easy, might jam at higher loads?!


I found both to  be unusually sturdy after drawn tight.