What is this adjustable hitch?

[Dan_Lehman]

Interesting knots, Xarax have tie the similar knot long time ago,
 no body pay any attention, included me.
     See the first picture and #3 on second picture.

Actually, IIRC that's one of a half-dozen knots I had
tested ca. 1985? by some Irish IGKT member who'd offered
testing service --and my "56" (or a "prime" of that #,
to show derivation from something else " 56' ").

My design goal was to have a gradual bend in the S.Part,
which it does --only it behooves one to guesstimate how
MUCH of a bend to set (and likely in some materials,
it will slide at high forces).
Another knot tested with it --and testing the same
(65% or so?)-- is the Dbl.BWL with the round turn
re-dressed to be a gradually reaching-towards-eye
curving of the S.Part and then a reach back to be
the Outgoing Eye Leg.  --a surer knot to use, as it
has this "U-turn" aspect.

The OP knot resembles some of the things I've seen
in commercial-fishing trawlers' dock lines in heavy
rope, capsized --my surmise, vs. being dressed &
set so-- from some sort of BWL.


 

[Dan_Lehman]

I like it.  With the limited testing I've done so far,
I think your assessment is accurate.

Ditto :: I just manually stressed the knot in some
urethane-coated (I think) 5/16" Dyneema (HMPE)**, which
is pretty slick (though not always showing this at
low loads); I think it might hold better than the
other main knot ("my '#56'") cited in this thread
--both are decent.

** also some 3/8" CoEx laid rope --quite firm cross section.


Thanks,
(-;

[Knicknack]

Tie a 1444, Single Carrick, initial dressing state, as an eyeknot (loopknot) of course, starting from an S nipping loop

I think I see the reasoning here.  This hitch does have some similarity in general form to the ground state that a Carrick-like bend might decompose into.  But if some Carrick-analog can decompose into this hitch, then presumably by reverse process, we can un-decompose it into a standard Carrick-like configuration to see which analog it might be.  So, I did that, and I'm attaching the resulting image paired with its mirror twin.  (The S parts descend from where they meet.)

Looking at the Carrick-related bends depicted in my edition of Ashley on pg. 263, I'm not seeing where Ashley depicted either of this pair.  But perhaps he has more Carricks depicted elsewhere.  I've never quite understood Ashley's organizational system.

[Knicknack]

I think it might hold better than the other main knot ("my '#56'") cited in this thread

If that is the hitch in the image file named "Simple adjustable helical loop" that one has to be more snug before it will engage and auto-tighten, but on my utility ropes here, once it bites in, it has a pretty tenacious grip under heavy loading.  The biggest difference between that hitch and the OP hitch is in what it takes to get them to budge after they've been loaded.  The helical loop takes considerably more persuasion to get it to loosen its grip so that it can be slid to a new location.

[Kost_Greg]

Tie a 1444, Single Carrick, initial dressing state, as an eyeknot (loopknot) of course, starting from an S nipping loop

I think I see the reasoning here.  This hitch does have some similarity in general form to the ground state that a Carrick-like bend might decompose into.  But if some Carrick-analog can decompose into this hitch, then presumably by reverse process, we can un-decompose it into a standard Carrick-like configuration to see which analog it might be.  So, I did that, and I'm attaching the resulting image paired with its mirror twin.  (The S parts descend from where they meet.)

Looking at the Carrick-related bends depicted in my edition of Ashley on pg. 263, I'm not seeing where Ashley depicted either of this pair.  But perhaps he has more Carricks depicted elsewhere.  I've never quite understood Ashley's organizational system.

Very nice, i think you got my point very well.

Yes indeed, it is page 263 we are focusing.

Take a closer look at your rightmost dressing state of your attached image at reply#17 and compare it with Ashley's 1444, i think they are the same.

Most certainly, you took a step further and depicted its mirror, at the left side of your attached photo, which is exactly the one that leads to your original adjustable structure, provided that you tie it as an eyeknot of course  and load it  .

[Knicknack]

Ah, okay, now I see it.  I was making the wrong loop the standing part.  So Ashley's 1444 depiction is the same as my right hand image if it is rotated upside-down and viewed from the other side.  So that tells me which way to go in reverse, and yes, I just tried it out and straightening the actual standing part and pulling the other bits into place does duplicate the original hitch.  And wow, there is roughly zero chance I ever would have spotted that connection.  I had a hard enough time figuring out which way to orient the standardized Carrick formation to get it to line up.  This is why I'm crap at finding knots.

So, having established this topological connection, does this have any particular significance, or was this mostly presented as an interesting sidebar?

I notice Ashley gives the 1444 bend a skull-and-crossbones rating.  For the hitch form, that seems rather harsh.  Do you think he was aware of this permutation? 

[Kost_Greg]

So, having established this topological connection, does this have any particular significance, or was this mostly presented as an interesting sidebar?

I notice Ashley gives the 1444 bend a skull-and-crossbones rating.  For the hitch form, that seems rather harsh.  Do you think he was aware of this permutation? 

There is no special significance, other than to decompose a particular  knot structure, as you correctly stated above, and associate it topologically, with a more recognisable, simplified form, (which may be located in Ashley's), within the realm of exploration.

As for the skull and crossbone rating, in my opinion, that goes strictly for the bend, because the hitch structure is a far cry from the bend geometry, with different components or loadpaths.

Moreover, at this point, i'd like to add an enhancement, as an interesting feature that may be implemented to any, non-TIB, one wrap hitch, like yours for instance.

All one has to do, is to feed the working end back through the nub, parallel to Spart, developing a two wrap, TIB, bull-like, EEL hitch (another example would be the buntline with Xarax's bull clove).

From the attached images you may notice that there are plenty of options here...

1] By pulling whichever of the SPs out of the nub, you get a couple of non-TIB, one wrap hitches (one of them is your original).

2] By shrinking whichever of the two wraps you get a couple of TIB, one wrap, hitches.

3] By closing the two wraps like you are closing a book or the opposite way, you get a couple of two wrap, TIB, bull-like, EEL, hitches.

[Knicknack]

i'd like to add an enhancement, as an interesting feature that may be implemented to any, non-TIB, one wrap hitch,

I think I'm following what this modification entails, but the part I'm fuzzy on is what it accomplishes.  Is this a practical enhancement that adds or increases functionality in some way, or is this more like an enhancement to theory, perhaps in generating new structures to experiment with?

From what I can tell, running the free end alongside the SP on this particular hitch decreases its gripping strength.  I do, however, like the basic idea of feeding the free end back into the hitch to form a loop.  One of the things I like about the Blake's hitch is that the free end can serve as a handle to pull the hitch upward when it is not loaded.  This hitch lacks that feature, but I feel like maybe it could be added if the end could be secured in the right attachment point--forming a loop which could serve as a handle, or a hook-on or tie point for pulling the hitch from a distance.  I've done this a few times, with varying success, but I'm still experimenting to try to find the best attachment point.  I'm including an image of the current leading candidate.  It doesn't seem to interfere with the clamping action of the loaded hitch too badly, but when unloaded, pulling upwards opens the top loop slightly, which seems to make sliding the hitch a bit easier.

Ideally, I'd like to find a simple way to add a handle--or maybe two--that could make it easy to pull the hitch in either direction, whereas this loop only works for pulling it upwards (opposite the direction the hitch would be loaded).  Even so, I can imagine a few situations where this might be useful enough to be worth the extra effort of forming the loop.

[Dan_Lehman]

Ditto :: I just manually stressed the knot in some
urethane-coated (I think) 5/16" Dyneema (HMPE)**, which
is pretty slick (though not always showing this at
low loads); I think it might hold better than the
other main knot ("my ' #56'  ") cited in this thread
--both are decent.

** also some 3/8" CoEx laid rope --quite firm cross section.

Well, now I've put the two cases above to heavier loading
 via a (lousy) 5:1 pulley, and the HMPE held but the CoEx
didn't.  --not sure how much remedy remained to putting
in more curve; in fact, though, I took OUT some curve for
the CoEx on thinking that maybe somehow it would work
better, as had the HMPE where the S.Part was damNear straight !
(but it didn't)

So, a YMMV knot.  (There's a fair amount of such things.)

--dl*
====

[Knicknack]

now I've put the two cases above to heavier loading
 via a (lousy) 5:1 pulley, and the HMPE held but the CoEx
didn't.

I knew the OP hitch didn't work on lariat rope.  I guessed there would be others.  This is a problem with knots that don't have a track record.

Did you have any sense of how much load induced slippage?  Or an opinion on the likely cause of grip failure?  (Too stiff?  Too slick?  The way it is laid?  Something else?)

Have you run across a slide-and-grip hitch that works well on this kind of rope at high loads?  I've noticed with the Blake's hitch that sometimes the very act of sliding it seems to set it up to continue sliding once the load is re-applied.  I haven't figured out what causes that.

[Knicknack]

Have you run across a slide-and-grip hitch that works well on this kind of rope at high loads?

There's a hitch I sometimes use when I need a bit more grip force.  (image attached)  I expect it doesn't have the holding power of, say, an icicle hitch, but I like it because I can tie it in about five seconds, and it has never jammed on me.  It kind of looks like it ought to be able to function as a grip and slide hitch, but on most ropes, it is really not good at the sliding part.  But I've always wondered whether it might become a usable grip and slide on a more slippery rope..

[alanleeknots]

This is an excellent adjustable noose hitch.
It can find immediate employment as an adjustable foot stirrup for fixed rope ascending (pairing it with a 'Jumar' mechanical ascender).
It grips when loaded - and then releases and slides relatively easily when unloaded.

Mark, Can you please show some pictures, how you use the adjustable noose hitch. Thanks.

[mcjtom]

Does anyone recognize this slide-and-grip hitch?  It's one I came up with on my own, so I don't know what its common name is.  I haven't found it in Ashley's or online, but I'm not good at searching by knot shape.  If someone can identify it I'd be grateful for the information.  Thanks.

What are the advantages of this hitch vs. e.g. Midshipman's or Adj. Grip or Farrimond's?

[Knicknack]

What are the advantages of this hitch vs. e.g. Midshipman's or Adj. Grip or Farrimond's?

Bearing in mind these have some function-differences (e.g. the Midshipman's is the best at slipping in one direction, or the worst at holding against being pulled in either direction, and the Farimond is the only one of these four expressly designed to be a quick-release adjustable hitch), I would say the largest usefulness-difference for my situation (most-commonly involving medium-stiff braided utility ropes in the quarter- to half-inch dia. range) is that the As-Yet-Unidentified hitch here has the lowest engagement threshold of these 4 (i.e, how tight the hitch has to be before it will auto-tighten under a load).  So while all four of these hitches can be tied when the attaching rope is already under some tension (the Midshipman's excels at this) the AYU hitch is the front-runner for any slack-line situation, where the hitch has to be tied, dressed, and made-ready to hold a load, before any load is applied.  Which also means the AYU hitch is the quickest and easiest of these 4 to dress in slack-line situations.

With the ropes I use, there is also a slight performance advantage when it comes to releasing, sliding, and taking a load again.  The Chisnall has sometimes elongated under loading into a configuration which doesn't release so easily once unloaded, and both the Midshipman's and Chisnall have sometimes had a problem where sliding them in the load direction makes them more prone to continue sliding once the load is re-applied. (I haven't figured out what causes this, but so far, I haven't had it happen with the AYU hitch.) I don't have enough experience with the Farrimond to know how it is for sliding and holding.

[jarnos]

Like with Sailor's hitch, you can add grip of the hitch by adding some initial rounds. There are 4 rounds instead of 2 in the dressed knot of this image, tied with a bight.

I find the gripping power of modified Sailor's hitch better on rigid smooth pole than of this one, but it seems to grip just fine as part of a loop.