false crotch hitches

Re: Timber Hitch

That's another point that I always stress- you must not only wrap it 5+ times in the loading direction, but you also need to be able to space them out around more than 50% of the trunk (only my opinion). I have used the TH for most of my big log dumps for more than ten years. I trust it, but I am very careful to only use it when all of my criteria have been met.

I don't use it when I have enough tail to tie a cow hitch.
 
Re: Is Ashley \"unscientific\"?

If you read further back, I also quote Ashley on the Timber Hitch mentioning its use in harsh environments at sea (it's also on p. 290, same section). In your quote, Ashley is not deriding the Timber Hitch and thus contradicting himself, but rather praising its ease of [intentional] untying after use.

Many people have the misconception that ease of untying and security cannot coexist in a knot. Not true. Charlie's data (and my own) supports this. There are many knots that are highly jam-resistant but are very secure, just as there are many jam-prone knots that are very insecure and should not be trusted.

If you don't believe me, I'll be happy to list examples.

To play devil's advocate, I will admit that ropes in Ashley's day are not the same as today, and so where Ashley says that 3 tucks are "ample", I'd say that 3 tucks making contact are "minimum".
 
Re: Is Ashley \"unscientific\"?

Anybody use a girth hith with one half hitch on throat, going in same direction, and continuing with timber style wraps around upper part of the doubled end. Same thing as Cow, but the half is going other way. After taking wraps I just give it a couple of pulls to snug it up tight. It loads nice and comes out fairly easy after heavy loads. I think it unties better than the cow for reasons unknown.
 
Re: Is Ashley \"unscientific\"?

Because where you are tying the half hitch, trailing TH spin, isn't as subjected to full loading?

The way i visualize such things is:

i think that reality security wise, the half hitch and 'trailing TH spin' at that point prolly wouldn't matter, as the girth/lark's (gotten 'busted'myself a few times for calling it a 'girth' cuz not in a sling!!) was providing so much security, that a small loss in the end might not matter(if your alteration even did that).

But, in a "what a baby could hold a bus sits on strategy" of maximizing security, i think the pictured lacing shows the standing tail that after lacing thru girth (ah what the heck) takes the least amount of force to hold; it is then trapped under main line pull, and the TH spin finish is too under the main, tightest line pull as it laces; much more maximized pressure on the part of the line that takes the smallest amount of baby effort to secure, than a finish on to the other side that i think you pro-pose. Also, i think there is some extra hold/security on the reverse alone (rather than continuing in the same direction as in yours across to the other side as in the way you say if i missunderstand correctly....). Your way would place more trap pressure on half hitch when pulley pulls perpendicular to mount, as the throat woundn't be pressing it to the mount in the pictured way, but the final TH spin would be trapped under firmer pressure in the pic. All my 'IMHLO' though, just made it all up watching things, including m'standard 'baby/bus' picture strategy/test of most secure lacing.

Because of the different fini' points, it would be easier to untie IMLHO your way as would be less loaded where the finale was. It would be interesting to see a pruf as to whether the extra security was needed and your easier untie just as good in reality, or on textured mounts larger that 10x line diameter or something.

Of course most security in any TH spin i think were line can set down tightest to mount with turns spread out so each could be pressurized individually squished rather than holding line up for each other(?)and spin occuring on mount side of line where there are convex and not concave points on the 'mount'. Also, i think that olde books were written (amount of turns in TH etc.) for use in hairy/hair locking stiff ropes that didn't lean out in diameter as they stretched, not slick, stretchy/thinning nylon rubberband we are use to thinking of, so more turns as Mark suggests would be very appropriate. Many olde knots thought to be so secure or non siezing , didn't make it through to the transition to the synthetic substances we use, many adjsutments made in turns etc. on some stuff i think.

Orrrrrrrrrrrr somet'ing like that!

Sounds kinda interesting, better watch it , it might get stolen around 'ere.....!
 
Re: Timber Hitch

Firstly, I concur in Rescueman's admonishment to be respectful: having
one's references derided as "laughable" and "rank amateur" is like being
accused of "obfuscation"! (I may have crossed the line, but I certainly
cross-referenced--but a confused state is easier to maintain. :-)

As for the TH and security, well, I think that the tired-arm tester
might have missed some circumstances, and I'd not trust the knot to
hang tough as might be needed. Ashley's shipboard use is hearsay,
echoed from what he READ--and knot-book authors can be terrible;
they could also have neglected to mention that a knot was seized,
too. Ashley's remark about its easy untying is more germane, and
that was other than Roo2 interpreted. And recall that it was on
one of these forums that LuvNik reported a vanishing TH, and great
display of artful dropping, thankfully also safe. So, there are
real concerns.

I seem to have left off on this thread prematurely. I thought that
I'd replied to a question re my Timber H. revision--i.e., to just
make a round turn or two around the standing part (loaded end) before
dogging the end however many times (and, yes, equally important, far
enough back around the object to be nipped!).
The point of this revision is twofold: 1) it enables the knot to be
set snugly against the object (the round turns giving friction grip),
and 2) it gives more padding to the loaded part's bend into the knot.

But perhaps it falls shy of ideal in a couple of respects, too:
a) the friction grip will not obtain in firm/stiff (or new/slick)
rope, and 2) the simple round-turn coil is easily capsized.

So, on to other structures. Design goal: simple, rope-efficient,
tying-efficient, secure, gentle on the loaded line, & snuggable.
As long as my confusion leads to cross-references, and in line with
*efficiency* (of my Net reading), I'll borrow from a rec.crafts.knots
thread with a handy URL for a basis--the Mezzo Barcaiolo, or (salivate)
Halbmastwurf, aka Munter H.:

www.techt.ch/michel/speleo/noeuds_italien.htm

And also, to get some French credits (after years of French 101,
I should put it to use, eh!? :o).

Beginning with this structure, one doubles some material around the
loaded line, and removes the risk of excessive tension on whatever
finishes the knot. Finishing with TwoHalfHitches looks good; one
might try a Buntline (less quick to tie, but surer if to be left
about). (For the Ashley readers, it's #1852.)
This is nicely rope-/tying-efficient. The underlying
hitch cannot jam, but it can be snugged to hold the loaded part
well enough to enable the noose to be snugged to the tree, esp.
in somewhat worn/frictive line (man, some of this new 16strand
arbor-stuff is waxy-slick!)
And that Cow w/Better Half, although putting two parts around the
tree, doesn't so much load both parts, mainly the one. (The bit
about the HHitch & dogging finish, or Clove vice HHitch, being
pointless puzzles me: a Cow is nowhow secure on anything but
maybe a *ring* (i.e. small dia object)! Nor is a single HHitch.)

Now, I can't usually stop with just one knot fiddling--critique
or curiosity of "what if ..." leads further. And Occam's Razor
can be used here, safely, even w/cordage--it cuts the superfluous,
not material. So, vice the 2HH finish, how about just tucking
the end through the Halbmastwurf's (I had to type it!) two turns,
sort of like the finish to the Fisherman's/Anchor Bend/Hitch.
This seems even more secure-when-slack, yet is readily untied.

> you must not only wrap it 5+ times in the loading direction ...

And a problem also in having this *quantitative* aspect vs. the usual
*qualitative* ones: i.e., a Clove H. is just like <so>--it doesn't
have a scalable parameter to count--; or a Bowline--it's completed
or not, but not to some degree. (Yes, one can add things to a Bowline
and throw a 3rd HHitch onto a Clove, but you get the point.)

There is an underlying conflict with providing fool-proof, backed-up,
knot structures: making knots that survive imperfect tying has some
degree of weakening one's attention to tying and reliance on the primary
knot--it builds in imperfection to the system: one can tie it "either
way," because a safety exists. E.g., such advice as "leave ends long"
and "use a half-grapevine back-up" are sometimes concessions to sloppy
tying (or choice) of the principal knots. On the other hand, we recognize
that users of ropes will often have low interest in knots per se and
thus limited skill in knotting, and will at times be in circumstances
that induce carelessness--haste in making a rappel in fading light and
the fatigue of a long day of climbing. So, we bow to caution, and are
vigilant against possible mis-tyings that could be the undoing of both
knots and lives. Yet, we want to instill appreciation of knots, too!

Truth, in the knude
--knudeNoggin
 
Re: Timber Hitch

I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but was I being too rough on the site I mentioned as "laughable"? Hardly. Besides the faulty description of the Timber Hitch, the site also included the Highwayman's Hitch (not a good sign). It gets worse... much worse. It described the Highwayman's Hitch as being able to "stand any strain"... or "stand a strain" by some of the copycat sites who didn't quite type the exact same descriptions.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the Highwayman's Hitch knows that it is absolutely horrible, and can slip under even light or moderate loads. (I'm trying to get them to remove it or change the description, but some sites are neglected/abandoned I think.)

This led me to strongly suspect that site maker has never even tied many, or perhaps any, of the knots described, let alone test them independently. Well, that, and the fact that their seems to be a dozen or so near carbon-copy sites out there reproduced robotically.

As I've alluded to before, if anyone has "real concerns" about the hitch, I encourage that person to conduct some tests and find a way that a properly tied one comes undone. That way, you can describe the conditions (rope, movement, object, repetitions, etc.) so that others may try it and confirm or reject that person's concerns.

[By the way, Ashley's comments weren't hearsay. He referenced the written source which can be independently verified.]
 
Re: Timber Hitch

This has been an interesting thread to follow. Good points have been clarified as things moved along. I just went through the whole thread and thought about a couple of issues.

When I have the choice, I use something besides the TH. I'm not that concerned with the TH unraveling to failure. I do have a concern that the bight that captures the eye moves around during loading and unloading. Since the bight doesn't cinch the eye down tight, there is wiggle room left in the tie-off. If the TH is used as an overhead anchor the weight of the block and rope will keep the tie-off snug. When the TH is used for a tie off at the base of the tree the load is on again off again. This can allow the eye and bight to slip in and out. If the groundie isn't observant the bight can, and has for me, move down onto the block. If we use a biner/shackle to anchor a pulley for a redirect at the butt the bight can drop over the hardware and cause some bad loading.

When I choose a knot/hitch I have a number of parameters. Security or tie and forget are the biggest markers. If the rigging needs to be checked everytime I will try and find another solution. This is the main reason I shy away from the TH, especially in a load/unload situation.

I suppose another layer of security could be added to the TH. Using a nylon wire tie or shoe lace, the eye and bight could be snubbed together. This would eliminate any creeping.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom