Two varants of double constrictor - cannot decide what is best

[Knutern]

Hi.

I mostly use this hitch to group wires so that it look nice. But when it comes to reliability (in my case, how much movements on wires it takes for it to loose) and time spend to tie one knot, I just cannot decide and pick a favorite. To be hones I haven't made any serious afford to measure the time it take to tie, but my gut feeling says it just take the same time.

Variant 1 : This is the one that first pop up in search result on web
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZirTFGt6KQ

Variant 2 :  : This one start with a kind of false variant of clove hitch
Discussed in this topic from 2011
https://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=3174.0
(not the) name of the knot "More Symmetric Double Constrictor"


Ok, so I'm not interresting to delve into naming discussion, bu I Am interested in if anyone have an opinion if there are any reasons to believe one variant have different characteristics to the other variant.

[Dan_Lehman]

I mostly use this hitch to group wires so that it look nice.
But when it comes to reliability
 (in my case, how much movements on wires it takes for it to loosen)
and time spend to tie one knot, I just cannot decide and pick a favorite.

The cited thread re #1253 gave my thinking of reasons to
prefer it sometimes; though I think I've favored it less of late
(i.e., not seen it as esp. compelling; but I did put in one or more
an hour ago!).  Probably one will find #1253 more challenging
to tie --I know that I sometimes have to start over (<groan>),
having mucked up some passage; holding the pre-final-tuck(s)
inchoate knot in place can be a task.

For your stated concern about loosening, IMO you don't want
that to happen, and I don't see the variation in the two knots
to change the vulnerability to loosen --which is a matter of the
contact against the crossed *ends* (can't really call 'em "S.Parts"
or "Tails", can we?    ).

You might try a Gleipnir "floating binder" instead,
as that binding comes independent of the bound object(s).

There is also the neat idea to put in a securing constrictor-/
strangle-like tying off of the base knot's ends : take on around
and on back of the knotted part of the base knot have this
end make a HH; bring the other end around in the opposite
direction to then tie through this 'a la constrictor/strangle!
Which will still have need for bearing against some convex
surface.

And re Gleipner, there is the other floating binder of making
your binding with an adequately long U-part
 [Dan steps clear of using "bight" --too many senses!]
with the center/apex formed into a cow hitch or simple
round turn through which one will then wrap object with
the two ends and bring them through this nipping structure
from opposite sides; they can be tied off together to make
a handle/bridle.


--dl*
====

[KC]

For me, I prefer Slipped Bag(crossed legs on bight of zip for more roundness pressure) even double for anything want back into easily/reusable materials.
Constrictors more towards permanent hose clamps etc.
Great tightening about as secure as double in such builds?
.
The type of buried lock is best as a keeper, but can impede pre-tightening purchase too,
so I typically leave slack between 1st and 2nd in double, leverage tight purchase to there, hold with finger as pull slack thru 2nd capture to keep/hold fast.
.
So fancier breaks from simplicity of such key access in stage_1, before consideration of stage_2/double.

[mcjtom]

There is also the neat idea to put in a securing constrictor-/
strangle-like tying off of the base knot's ends : take on around
and on back of the knotted part of the base knot have this
end make a HH; bring the other end around in the opposite
direction to then tie through this 'a la constrictor/strangle!
Which will still have need for bearing against some convex
surface.

Can you sketch it or take a picture of what you describe when you tie it?

[Dan_Lehman]

There is also the neat idea to put in a securing constrictor-/
strangle-like tying off of the base knot's ends :

1) take on around and on back of the knotted part of the base knot
 have this end make a HH;

2) bring the other end around in the opposite
direction to then tie through this 'a la constrictor/strangle!

Can you sketch it or take a picture of what you describe when you tie it?

Yes, but a verbal sketch has got to be ample.

Consider our view of these binders (C. & S.) ::
we see the *knotted* part, and out of view are
the turns of material wrapping --fair enuff?
We don't see that the turns actually connect
--or to what they connect.

So, let's regard a C. tied on a horizontal object,
the binder ends resp. pointing up/down.  This
knotting is our usual plain view of things.

And we see that the upper end comes down,
makes the twisting w/lower end,
and continues down around out of view and ...
STOP ::
 here, let's send this end away (into my "base knot", say).
And now what we bring up in place of
that top end's  usual re-emergence to view,
on the top side, now to complete the knot,
is some other part --say, another end of my
base knot.  And it does what we are shown
for the C. by making the overwrap (which will
press down upon and add security to the ends'
crossing), going then down & back around the
right side,
to emerge top-right and . . . tuck to finish the Constrictor!
.:.  So, you get your C. (or S.) knot workings,
but the supply of material has come from
two *sources*, as it were.

 - - - - now, in some other words - - - -

But you of course know how to make a HH;
so, do that such that its crossing point is in plain view.
Now, just bring the other end up around in opposite
direction and ... "tie a constrictor", as though all is
natural!

Which, yes, could be adapted into West Country Whipping,
putting in a succession of these *constrictorings*/knottings.
But would that be good?  --more bulky, and at least in the
mid-span of a whipping, not really offering any gain in
security.


I make use of this knotting insight with a short bit
of shopping-bag cord (yep, and I even have some
saved tea-bag strings for whipping) that is brilliant
red-orange tied on a regularly used well-worn backpack
so to conspicuously inform me what zipper to pull --the
one with the brilliant cord.
When I go inside ... I take my bike's frame pump stuffed
down into a backpack side pouch running up on one side
and ... will have this red cord's two ends to put in this
novel constrictor around the pump to secure it.


 

[Dan_Lehman]

Incidentally, in putting on some quick'n'dirty whipping
with a constrictor extension and COTTON cord, I found
that one really cannot have many overwraps --that the
tension in setting just won't overcome the friction to make
the inner-from-ends wraps tight.
Whereas with nylon monofil. fishline or mason line,
one can haul hard and tighten resp. 9 & 6 wraps,
with a double-twist of the ends beneath!

(-;

[Knutern]

Incidentally, in putting on some quick'n'dirty whipping
with a constrictor extension and COTTON cord, I found
that one really cannot have many overwraps --that the
tension in setting just won't overcome the friction to make
the inner-from-ends wraps tight. . . . .

Well, yes indeed, it can be multiblied whereas the "mirrored" variant cannot (i.e. I haven't figured out a way). However, I think a boa constrictor is a better choice.

Btw - I did found one difference between the two variants. The one I refer as "variant 1" in first post, takes less time to tie.