UKC

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I couldn't find any threads...

Does anyone have better instructions as to how you tie the Edwards bowline? I'm struggling to follow the ones on here.

I have no problems with a rabbitless bowline, but could do with better images to make sure I'm tying the rest of it correctly!

Thanks,

-Ifor

PS. A double loop (two rabbit-holes) bowline with a Prohaska finish seems pretty solid. I prefer the Dan Lehman variation which you can use with a left-handed bowline though.

In reply to iforwms:

Some threads that mention it;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/search.php?forum=0&dates=0&na...

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/search.php?forum=0&dates=1&na...

In reply to sutty: Cheers. I've read through the posts in the first link, but they were more about the merits of various finishes.

Didn't look in the archived messages though, thanks.

In reply to iforwms:

Your troubles are understandable, as there is much reeving of the tail in this ungainly bowline extension beyond its merits, methinks. And this goes to the point of understandability and ease of tying --important considerations esp. in times of any stress.

But, what's "a rabbitless" bowline? (SOMEthing needs to go in & out
that bunny hole; a rabbit suits the task.


Which is one of simple alternatives, also giving security.
The "left-handed" bowline isn't so vulnerable to ring-loading failure
as the common bowline, and takes the simple tail-wrap & tuck nicely.
The double-loop bowline --"right-handed" way-- is very simply & neatly
finished in the "End-bound" variation ("EBDB").

*kN*

In reply to knudeNoggin:

rabit-less bowlne may refer to the slipknot version - simple slipknot, tail goes thru the slipping bit, dress well.

but youre right - a rabbitless bowline sounds souless and dry.

In reply to knudeNoggin:

Rabbit-less bowline is just the alternative way of tying s bowline using a slip knot rather than a hole with a tree. You first create a hole with a tree and then shove the tree trunk into the hole so that it loops through. Then you poke the loose end of the rope through there (the rabbit in the normal version). Pull the tree trunk and you have a bowline. It is just a less fiddly method of tying a bowline but, for the purposes of the Edwards bowline, it doesn't matter which method you use to get the starting bowline. After that, it is alll about rethreading it properly.

Alan

In reply to iforwms: The Edwards does seem to be overly complicated, I'm sure it's straight forward if you were taught how to tie it in person.

As Alan mentions, the rabbit-less bowline is just a quicker way of tying the standard bowline.

Thanks for your input.

-Ifor

has anyone seen/used the clove hitch bowline?

Okay, now I know what was meant by "rabbitless" --the mountain
comes to Muhammed (er, tree to bunny). I wouldn't say it's all so
quick a tying method though, for tying in

In reply to Luuuke:

The "clove hitch" bowline is called "water bowline",
though it's not clear that the original form was set so
closely with its 2nd loop to resemble a clove hitch or
that that was spaced farther away. It resists loosening.

Substituting the larkshead vice clove hitch and you have
what the above-cited Australian PDF names "Mirrored Bowline"
--well, if including the further collar and tuck (like a mirroring
of the rabbit's "around-the-tree" maneuvre). Resistant to
loosening, quite, and very easily untied (by choice, not accident).
Non-jamming in the extreme.

(-;

In reply to iforwms:

I was "taught" the Edwards bowline by Mark Edwards himself, out in Spain. I never managed to tie it correctly without supervision, and I'd forgotten all the details of the finish before I got off the plane back in the UK.

If I am going to use a bowline I will use a Yosemite finish and tie any excess tail off on the live rope, like a stopper on a figure of eight. (Form a queue here -> <- to explain to me why this means I am going to die.)

In reply to Martin W:

Looking at the UKC article on tying the Edwards bowline it just looks like a mess. It would also require me (and most people I think) to change their method of tying a simple bowline since most people tying a bowline using rabbits and trees go round the back of the tree from R-L. That Edwards method goes L-R and I can't even tell if the smae knot is acheivable with a common R-L method.

All very messy and confusing for most I think.

The Yosemite finish does seem like a much simpler knot and with a decent stop-knot to finish it off I can't see why it's any less secure?? Happy to be educated on this though - anyone?

In reply to Martin W:

I was also taught the Edwards bowline by Mark Edwards just last week. After a lot of practice, I managed to do it and haven't forgotten how but wouldn't like to learn it from diagrams.

In reply to Annie B:
I use the Edwards all the time. The rabbitless bit isn't necessary but does mean you can't make an error setting up the tree and the hole - get the roots above the hole and you are knackered.
The knot it's self doesn't take too much to master it, it is reconisable so easy to tell if its wrong - looks fig 8 like, it has advantages that it is safe - doesn't come undone, but it is easy to undo if loaded, and unlike the Yosemite the tail is downwards so out of the way.
But I agree that you have to be into your knots, it you can't be bothered just use a fig 8. There is a photo instruction on UKClimbing http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4

In reply to Annie B:
I agree that the "rabbitless" method in the photos is confusing. Just tie a outer bowline the rabbit-hole way. Then tie a yosemite finish and follow that by tucking the end down the rabbit-hole. That's what the Edwards is, an end-bound yosemite. I'm totally converted to it. An efficient all-day knot for grown-ups.

In reply to Andy Long:

I too was taught the Edwards' bowline by Mark and Rowland Edwards on a fantastic week's mutli-pitch trad course at Compass West. I found it hard to learn and perfect that week, but soon got the hang of it and haven't looked back for 20 years (gone were the days of flipping duoble figures of eight and ten hour struggles to untie them). It's a dawdle, very quick to tie and untie and I could do it with my eyes closed (not that I do mind you!).

I also still tie into belays in the way taught by Mark and Rowland on the course.

In reply to Andy Long: The usual way of tying the Edwards BL is with a outer tail, for the Yosemite an inner tail, so I am not sure if the Edwards is a different finish to a Yosemite, does it make a difference?

In reply to iforwms:
And the problems with a bog standard bowline + stopper are....?

In reply to andyathome: Its boring, not as neat and doesn't fulfil the knot bores interest in new knots. May as use fig 8 for everything.

In reply to steveshaking:
Ah! Neat. That is a clincher.

(...this from a person who worked on the 1.83 second alpine butterfly...)

In reply to steveshaking:
You can do a Yosemite and hence an Edwards with either an inner or outer bowline. With an inner only you can do the finishes in the opposite order, i.e. an end-binding followed by a yosemite. Voila! Another excellent knot!

In reply to iforwms:

If anybody sees me at the crag, I would be more than happy to spent some time demonstrating the Edwards bowline to them, if that helps.

Thanks to:
Martin W
Annie B
Steveshaking
Andy Long
Alan James
and Cusco

...for giving positive words about this knot.

I believe its one of those knots that once you have got it sorted, then it really does make sense...

Benefits:

Easy to undo after weighting even as heavily as possible ( I have pulled roots out of the ground with my car and still untied a bowline) and the Edwards bowline for climbers adds that extra sense of security by holding the bowline together nice and solid whilst climbing.

Its comforting to know the knot can be undone if a leader was unconscious whilst hanging on the rope and the rescuer needs the end of the rope to make an abseil to get the unconscious leader down.

The end of the rope is tucked away, away from the lead end, and therefore eliminates any confusing grabs for the wrong rope whilst making that desperate clip on the lead. Note: I have seen this happen a number of times with the figure of eight, especially if the end is rather long.

It has to be said, there is a coolness about this knot, it just looks damn good!

Safe climbing,
Mark Edwards

bowline & double fishermans- 45 years - 1ooo's of climbs- a few lobs- no probs- don't know about rabbit holes but this thread is disappearing up another kind of hole.
KISS method is best (keep it simple stupid)

In reply to M. Edwards:


I must not have expressed myself clearly enough. I really can't think of anything compellingly positive about this knot.

In reply to M. Edwards:

Hi - can I ask a question about the Edwards bowline? In the UKC photos, it is shown with a left-handed bowline to start (free end of rope lying on the outside of the loop) to which the Edwards finish is then applied. When I make a bowline I usually pass the rope around the "tree" the other way, so my bowline will have the free end lying on the inside of the loop. If I try to apply the same Edwards finish, I don't get the same full first wrap of the rope that forms part of the loop (I will only get half a wrap). Is there a different finish to the Edwards in this case, or does an Edwards bowline always start with a left-handed bowline?

In reply to Charlie_Zero:
If you want the Edwards Bowline, why not just tie IT --rather than going in a different start and then deciding to do it?

Frankly, the Ed.bwl. is a lot more complex than it's worth, hardly the model of **easily inspected**
(and as for looking "damn cool", beauty's in the eye of the beholder, and most folks beholding that will use some other adjective vice "cool", methinks! .

Note that the common bowline, which you tie, is vulnerable to slipping undone on ring-loading, whereas the "left-handed" bowline is not. (And that tail doesn't really stay "in the loop" when the knot's loaded, for that matter.)

Given the several good bowline extensions presented in the Australian pdf cited previously, or in the KISS approach of a bowline secured with a >>strangle knot<< (nb: a "dbl. fish." is an end-2-end joiner, each half of which is a strangle),
I can't imagine why one would opt for the complexity of the Ed.bwl.;
but if you want it, go for it from the start. It, too, can work.

*kN*

In reply to knudeNoggin:

I'm quite interested in knots, and have played around with various bowline finishes.

I hope that Mark will be able to tell me whether the "Edwards" finish, as tied by its inventor, always began with the end outside the ring. In which case there will only be one way to tie an "Edwards".

Could you give a bit more detail regarding the ring-loading issue with the "end inside the loop" bowline? Is it going to be a significant issue in climbing applications (tying into a harness, tying around a fixed object eg tree). I've always tied a bowline like that because it looks neater (then added a strangle or yosemite finish). Is the "end outside" knot a better knot in all respects, or does it have it's own vunerabilities. If it's generally better then I'll change to it,

In reply to Charlie_Zero:

Then you've tried those presented in that Australian PDF?
A problem I find in the Ed.Bwl. is that it takes some working to set neat & snug, as there's a section of the extended tail wrapping & tucking that is removed from any of the parts exiting the knot which can be pulled on to tighten --so it takes some special attention to get this interior part tight. (In contrast, those various "Janus" finishes or the "End-Bound Dbl. Bwl." can be tightened easily.)


?! Well, regardless of this bit of history, you can try alternative structures yourself. Here, you can use a short piece of rope and just back out the mainline and re-thread it with the opposite orientation and see what you think of that.
Further, you can begin with the common bowline and make the wraps exactly as in the Ed.Bwl. with the point of matching orientation being the eye leg that comes out from the live line's loop. In the linked presentation of the Ed.Bwl. given above, the extension begins with the tail going across this eye leg UNDER it; so, begin the same way but in the common bowline start. You will then differ in bringing the tail up around beside the live line for the next tuck, into the bowline's collar, but it all goes smoothly, and looks no worse than the original. --whether it was ever tied by anyone previously, or not.
.:. Basically, this revised Ed. Bwl. is a further tucking of the tail from one version of the Yosemite bowline.


It really should NOT be, but there are some users who clip into the bowline's eye, and in such cases the knot can become essentially an ends-joining knot; and especially if the usual live end is in tension the tail if unsecured can be quickly pulled out of the knot! Rumor of some climber being lost when some helicopter hoist was so attached might be just that --rumor. But it's a vulnerability worth being away of.


It should be noted that in either version, the tail's position can be varied --one can anticipate the live end's draw upon it and set it farther away from the direction it will be drawn, so that on loading it will then come around to where it's typically shown being set on tying. The knot can be tied in that quick, wrist-flick method in either version, and also in the "rabbitless" method shown by the Ed.Bwl. presentation..

*kN*

In reply to knudeNoggin:

Thanks for the further information.

In reply to knudeNoggin: So many knots, so little time. Having just played with the EBDB and the EBSB, I can see they are fine and interesting knots. The Yosemite prob does a similar job but more simply. Perhaps there is a theoretical strength advantage three ropes gripped by a single collar in decreasing the bend circumference. But in practice I still think the Ed. bowline scores with its downward tail. In terms of ease, its mostly a case of what you are used to. In terms of tightening, I don't find it an issue

In reply to steveshaking:

INCREASING the bend circumference surely, hence its radius and thus reducing the stress gradient across the rope.
I really don't know what the fuss is about. It's a dead easy knot to tie. And two tucks have to work undone before you're left with a naked bowline vs one with a stopper knot, which is a great galumphing thing anyway. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it isn't easy to check visually, though no doubt you'd get your eye in eventually.

In reply to Andy Long:
Yes, increasing the radius, slip of the keystroke.
In the interests of knot appreciation I will try it at the wall tonight.
Is there also an elephant in the room, never heard to many negative comments about the Edwards bowline, is their brand now forever blighted? Still think its a fine knot.

In reply to Andy Long:

Yes, increasing ... . But there seems more at work for boosting strength than mere diameter, insofar as knots go (where diameter differences aren't so great). It will take some attentive testing to develop better theories.


temptation : "It's much ado about knotting!"


Mmmmm, spitting into the wind with this. It shouldn't be much trouble, but (1) it's different/new, and (2) hardly so intuitive and visually clean; the parts don't flow into place so well.


For that matter, the simpler further tucking of one of those "Janus" bowlines gets this, in an easier to follow manner, just *twinning* the initial "rabbit around the tree" path for the added tuck --a track to follow.


Although the earlier remark above about "KISS" has great merit. One learns the strangle knot (form of double overhand (and triple overhand...)), and can use it to form the grapevine ("double fish.") to make slings, or alone to stopper the ends of abseil lines, or maybe to bind a coil of rope, and in this thread as a securing of the bowline's tail. One tool put to use variously.

*kN*

In reply to knudeNoggin:

Nice one, Noggin!

In reply to petestack:

But I merely echoed; credit goes to G.Budworth, author of countably many knots books, and this the title chosen for a booklet summary of knot-tyer guild activities.
And it did fit here well!

(-;

In reply to iforwms:
Tried the EBSB at a wall, it is easier to tie and untie than the Edwards Bowline, looks neater, visually easier to see its right. Only issue was the upwards tail, so I tucked that down the rabbit hole too, now 4 ropes going though, seemed to work fine.