One of These Knots Can Kill You

Sirius wrote:A solid and worthy article, good contribution. @Billcoe- Thanks. I really think the use of the "common name" steers new climbers to less safe alternatives, and should be abandoned. @optimistic- the fact that it is a "scary name" is part of the problem. Using a scary name for a safe practice is self-defeating. This is dumb, though. The EDK term is in wide use - hence there is value in learning it. Period. Your position on that one is like that of the prescriptivist vs the descriptivist in the dictionary wars: pretending it doesn't exist because your (dogmatic, subjective) opinion is that it shouldn't exist is silly and limits useful, applicable learning. That type of closed-circle thinking shouldn't be wrapped into the deal for anyone seeking to educate others. Teach what you think is best, but always teach the the reality on the ground as well.

The misnomer EDK is in wide use, and it is my belief it may lead climbers entering the sport to use less safe options. Is it that much of a stretch to think that something call "Death Knot" might be avoided based on name alone? The misnomer is in wide use, and that to me is part of the problem. It shouldn't be. I'd love to hear this discourse from a tenured climber teaching a new climber:

"The Flat Overhand Bend is awesome for joining two ropes together for rappel... it used to be called the European Death Knot but that was silly and unfounded and it's a great choice for this job...."

Rick Blair wrote:Don't ever teach a new climber to join 2 ropes with any kind of figure eight, problem solved.

No I don't think that solves the problem. I have never heard of anyone teaching people to join 2 ropes together using a flat figure 8 bend (the deadly one) and yet, people do it.

As was mentioned above, or maybe in the writeup... I think the problem is that people assume that if a single overhand is good, then a figure 8 must be better. This bad decision is possibly encouraged by the "death knot's" name.

What we need to do as a climbing community is to teach climbers that they shouldn't f*&k around or get careless with knots.
- Using the wrong knot for the job
- accidentally tying a bad variation of a hard to inspect knot,
- inventing your own knot, or a finish to a knot.
- using any knot without dressing it, inspecting it, and knowing 100% it is tied correctly

any of the above can kill you.

We teach people never to use biners/ropes/harnesses without a UIAA stamp, and yet some climbers are perfectly comfortable messing around with knots without any test data.

I know I am going to get flamed for saying this, but The Yosemite finish on the bowline is the perfect example. There has been no rigorous testing of the Yosemite finish, but somehow it managed to get popularized. And yet we now know that tugging on the wrong strands in the wrong order when dressing a bowline w. Yosemite finish can cause the whole knot to degenerate into a form of slip knot. Furthermore, the Yosemite finish does virtually nothing to add security/redundancy to the bowline. WTF did people start using it? Because it has the word "Yosemite" in the name?

see Yosemite Bowline not Safe

cyclestupor wrote:I think the problem is that people assume that if a single overhand is good, then a figure 8 must be better. This bad decision is possibly encouraged by the "death knot's" name.

More likely, people assume the figure 8 is better because that's the knot we trust to tie in with. The overhand on the other hand, some don't even use it to tie their shoelaces with.

OK, if the fig 8 is such a problem then everyone just teach people explicitly not to use it for joining ropes. The flat version is dangerous and the re-trace, though safe from untying, is likely to get stuck.

I'm still confused..why, why, why ? all these knots ?

There is one way to tie a figure 8 and one way to tie a double fishermans

Doing up the tails means shit and the bowline sucks in any form

To OP: Thanks for posting.

john strand wrote:I'm still confused..why, why, why ? all these knots ? There is one way to tie a figure 8 and one way to tie a double fishermans Doing up the tails means shit and the bowline sucks in any form

I bet I'm just misunderstanding your question because I know that you're very experienced, but: it's not a matter of tying the 8 incorrectly, it's that the "flat 8" rolls under load.

cyclestupor wrote: I have never heard of anyone teaching people to join 2 ropes together using a flat figure 8 bend (the deadly one) and yet, people do it.

Apparently, someone did. The last sentence sounds like an endorsement to me. Of course, this was changed when people realized how easily the flat eight rolls.

From the AMGA Mountain Bulletin – Winter 2003-

“…we performed tests on 7 and 8mm, static caving/anchoring rope, and two different climbing ropes plus most of the permutations with these materials. If you choose to use the flat overhand knot to tie rappel ropes together for its advantages of clean profile and ease of untying, use it with confidence. Failures with like ropes were always 2,300 lbs or more; with a 10.5/8mm rope combination failure was 1,700 lbs or more. A flat eight added some 800 lbs of strength in a 10.5 compared to the flat overhand.”

wivanoff wrote: Apparently, someone did. The last sentence sounds like an endorsement to me. Of course, this was changed when people realized how easily the flat eight rolls. From the AMGA Mountain Bulletin – Winter 2003- “…we performed tests on 7 and 8mm, static caving/anchoring rope, and two different climbing ropes plus most of the permutations with these materials. If you choose to use the flat overhand knot to tie rappel ropes together for its advantages of clean profile and ease of untying, use it with confidence. Failures with like ropes were always 2,300 lbs or more; with a 10.5/8mm rope combination failure was 1,700 lbs or more. A flat eight added some 800 lbs of strength in a 10.5 compared to the flat overhand.”

That's strange... Is the difference between the above results and others (which reported rolling) a function of whether or not the flat 8 is tightened properly or something?

The difference is people mistaking this knot #2 and knot #3 in my article. They look like twins in a way but behave in vastly different ways under load.

@Strand I am sure you use #2.

All the reported (and confirmed) rolling and failing is #3.

It is why I wrote the article. Climber's use "flat 8" to describe two knots. One deadly, one really strong (stronger than flat overhand bend).

Please consult the images in the article and let me know if you need more clarification.

wivanoff wrote:A flat eight added some 800 lbs of strength in a 10.5 compared to the flat overhand.”

This 2003 statement may be partially to blame, because average climbers, and especially new climbers, do not understand that a flat eight = Flemish Bend, not an figure eight bend as I picture on #3

NEAlpineStart wrote:The difference is people mistaking this knot #2 and knot #3 in my article. They look like twins in a way but behave in vastly different ways under load. @Strand I am sure you use #2. All the reported (and confirmed) rolling and failing is #3. It is why I wrote the article. Climber's use "flat 8" to describe two knots. One deadly, one really strong (stronger than flat overhand bend). Please consult the images in the article and let me know if you need more clarification.

Gotcha, hadn't read your article, which is quite clear. I'd previously only heard "flat 8" used in reference to what you call the figure 8 bend. I also in 36 years of climbing have never seen a figure 8 reverse follow through used to join 2 ropes! I went straight from the double fisherman's to the, ahem, flat overhand bend.

Edit: thanks for writing and posting the article.

Of course a Flemish Bend would be stronger and not roll.

When I saw the AMGA article I knew what a Flemish Bend was. But they wrote about a "flat overhand" and compared it to a "flat eight" - so think about the context. Sort of like discussing a "Ring Bend" in the same context as a "Flemish Bend" and expecting us to think "flat eight" instead.

If they meant Flemish Bend, they should have said so. And/Or used the ABOK number.

In any case, your article is very good. Thanks for sharing it.

The overhand knot works the best but I always tie it twice. A double overhand knot. When you pull the rope the knot points up so less chance of it getting caught.

Optimistic wrote: That's strange... Is the difference between the above results and others (which reported rolling) a function of whether or not the flat 8 is tightened properly or something?

I was not suggesting the "flat eight" was stronger or more secure. It's not. It rolls under lower loads. Do not use it.

I was merely pointing out that some may have recommended it in the past - before we knew better.

Or, as NEAlpineStart claims, they really meant Flemish Bend. (Though it seems the figures for a Flemish Bend would be higher that 800 lbs more than flat overhand)

wivanoff wrote: Or, as NEAlpineStart claims, they really meant Flemish Bend.

In the article you cite they did pull tests, and it doesn't seem like the figure 8 bend could've generated the results they published, so the flemish bend/8 follow through explanation seems logical.

Just for reference:

ABOK 1410 = Overhand Bend (AKA "Thumb Knot", AKA "Flat Overhand", AKA "EDK")

ABOK 1411 = Flemish Bend (AKA "Figure Eight Bend")

ABOK 1412 = Ring Bend (AKA "Water Knot", AKA "Gut Knot")

ABOK 1415 = Grapevine Knot (AKA "Double Fisherman's")

I could not find any reference to or drawing of "Flat Eight" in my copy of ABOK.

@Optimistic The reason the article in the OP does not match what you had previously heard for naming the knots is probably because the OP is suggesting a change to the naming convention to remove confusion. But I'm not sure how changing the naming convention will remove confusion, I would expect it to only add to the confusion. If you want evidence for that then just look to this thread.

@Wivanoff I agree with you on that the AMGA was probably using the standard naming convention and so when talking about the "flat eight" was probably referring to the flat eight (third knot in OP article). The ABOK points out that the flat overhand bend is the weakest of the bends, and while the flat eight has a high chance of rolling there probably are ways to mitigate it (just like with the flat overhand bend, but the flat overhand is easier to mitigate the rolling) so they were probably able to get their tests done. The flemmish bend is known to be one of the strongest bends (generally considered to be stronger than the double fisherman's) so you could probably expect to see a larger difference in holding power than what the AMGA reported.

To be frank, I don't think the issue is with the names that are used because 1) I have never heard the term "flat eight" in reference to the flemmish bend 2) people should actually be showing how to tie the knots so the only time the confusion may come into play is when the media reports on accidents

By the way, I did an image search for "flat eight bend" and "flat eight knot" and did get lots of pictures of the flemmish bend, but with all of them if you actually clicked on the picture they said "flemmish bend" or "figure eight bend" none of them said "flat eight" anywhere

john strand wrote:I'm still confused..why, why, why ? all these knots ? There is one way to tie a figure 8 and one way to tie a double fishermans Doing up the tails means shit and the bowline sucks in any form

(just in case you're not trolling)

1) Doing up the tails matters depending on the knot and how you do them. You can prove this to yourself using waxed floss. Tie an overhand and you can easily pull it apart. Now tie an overhand and tie one tail to the other with another overhand and repeat with the tails reversed. Now it's very hard if not impossible to pull it apart. You're demonstrably wrong.

2) Bowlines rock and you're in danger of creating a rage thread. I can only imagine your horror as I tie in with my bowline and you climb to the top of the climb only to discover I chose to bowline a massive tree instead of 4 janky pieces of pro equalized with cord.