QuasiLocked Eye Knot

[SS369]

For consideration:
Something I devised back in 2021. Found the photo while doing some organizing.
Definitely secure in all directions.
Does take careful dressing and tightening.
Comments appreciated.

SS

I believe this nipping structure and the scott lock are a mismatch  insofar that the two components are not very effictive in increasing security in the way they interact.
..Maybe even weaken eachother. A simple nipping loop creates friction in the tailend more efficiently (1010 scottlock) I believe.

And reverse: a different tail lock will allow the nipping structure  to tighten more easily and increase friction. 
Yosemity finish (through both collars) seems to work better wish this nipping structure.. and vice versa

Good day Andreas, thanks for your comments.

I respectfully disagree with your assertions.

If you have tied it correctly and dressed it well, I believe that it is very secure - in all directions. As for weakening the eye knot, that I have not tested.

Would you care to compare the strengths between your offer and mine?

The tail lock offers more resistance to overall slippage than the #1010 as I have proven (at least to my own satisfaction) when I tested it in Dyneema. And without it, well it is a different knot.

Again, thanks for your comments.

SS

[Andreas]

Hi Scott, can you check again, i did not write that the knot  is not secure or lacks it.

Also everthing mentioned refers only about the inherent friction of the knob so that it loosens or not when its shaked. 
Hope it makes more sense now.

I will also check again practically by tieing 4 knots and shake them
1010 scottlocck
1010 yosemity finish
+ the shown knot in both versions

Results should make my point clear..

[agent_smith]

Hello Scott,

Hope 2025 is off to a great start for you and family.

I can confirm the following about your presented knot:
1. It is a quasi Bowline.
2. It is inherently secure - meaning that it is suitable for life critical applications (eg as a tie-in knot for climbing).
3. It is jam resistant.

I dont know for sure if your quasi Bowline is an original creation.
So far, no one has come forth to make a counter-claim.
I haven't heard anything from Xarax about claims of originality.

Further commentary:
I assign the title of 'quasi Bowline' because it meets all of the requirements for a 'Bowline',
but falls short only on the nipping structure (it isn't a loop).
I use the term 'nipping structure' because it isn't a nipping loop.
It still fulfils all other criteria for being a functional nipping structure:
[ ] it is 'TWATE' (Tiable Without Access To an End)
[ ] it encircles and clamps both legs of the collar
[ ] it is functional (its clamping force increases as load increases)

I did make an early comment in a previous post that I don't think it will
gain wider popularity in the climbing community.
But, this wasn't your personal criteria for objective success.
That is, you weren't attempting to design a new tie-in knot that would
become the worlds No.1 'go to' tie-in knot!
You created it for your own personal satisfaction - not someone else's
satisfaction.

I still regard your 'Scott's locked Bowline' as the best all-round
inherently secure Bowline for life critical applications.
It would be hard to knock that one off its place in the history books...

[SS369]

Hello Andreas.

I've reread what you wrote and I am having a challenge interpreting it another way.
Please run your own tests, I have run mine. Add what material(s) you've used as well. Let us know...

Just before responding now, I tied this eye knot in BlueWater 2, shook it, twirled it, slammed it, jerked it while unloaded, then cycled it by pulling the eye and standing part and compressing over and over. Performed the same maneuvers to each part after that. The result: Still intact and secure.

You must realize/believe that I have performed numerous home tests, using various media, and would not offer this if I had noted failure(s).

If there is a language challenge here, I apologize.

SS

[SS369]

Hi Mark.

Yep, 2025 is starting off great for us, thanks. Snow, cold temps, gorgeous hiking, lots of projects - life is good.

My offer hits hit a lot of good points. Don't know if it will ever be received as well as my locked 1010. Actually not concerned about that.
Side note: My Scott's locked bowline is actually included in a knot tying app. Never expected that!

As with many of the "new" knot explorations presented here in this forum, I believe, the only light-of-day they will see is here. Many are too complicated/convoluted, hard-ish to tie and serve no better than simpler items. But sometimes it is just fun to explore. I'm all for it.

When the weather complies I will have fun with more use of this QLEK. I hope you'll do the same.

Thanks for the good wishes Mark. Stay safe and healthy to you and yours.

If X has comments, please pass them along.

S

[Kost_Greg]

Many are too complicated/convoluted, hard-ish to tie and serve no better than simpler items.

Allow me, to respectfully disagree with your above assertion SS.

I kind of perceive a soft tone of disdain towards new creations presented in this forum, and this seems at least, a bit odd coming from a person with a high knotting background like yours.

I understand you have been  a very long-established member of this forum, and it is quite hard for me to believe that you haven't seen very remarkable creations every so often, because i, with much less years on my back, than you, have actually found current or old offerings that really stand out.

I also understand that your improvised Scott's lock technique, was born/devised in an attempt to design a simple yet effective lock for 1010 which was initiated in this very forum, in the first place.

As with many of the "new" knot explorations presented here in this forum, I believe, the only light-of-day they will see is here.

That's rather true, i'm not sure how this supression mechanism really works, but i believe most of us are not remotely concerned about that either.

However, the fact that remarkable creations  do not manage to surmount the watertight boundaries of this forum, does not mean at all, in my view, that are too complicated/convoluted, hard-ish to tie and serve no better than simpler items.

Some might serve way better than so called simpler items existing out there.

Afterall, being knot geeks, makes us delve more thoroughly into technical knotting concepts, and with such level of preoccupation, i guess we deserve to know something more over the rest, don't we?

[SS369]

Many are too complicated/convoluted, hard-ish to tie and serve no better than simpler items.

Allow me, to respectfully disagree with your above assertion SS.

I kind of perceive a soft tone of disdain towards new creations presented in this forum, and this seems at least, a bit odd coming from a person with a high knotting background like yours.

I understand you have been  a very long-established member of this forum, and it is quite hard for me to believe that you haven't seen very remarkable creations every so often, because i, with much less years on my back, than you, have actually found current or old offerings that really stand out.

I also understand that your improvised Scott's lock technique, was born/devised in an attempt to design a simple yet effective lock for 1010 which was initiated in this very forum, in the first place.

As with many of the "new" knot explorations presented here in this forum, I believe, the only light-of-day they will see is here.

That's rather true, i'm not sure how this supression mechanism really works, but i believe most of us are not remotely concerned about that either.

However, the fact that remarkable creations  do not manage to surmount the watertight boundaries of this forum, does not mean at all, in my view, that are too complicated/convoluted, hard-ish to tie and serve no better than simpler items.

Some might serve way better than so called simpler items existing out there.

Afterall, being knot geeks, makes us delve more thoroughly into technical knotting concepts, and with such level of preoccupation, i guess we deserve to know something more over the rest, don't we?

Good day Kost_Greg.

Thank you for expressing your thoughts.

My comments were my own opinion and nowhere near "disdain". In my view of knot tying, simpler is sometimes better, although not always.
I applaud any exploring and sometimes encourage, even thank the individual. "Sometimes it is just fun to explore, I'm all for it."<

Just so I know I said it; It seems to me, by your written words, that you have a soft tone of agreement / understanding with my own.
I won't speak about others views, they are entitled to expressing them. Civilly.

So, if we can, let's not dilute this thread any further.

Again, thanks for your contributions. Enjoy.

S

[Kost_Greg]

Hello SS

Expressing my own diametrically opposed view to the relation "cause-effect" that you, yourself,  have implied in your previous wording, does not necessarily suggest thread diluting by my side.

For some people, in my view, it might be something more than just a fun for exploration, and i'm very grateful for their effort and contributions.

Again, i'm less inclined to expand any further about the mechanism behind this effect, and i'm not interested in this very effect either.

What i do care, is that i was able to exchange views about an offered knot structure, with other knot enthusiasts like me, being also able to understand its working  principle so, many thanks for your interesting contribution.

Have a nice day!