Another tie-in knot discussion

Aside from your imagination in class, have you ever ring loaded your tie in?

Also, you are 100% correct to use "ring loading". "Cross loading" is the wrong term. 

Pretty sure a double bowline is stronger ring loaded than an 8, but I can't tell you by how much or where I heard that.

I don't think there is any concern about possible bad effects of ring-loading for either the figure 8 or a bowline if they have backup knots, as these cut off the ability to roll.  In the climbing context, a bowline without a backup knot shouldn't be called a knot.  So any bowline suitable for climbing can be ring-loaded.  As for figure eights, the possibility that they might roll has, as far as I know, never been tested for a ring loaded figure 8 loop.  In any case, leaving a decent tail is an alternative to a backup knot.

Since it is possible and easy (and in the case of the bowline, required) to innoculate these knots agains rolling under ring loads, I don't think there is any need to go searching for another knot.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

Your belay loop and the rope loop are literally right next to each other, the same size, and connected to the same things.  Can you please give some more detail about how "the force" (what force?  What is the scenario?) gets transmitted "directly to the anchor" with one loop, but not a different loop in the same place that is essentially indistinguishable from a free body or load path point of view?

If we back up a notch, why don't you just tie it the way it's shown in the picture?  Why not tie that extra butterfly knot?  Unless there is a good reason not to do this, it seems like a scenario made up just for the sake of justifying ring loading the tie-in loop.

Why can't you clip into your belay loop?  It's sitting there right next to your tied loop, use it.  If it's not quite long enough, extend it with a second biner, or a quickdraw, or a doubled sling, or whatever.  Again, it seems like a really easy solution is available.

I don't know how to explain why my human body doesn't experience the force of belaying a second when belaying off the tie-in loop but it does when belaying off the belay loop. If you tried it then it would be very obvious, but I don't know how to put it into words. Like rgold said, a backup knot is an easy solution for this problem. 

I'm not sure what you're saying in the middle paragraph

And the reason I can't clip my belay loop is that it is a few inches away from the I want to clip. This usually happens while hanging off 1 handhold at a desperate stance which is why I don't want to futz around with extending it with another biner, etc. I'm also not too keen on the backup knot thing for my personal tether because it never gets weighted and eventually works loose. I don't want to have to keep retying a knot over and over again, nor do I want to risk it coming undone without my knowledge

I can't say that I've ever seen tests that show any issues with ring loading a figure 8 follow through but I think it is reasonable to assume poor performance because how the very similar flat figure 8 bend behaves. 

eli poss wrote:

I don't know how to explain why my human body doesn't experience the force of belaying a second when belaying off the tie-in loop but it does when belaying off the belay loop. If you tried it then it would be very obvious, but I don't know how to put it into words. Like rgold said, a backup knot is an easy solution for this problem. 

Belaying off the tie-in loop with the connection to the belay anchor snug transmits the entire load of the belay to the anchor with no loading on the harness.  If you belay off the belay loop, then the tie-in pulls the harness one way and the belay loop pulls it the other way.  If you could absolutely nail the belay anchor tension there might not be any difference, but in practice such a critical level of adjustment is unattainable, so that there is at least some slack in the system.  The result is that the harness is pulled in the direction of the load without the immediate counteraction of the anchor strand, and so the waist belt circumerence flattens and pinches the belayer in a way that can be very "obvious," as Eli puts it.

All these effect are magnified for leader falls, so the tie-in loop location for the device is even more comfortable for the belayer.

Personally, I always belay off the tie-in loop when I'm tied in.  It is much better than the belay loop, and I dislike guide plate belays so my upper belays are usually off the tie-in loop  I use the harness loop for rapelling and unanchored belays.  This then raises the possibility of ring loading the tie-in knot.

I can't say that I've ever seen tests that show any issues with ring loading a figure 8 follow through but I think it is reasonable to assume poor performance because how the very similar flat figure 8 bend behaves. 

One thing that is different is the knot is only being subjected to half the ring load.

aikibujin wrote:

I think you're talking about the competition knot. I've only seen one person use it, but it seemed to work well enough.

Does the competition/water/brotherhood knot* handle ring loading well?

Actually, does the alpine butterfly actually handle ring loading well?

* I absolutely hate how many names there are for knots. Hitch, bend, knot; bight, follow through; different names for different origins -- and that's even ignoring things like the bowline being a capsized slip knot with a captured working end.

NegativeK wrote:

Does the competition/water/brotherhood knot* handle ring loading well?

I've never noticed any issues, but that's a sample size of one.

It is basically a ring bend/water knot, which is the knot we all used to tie slings BITD. 

Weren't they ring loaded whenever they got weighted?

Kyle Tarry wrote:

I'm not talking about clipping the anchor to the tie-in and then belaying off the belay loop.  I am talking about clipping the anchor directly to the belay loop, and also belaying directly off the belay loop.  That way the load goes straight through the belay loop into the anchor.

Yeah, I missed that, sorry.  I haven't done it, but don't see any reason why it wouldn't be functionally the same as clipping the belay device the tie-in loop.  It is a bit more awkward to rig.

NegativeK wrote:

* I absolutely hate how many names there are for knots. Hitch, bend, knot; bight, follow through; different names for different origins -- and that's even ignoring things like the bowline being a capsized slip knot with a captured working end.

In defense of some of this terminology, it's not just different ways to say the same thing. Some of these names communicate useful things about the knot:

• hitch ties a rope to another object such that the knot would disappear were the object removed--a carabiner, hard point, pole, or even the midpoint of another rope.
• bend joins the ends of two ropes.
• flat knot a knot normally tied with the working end of one strand, but with the working ends of two parallel strands instead (a flat knot is a kind of bend).
• knot on a bight is a knot normally tied with one strand, but tied with a bight of rope instead, to make a loop.

If you know this kind of terminology, you can communicate about knots that a person has never seen before without diagrams. Some examples:

• If you understand how to tie a double overhand and what a flat knot is, you understand how to tie a flat double overhand, even though this isn't a knot you've probably seen.
• If you trust a flat overhand knot to join two ropes for rappelling, then you should logically trust an overhand knot on a bight to isolate damaged rope for rappelling.
• You've probably never tied a figure 9 follow-through, but if you know how to tie the figure 9 you can probably figure it out.

But for knots where the name doesn't describe how to tie it (Alpine butterfly, figure 9), they're just base structures. It is unfortunate that these have so many names due to being independently discovered by different people. However, the only way I can think of to create a standard terminology would be to have the names be descriptive. Given the descriptive names, as you pointed out, are things like "capsized slip knot with a captured working end", using colloquial names as a shorthand is the lesser of two evils.

Of course there are the really misleading colloquial names (i.e. the anchor bend is not a bend, it's a hitch). There's really no excuse for those.

eli poss wrote:

It would take a bit more creativity to tie in with [the alpine butterfly], than with a figure 8 follow through. 

FWIW, I don't think it's harder to do than any other tie in knot, once you figure out how to tie it by threading a working end instead of mid-strand.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

My question (which I have asked multiple times at this point) is: why don't you just tie it the way it's shown in the picture?  Why not tie that extra butterfly knot?  I don't see how this can be confusing.  The "RGold anchor" picture shows a butterfly knot power point.  You are omitting this.  Why?  You're building the anchor differently (arguably incorrectly) and it's nor working right.  The easy solution is to do the anchor the right way, not to fix this problem with another nonstandard activity.

If you're hanging off 1 handhold at a desperate stance, why are you clipping directly to your loop at all?  What is this scenario?  Why aren't you clipping the rope to a draw like normal?  Or clipping a quickdraw directly to your belay loop?

In the end, it seems like you're just looking for validation that you should use/try the butterfly tie in.  So, go for it.  Try it, and let us know how it goes.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are getting the two different scenario's confused. For the "rgold rope anchor" the reason for not tying the alpine butterfly would be if you didn't want a masterpoint. I'm not sure why other people would want this but the reason I can think of is if you want the belay below your or level with you rather than above you. In my experience this can be more comfortable at times when using a munter hitch. 

About the personal tether, I do have have an alpine butterfly in between the fig 8 and the slyde plate, which is about 2 or 3 inches away from the the figure 8, which is useful for a variety of different things. But this adds distance from me to where I'm clipping it, which I am trying to minimize. I do this when I need to hang, for a one reason or another, and rope stretch would put my in an undesirable position if I hung on the rope.

And I'm not looking for validation. I'm looking for information. I figured that somebody somewhere has probably tried this before, and I am interested in hearing about their experiences. It seems that either somebody hasn't tinkered with this idea before or that I'm not going to find them on Mountain Project. Or maybe I'm just being impatient and time will eventually reveal the information for which I'm looking.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

• hitch ties a rope to another object such that the knot would disappear were the object removed

Small nit: if this is a defining characteristic of a hitch, you've excluded the distel, the michoacán, and a handful of other hitches which collapse to an overhand knot. Surprised how many hitches it works for though - never heard this before. 

Nick Hatch wrote:

Small nit: if this is a defining characteristic of a hitch, you've excluded the distel, the michoacán, and a handful of other hitches which collapse to an overhand knot. Surprised how many hitches it works for though - never heard this before. 

Yeah, the problem with categorization-y words like this is that you'll always run into stuff that doesn't neatly fit into a category. I'd consider that "disappearing" for the purpose of the definition: i.e. the distel isn't there any more, there's just an overhand. But that still doesn't make everything categorize nicely i.e. the anchor hitch can have the object removed and the structure remains fairly intact.

I think the terminology is more to differentiate from loops where the knot can be tied with or without an object (figure 8 follow through, bowline, alpine butterfly), but it's a bit hard to define a category by what it's not.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

In defense of some of this terminology, it's not just different ways to say the same thing. Some of these names communicate useful things about the knot [...]

Oh, I understand why -- I'm just grumpy at how sloppy it is. I mean, how often do you hear people talk about a flat overhand bend (or as Wikipedia calls it, the Offset Water Knot, European Death Knot (EDK), Offset overhand bend, Flat overhand bend, Thumb knot, Thumb bend, Creeler's knot, Openhand knot)?

Anywho, it's absurd of me to think that some language police are going to swoop in and reteach everyone how to talk about knotbendhitches.

Knot, bend, hitch, and loop.  Mustn't leave anyone out.

NegativeK wrote:

Oh, I understand why -- I'm just grumpy at how sloppy it is. I mean, how often do you hear people talk about a flat overhand bend (or as Wikipedia calls it, the Offset Water Knot, European Death Knot (EDK), Offset overhand bend, Flat overhand bend, Thumb knot, Thumb bend, Creeler's knot, Openhand knot)?

Anywho, it's absurd of me to think that some language police are going to swoop in and reteach everyone how to talk about knotbendhitches.

Yeah. Obviously policing language doesn't work. I wonder, though, if a mdoern update to the ABOK could provide better categorization and act as a better guide to terminology? Language policing doesn't work, but people are frequently happy to change the way they speak if new terminology is clearly better.

That said, I'm not exactly the best lead-by-example type with terminology. If I were pushing for this approach I'd say you should call it the flat overhand bend, but I call it the European death knot, because I find that name entertaining. :D

Ted Pinson wrote:

Is there an accident report I missed where a figure 8 failed, or is this a solution in need of a problem?

A second hand story that I heard from a lady high up in the Swiss alpine society:

A victim in a climbing accident in Switzerland had tied his figure-8 with a yosemite finish. Some version of this is known to make the fig-8 to roll easier when ring loaded. When they lifted him out, they clipped to the fig-8 tie-in (I have no idea of why) so it was ring loaded. It rolled and the victim was dropped. This is the reason why the Swiss alpine society is strongly discouraging the yosemite finish. 

Aren't there some folks belaying the leader off the rope loop, too? It seems like this could introduce large ring-loads to the rope loop knot if the leader falls.

I don't think (?) being able to load the butterfly in 3 directions implies it's ok for ring loading.  I was playing with it yesterday, and although it didn't come apart, I didn't like what it was doing.  I'd be interested if somebody can confirm whether or not the alpine butterfly is actually ok for ring-loading.

Serge Smirnov wrote:

I don't think (?) being able to load the butterfly in 3 directions implies it's ok for ring loading.  I was playing with it yesterday, and although it didn't come apart, I didn't like what it was doing.

Agreed, it definitely doesn't stay dressed when ring loaded.

FWIW, the overhand on a bight when ring loaded is effectively a flat overhand (aka EDK) which I trust every time I climb to hold rappel forces. I don't know how this behaves under normal (non-ring-loading) pulls or lead-fall level forces, though.

I was also thinking about the overhand.  Harder to untie, though.