What are benefits of bowline on a bight?

Well now I'm confused because if I were to tie a bowline on a bite I'd end up with what people on this thread are calling a "triple bowline" which is what I sometimes use to equalize three pieces on an anchor. Any knot can be tied 'on a bite'. 

Trad Man wrote:

Well now I'm confused because if I were to tie a bowline on a bite I'd end up with what people on this thread are calling a "triple bowline" which is what I sometimes use to equalize three pieces on an anchor. Any knot can be tied 'on a bite'. 

Yes, can be confusing as it amounts to just common semantics.  But in general for the most common bowline variants, you have....

1. the single loop variants- regular bowline, double bowline (confusing!), Yosemite, etc. 
2. The double loop variants- bowline on a bight, Spanish/French bowline (no bight), etc
3. Triple loop variants - triple bowline (tied with a bight) .  
   
   

Probably can combine for 100s of variants 

M Appelquist wrote:

The bowline on a bite can be tied on the belay Loop also by  passing the bowline loop fully over your body. Wouldn’t want to tie it at night in the snow on a hanging belay for the first time!

Haven’t tried that...In the snow, on a hanging belay or at night. I will not tie it in a house, I will not tie it with a mouse. 

Live Perched wrote:

Haven’t tried that...In the snow, on a hanging belay or at night. I will not tie it in a house, I will not tie it with a mouse. 

Would be fun to race.  Gotta have pack and crampons on.  

Primary: It allows you to feel superior to people who don't know how to tie it. 

Secondary: It unties easily yet holds very well provided you tie it properly. If you don't tie it properly it doesn't count because it isn't the right knot.

Tertiary: It is much easier to adjust the loop lengths if using as an attachment to an anchor. I think it also lies flatter against the rock than a double figure eight, if oriented properly.

I prefer it both for tying in while lead climbing and fixing to double bolt anchors where I remain on the rope.

Trad Man wrote:

Well now I'm confused because if I were to tie a bowline on a bite I'd end up with what people on this thread are calling a "triple bowline" which is what I sometimes use to equalize three pieces on an anchor. Any knot can be tied 'on a bite'. 

Any knot can be tied "with a bight", but only some knots can be tied "on a bight".

Bill Czajkowski wrote:

Primary: It allows you to feel superior to people who don't know how to tie it. 

For extra superiority points, whip off a Spanish bowline as it eliminates Serge Smirnov’s concerns of cutting a leg.

Or, get it wrong, and you wind up in ANAM and on these forums as a case study in Superiority gone bad...

Austin Donisan wrote:

Any knot can be tied "with a bight", but only some knots can be tied "on a bight".

Grammatically the opposite would be true. Do you not tie a knot on a rope? You wouldn't tie a know 'with a rope' which seems to imply the rope is optional anymore than I drive a car with a road.

Mark Pilate was correct where he indicated that the knot shown in a photo submitted by 'curt86iroc' is a 'Triple Bowline'.
Link: https://notableknotindex.webs.com/triplebowline.html

The Triple Bowline never appeared in 'ABoK' (Ashley Book of Knots, published in 1944).
Note: Always try to use 'ABoK' number where they exist - because this aids in positive ID of a knot species.
Robert Chisnall is credited with using a Triple Bowline in the 1980's (per Geoffrey Budworth - 'The complete book of knots' at page 33) - I sometimes use this as a tie-in knot to a harness (with Chisnall's variation published by Budworth).
There is an ITRS test report at this link: http://itrsonline.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Byrne_Boutique-Bowlines.2019.pdf published by Kelly Byrne (but it contains some anomalous results...) where a number of different types of 'Bowlines' are tested.

The problem with knot names and identification is that there is often a lack of specificity among climbers (and this comment is not meant to be insulting or derogatory - its simply a statement of fact). For example, reading through this thread topic reveals a swinging pendulum of opinions. What intending posters should do first...is their 'homework' (before posting what they believe is the 'correct' answer). There are some great resources out there...just do some some homework/research first, otherwise you are potentially adding to the confusion.
Having a reasonable photo of a knot obviously helps - the photo submitted by 'curt86iroc' lacked a 'tail end' - it is customary amongst knot geeks (eg the IGKT website) to always show a Standing Part and a tail - this assists with positive ID. Where these components are missing - it means you have to start doing some detective work.
However, 'curts' photo did provide some key indicators - eg there were 2 'eyes' wrapping around the tree (not 1 eye). 'Curt' secured the knot with 'backup' around the 'returning eye legs'.

This fact rules out the knot being a #1074 Bowline with-a-bight (because this knot would only have 1 eye wrapping around the tree).

The Bowline with a bight is found in Ashley at illustration #1074. This knot is very interesting because it is both 'EEL' (either end loadable) and Bi-axially loadable (ie you can load both SPart ends simultaneously so the knot is 'through loaded').
Note: Knot geeks love knots that are 'TIB' (Tiable In the Bight). 'TIB' means the knot can be tied without access to either end...and obviously, the knot can be untied without access to either end, leaving no remnant knot in the line.

The Bowline on-a-bight is found in Ashley at illustration #1080. This knot is 'EEL' ...but, it isn't bi-axially loadable.
The #1080 Bowline on a bight is favored in some regions of the world - and maybe gaining popularity in Germany.

However, from a technical knot geek point-of-view, it only has 2 rope diameters inside the nipping loop.

The 'Triple Bowline' has 4 rope diameters inside the nipping loop - and it is this region where the highest stress concentration exist.
Robert Chisnall already knew this some 40 years ago... I think he was ahead of his time.
As stated, the Triple Bowline is a great tie-in knot to a harness - but you do need to add the extra tail maneuver (per Chisnall) to achieve security (which is easy to do).

Its chief draw-back is the amount of rope required to form the knot - obviously requiring more rope material than its single eye counterparts (eg EBSB Bowline, Lees link Bowline, Scotts locked Bowline, etc). But then again, the #1080 Bowline-on-a-bight also requires more rope material than all single eye versions...

Great for extending your rap. Easy functional and safe. Try it sometime! Made me quit using a PAS.

Just to show my lack of knot nerdery, I always called it a sheep's bend instead of sheet bend. Still think the so-called triple bowline should have been called bowline on a bite since that's literally how you tie one.

The link above for the "triple bowline", looks to me to suggest that all 3 loops are to be loaded... in that use I would say sure, call it a triple, but you wouldn't be tying it around a tree using a bight of rope. To go around a tree like that you would need to do some tedious things and have access to one end... So I'd argue its not exactly the same knot, at least not when tied around a tree. If your loading all 3 strands of the loop, sure call it a triple, but in "curt86iroc" 's post he is only loading 2 strands of the loop, and I'd call it a double bowline on a bight. Kinda like there are 2 ways to do a Brummel splice in hollow braid, but only one that you don't need access to both ends of the rope. They specify that it must have access to both ends of the rope or that one end can be fixed. Here it should be specified that it is started by passing a bight of rope around a large object, and finished with a safety knot, rather than passing the final bight over the entire object and loading all 3 loops.

For the originally posted knot, as used for 2 bolts or sometimes done as a mid rope tie-in by stepping through the loop and tightening it back over the knot... it is referred to a lot as a bowline on a bight, which I think is totally misleading, as "curt86iroc" 's image could also be seen as a bowline on a bight. The one with the "clean" finish used for 2 bolts or as a step-through mid rope tie in, I think should be called something else entirely.

I'm not discussing any of the common bowlines used to tie in with the free end of a climbing rope. There are a lot of possibilities there as well.

Edit: stuff.

Desert Rock Sports wrote:

The link above for the "triple bowline", looks to me to suggest that all 3 loops are to be loaded... in that use I would say sure, call it a triple, but you wouldn't be tying it around a tree using a bight of rope. To go around a tree like that you would need to do some tedious things and have access to one end... So I'd argue its not exactly the same knot, at least not when tied around a tree. If your loading all 3 strands of the loop, sure call it a triple, but in "curt86iroc" 's post he is only loading 2 strands of the loop, and I'd call it a double bowline on a bight. Kinda like there are 2 ways to do a Brummel splice in hollow braid, but only one that you don't need access to both ends of the rope. They specify that it must have access to both ends of the rope or that one end can be fixed. Here it should be specified that it is started by passing a bight of rope around a large object, and finished with a safety knot, rather than passing the final bight over the entire object and loading all 3 loops.

For the originally posted knot, as used for 2 bolts or sometimes done as a mid rope tie-in by stepping through the loop and tightening it back over the knot... it is referred to a lot as a bowline on a bight, which I think is totally misleading, as "curt86iroc" 's image could also be seen as a bowline on a bight. The one with the "clean" finish used for 2 bolts or as a step-through mid rope tie in, I think should be called something else entirely.

I'm not discussing any of the common bowlines used to tie in with the free end of a climbing rope. There are a lot of possibilities there as well.

Edit: stuff.

There is a variation of the triple bowline where the tail is tucked back through (similar to a "yosemite finish").   This works for trees.   I do wonder whether this variation is considered secure by e.g. AMGA folks.

Edit to add:  you could secure it with half of a double-fisherman's, but I am curious about whether the alternate finish is acceptable.

mbk wrote:

There is a variation of the triple bowline where the tail is tucked back through (similar to a "yosemite finish").   This works for trees.   I do wonder whether this variation is considered secure by e.g. AMGA folks.

Edit to add:  you could secure it with half of a double-fisherman's, but I am curious about whether the alternate finish is acceptable.

Alternatively, you can just clip a biner through the “tail” and the main loop for quicker and guaranteed security 

Mark Pilate wrote:

Alternatively, you can just clip a biner through the “tail” and the main loop for quicker and guaranteed security 

True, but I'd like to know whether the special finish is sufficient.   I have had screwgates freeze shut on all-day-TR ice anchors (so far, this has been "luckily" at the masterpoint rather than at the trees).

mbk wrote:

True, but I'd like to know whether the special finish is sufficient.   I have had screwgates freeze shut on all-day-TR ice anchors (so far, this has been "luckily" at the masterpoint rather than at the trees).

For all-day-TR, any static rope or cord independent of your climbing rope would be easier to deal with.  Since you would have access to the end of the rope, almost any bowline can be used for a tree anchor.  Back it up with a barrel knot  if you are worried about it untying. 

Live Perched wrote:

For all-day-TR, any static rope or cord independent of your climbing rope would be easier to deal with.  Since you would have access to the end of the rope, almost any bowline can be used for a tree anchor.  Back it up with a barrel knot  if you are worried about it untying. 

It is definitely true that a normal bowline works great for the first tree.   For a second tree, if you have a long static line, it can be advantageous to tie a triple-bowline.

Edit to add: in addition to being curious about industry-professional thoughts on the security of the Yosemite-finished triple-bowline, I am also curious as to whether the bight passed through the knot could be loaded, and also whether loading that (single-strand) bight would be preferable to loading the doubled loops.

What on earth does a tree have to do with calling it a bowline on a bite or not?

Jim Titt wrote:

I, like many Europeans use it as a tie-knot (tied as a re-thread).

Why do that instead of using a bowline or double bowline? 

In terms of the original posters question, there are known vulnerabilities when using a #1080 Bowline-on-a-bight for anchoring.
Refer to these links:

Link 1 https://www.peakinstruction.com/blog/testing-a-method-of-failure-with-a-bowline-on-the-bight-knot/

Link2 https://www.peakinstruction.com/blog/2nd-round-of-testing-on-the-bowline-on-the-bight-knot/

Note: In my view, the tester doesn't actually understand the failure mechanism - it depends on which 'eye' is cut.

...

The #1085 Adjustable Double F8 (aka 'Bunny ears') does not suffer from this vulnerability.

Refer to this link for demo test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qDr3qYZ9o 

In terms of a tie-in knot for climbing, the #1085 Adjustable double F8 is not 'practicable' - due to the fact that in order to tie it to your harness, you would need to use a complex 're-threading' tying method. This procedure requires practice (although once learned and mastered, is fairly straightforward).

In my personal view, the 'Triple Bowline' is superior compared to the #1080 Bowline-on-a-bight for 'tying-in' to a climbing harness.

The Triple Bowline has 4 rope diameters inside the nipping loop (compared to only 2 rope diameters for #1080). Furthermore, the Triple Bowline is far easier to tie-in to a climbing harness because it is 'PET" (Post Eye Tiable). The same is not true for #1080 (when tying-in to a harness) - because the only way to tie it is via a tedious 're-threading' technique.

Refer to the image below for a simple lock and also a 'Scotts lock' variant for the Triple Bowline.

As with all tie-in knots for life critical applications, you must exercise due diligence and be attentive to proper setting and cinching of the knot prior to use. Stiffer ropes tend to present issues with some knots - whereas knots tied in softer, more supple ropes are easier to dress, set and cinch tightly.

Note 1: The difference between the words 'bite' and 'bight'. Bite generally refers to an act of attacking or eating something (eg a dog can bite). In knotting, we use the nautical spelling...bight.

Note 2: Knot geeks use 'ABoK' numbers to positively identify knots. If an ABoK number exists, it is customary to use it - since it removes all doubt as to exactly what knot is being discussed. Think of ABoK numbers as scientific nomenclature (eg to identify a particular plant or animal species). For example, Bowline on-a bight is designated as #1080. A Bowline with-a-bight is designated as #1074. The Bowline with-a-bight is a very interesting because it is 'TIB' (Tiable In the Bight) and it is also bi-axially loadable.

Note 3: The 'Triple Bowline' does not have an 'ABoK number assigned. Its 'discovery' is attributed to Robert Chisnall (per Geoffrey Budworth) in the 1980's... although all claims of originality are hard to sustain...and it is highly likely that others had already experimented with the Triple Bowline earlier than Robert Chisnall.