Richard Mumford-yoyoman
Been here a while
- Location
- Atlanta GA
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll put it on my To Do List. No promise when I'll get it done. Kind of a busy time right now.
I'll add, strength is probably about 3rd on my list of rope knot attributes behind
1. security of the knot
2. ease of tying
3. ease of identifying (Oops, it jest went to 4th.)
5. easy to untie (Ok, I'll stop now that I've pushed it to 6th.)
well, maybe I should say the strength of the knot is usually the last on my list of rope knot attributes.
With a bowline the loop isn’t the part that fails. It’s the tight bend within the knot itself or just before the knot which ruptures. This is why a double fisherman’s is so strong, the bends are beyond the high friction areaIf strength were the #1 consideration, how would a bowline on a bight (on the end of each rope, around each other) rate? It seems like it's got to be a darn strong knot. I love the bowline knot, and with two loops to share the load, seems like this would be a winner. Fugly and bulky but I bet it would test very strong...
As strong as if you welded two pieces together. ;-)With a bowline the loop isn’t the part that fails. It’s the tight bend within the knot itself or just before the knot which ruptures. This is why a double fisherman’s is so strong, the bends are beyond the high friction area
With a bowline the loop isn’t the part that fails. It’s the tight bend within the knot itself or just before the knot which ruptures. This is why a double fisherman’s is so strong, the bends are beyond the high friction area
With a bowline the loop isn’t the part that fails. It’s the tight bend within the knot itself or just before the knot which ruptures. This is why a double fisherman’s is so strong, the bends are beyond the high friction area
This got us all talking about the best way to join two ropes like this. There were basically 3 knots/methods debated:
1. Joining with linked bowlines as described
2. Joining with linked retraced figure eights
3. joining with a zepplin bend
I did do a search for this topic but didn't find anything specifically addressing this comparison in great enough detail.
Here is what I am really hoping for: Can someone break test these configurations and share the results?
The MBS yield point (ie Strength) of a knot is irrelevant.
There is no load that an individual climber can generate that will reach the MBS yield point of a knot. I'm assuming that the type of ropes used will be human rated - and intended for life critical applications (eg conforming to EN1891, etc).
The notional concept of 'strength' is all pervasive and is the default mindset of knot testers. There is little imagination beyond pull-it-till-it-breaks, and then declare (or assume) a 'winner' based solely on the criterion of the MBS yield achieved. The concept of knot 'efficiency' actually has nothing to do with MBS yield. The metrics for 'efficiency' are; footprint (ie volume/bulk), the amount of rope required to form the knot structure, resistance to jamming, utility, level of security and stability, and whether the knot is tiable-in-the-bight (TIB).
What matters most is that a selected knot is resistant to the following loading profiles:
1. Slack shaking
2. Cyclic loading
3. Flogging
4. Circumferential (hoop stress) loading (for eye knots).
If a particular knot can withstand these types of loading profiles, then it can be deemed to be 'inherently secure'.
Not many knots can withstand all four of these loading profiles - but some can.
For a deeper dive into knot theory, it may be of interest to view the technical papers at this website:
PACI
www.paci.com.au
'Bowlines' at #2 in the table
Offset overhand bend (#1410) is at #3 in the table
Zeppelin bend is at #4 in the table.
Am interested in the content however, it seems to be password protected
Unsure if serious. But, in case you are...
![]()
For a deeper dive into knot theory, it may be of interest to view the technical papers at this website:
PACI
www.paci.com.au
This is an example of a source of misinformation because it is unclear as to precisely which knot structure is being referred to. A lay person could misinterpret the meaning...Watched a re-traced figure 8 roll on a couple of brother's rapelling of Kerkesslin Falls a few years ago.
Wrong.I believe the reason it breaks so well is that the structure (coils) of the knots allows the tightening to continue well into the test. At some point there's no more to give and the cover then core breaks.
MBS yield testing is largely irrelevant and a meaningless exercise.If this is true I'd predict that a triple fisherman's will break at even higher numbers. it has more to give before lock-up occurs.