Girth hitching a bowline to harness tie in points (lanyard), what kind of strength reduction should I expect?

Hi,

So I'm making an adjustable lanyard, and I want to make it as easy as possible to attach to my harness, while remaining safe and not adding unnecessary bulk.

I'm inclined to just tie in using a fig8 on my belay loop, like so:

But it would be nice if I didn't have to fiddle around with tracing a fig8, each time that I needed to attach my lanyard to my harness.  So my question is, is there any reason for why it would NOT be safe to girth hitch a bowline knot to the two tie in points of my harness?

Like so?

Assuming that the rest of my lanyard is bombproof, would I expect the bowline to be the weakest point of failure (30 - 40% strength reduction of the 14kn cord?) Or would the girth hitch/lark's foot result in an even greater strength reduction?

FYI:

- 7mm cord is in the photos, but I plan to use 8mm static cord
- I won't use this as my main tie-in for belaying multi-pitch.  I usually clove hitch my rope in that situation.  In fact, the only time I expect the lanyard to be my only point of protection is when I use it to extend my rappel device.

Thanks

I'm not sure if strength reduction is the real issue. I think you're more likely to mis-tie or mis-loop something and killing yourself  imho

Yea, that's the risk I'm trying to reduce.  It's a lot easier for me to screw up a fig 8, then a girth hitch.  

The bowline I'll keep tied, and I might even tape the tail of the backup stopper knot to the loop of the bowline.

I don’t understand. Are you pulling the entire rope through for the girth hitch? Leaving it on the harness all the time? Seems like a waste of time. Adding unnecessary steps to the process just leaves more room for error.

Is there a reason you want to use a bowline instead of an eight on a bight to make the loop to girth hitch? To me the advantage of the bowline is how easily it unties, which is not something i want on a permanent loop that I dont plan on untieing. I would also want a backup knot on the bowline in addition to the extra wrap making it more bulky.

bowlines don't do well  when not under load. yer gonna die.  just but the new Petzle thingy. they are worth the reduction in bulk by haveing the sewn loop to girth hitch in with.

I agree with Nick, and I use a bowline for all tie-ins.  For this application I'd use a figure-8 loop.  I don't think think there is even a remote practical concern about the strength reduction of the knots.

Aaron Ramirez wrote:

Yea, that's the risk I'm trying to reduce.  It's a lot easier for me to screw up a fig 8, then a girth hitch.  

The bowline I'll keep tied, and I might even tape the tail of the backup stopper knot to the loop of the bowline.

If you’re that concerned about screwing up a figure 8, how do you plan on tying in?

Depending on what type of climbing you do and how you use your harness, it might make sense to just leave the tether semi-permanently installed, in which case you could tie it in with an ordinary figure 9 and have less bulk and full dependability.

Why do people constantly feel the need to reinvent long tested and safe methods?

The new petzle connect is amazeing  slimb tool. an be used as an adjustable daisy. it is basicly a better version of my home made rig which was a length of old climbing rope tied to my harness with a wild country ropeman on it. 

NateGfunk wrote:

Why do people constantly feel the need to reinvent long tested and safe methods?

I don't know, maybe in the hopes of improvement or progress. The same reasons that motivated people to invent the stitch plate, the double axle cam, or plaquette style belay devices

Why do people on mountain project constantly feel the need to suppress creativity, curiosity, and new ideas? 

Girth hitch a purcel to your waist and leg loop tie in points. 

Girth hitch to the belay loop is how Todd Skinner died.

https://www.rocknrescue.com/product/sterling-42-6-mm-short-purcells/?gclid=CjwKCAiAjanRBRByEiwAKGyjZbMNzjfkqzqQpMfPYjSx_yFDXmONMYouJ5XuqxC7VJGKKo2Sns5MWBoC-00QAvD_BwE

eli poss wrote:

I don't know, maybe in the hopes of improvement or progress. The same reasons that motivated people to invent the stitch plate, the double axle cam, or plaquette style belay devices

Why do people on mountain project constantly feel the need to suppress creativity, curiosity, and new ideas? 

Except almost all the time we see dangerous modifications to standard practices that offer no benefit, are ill conceived and simply dangerous. Innovation has a place in climbing, of course - but the sport has matured and the risk to life and limb through so called 'innovation' by amateurs should not be condoned. This kind of experimentation mostly serves to betray inexperience, and a poor understanding of the physical realities of the gear and the sport. 

rgold wrote:

It appears to be simple to inspect.  Lightweight. Quick to adjust. Cheap. Will slip if shock loaded. And I can re-purpose the cord if I need to in a bind.  And if I'm really worried about the possibility of catching a factor 2, then I'm clove-hitching my climbing rope as well.

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

why is the petzle limited in use? seems pretty awsome to me? Mine was a  birthday present.  I really like the slim attachment point.

Why use a PAS at all. They are bulky and only have 1 use. This monstrosity is a bulky and unnecessary Personal Anchor setup. Do you climb with it tied thong style?

Just tie in with the rope! 

Nick Goldsmith wrote:

why is the petzle limited in use? seems pretty awsome to me? Mine was a  birthday present.  I really like the slim attachment point.

It's a nitpick really, since the Petzle lanyard is stitched.  The length of cord that I use for my own can be untied and used to sling a tree or anything else 5ft of cord can be used for.

I bought one for my girlfriend for $40 after I couldn't convince her to just use a simple Purcell Prusik for sport    If someone is really looking to buy one though, I highly recommend it over the Metolius PAS or anything else on the market.

Sam Keller wrote:

Why use a PAS at all. They are bulky and only have 1 use. This monstrosity is a bulky and unnecessary Personal Anchor setup. Do you climb with it tied thong style?

Just tie in with the rope! 

To each their own. If you're 100% happy with tying in with your rope, that's just fine, and I won't try to convince you otherwise  

Aaron Ramirez wrote:

To each their own. If you're 100% happy with tying in with your rope, that's just fine, and I won't try to convince you otherwise  

Can't argue that. Just pointing out that you're bringing up way more than you need. I bring up a double length nylon sling for anchors and use it to extend my rappel device when descending....

eli poss wrote:

I don't know, maybe in the hopes of improvement or progress. The same reasons that motivated people to invent the stitch plate, the double axle cam, or plaquette style belay devices

Why do people on mountain project constantly feel the need to suppress creativity, curiosity, and new ideas? 

Eli, while I agree with your sentiment, I think the frustration Nate expressed comes from newer/beginner climbers constantly feeling the need to modify/invent when there are already proven, fully functional alternatives.  The examples you gave came from experienced climbers and engineers seeing an emergent need and designing efficient solutions.  The first thing one should always do before starting something new is to review and understand what has already been done before and to critically assess the limitations of these methods in order to determine whether a new design is truly warranted.