Joining two ropes with a lashing for a rappel

Ben Zartman wrote:

Not sure the pic posted. I can see it on my screen, but not when I update....

Ah, there it is, the picture of elegance and low-profile-ness.  The Knotless Swami!

For the uninitiated- exactly what is the point of a swami? I know they’re historical but I didn’t realize they were still in use. 

Climbing Weasel wrote:

For the uninitiated- exactly what is the point of a swami? I know they’re historical but I didn’t realize they were still in use. 

Aside from people who get a kick out of anachronistic gear, the only thing they are regularly used for today is sleeping tied in. 

Climbing Weasel wrote:

For the uninitiated- exactly what is the point of a swami? I know they’re historical but I didn’t realize they were still in use. 

On a long free route with stance belays, they're far lighter and more comfortable than a harness.  In a wide crack or squeeze chimney, they present a lower profile. That's really why I began using one.  Finding that the smooth taper of my leg was suddenly spoiled by a leg loop when trying to go thigh-deep into an offwidth, I eliminated the leg loop, and thus elevated my offwidth game.  For any kind of climbing where you're not going to be falling a lot, or hangdogging, it's pretty nice.  If you climb a lot of easy cruiser long routes with walk-offs, it's ideal. I also use one when sailing offshore as an alternative to the death-trap auto-inflatable lifejacket/harness combos we've discussed up-thread.

Hello Ben,
You managed to 'stay living' for 8 pages in this forum - nice work :)

On a slightly more serious note, I am genuinely curious as to how you define what a 'knot' is?

The title of this topic thread indicates 'no knots', and your swami belt is also claimed to be knot free.

Historically and traditionally, a knot has generally been defined to be:

A fastening tied by hand which has an intentional geometry that is repeatable - in order to achieve a desired outcome.

The term 'knot' broadly captures a range of hand tied fastenings.

A knot can be further divided into specific sub-categories according to function:

[ ] Fixed eye knots - eg Figure 8 eye knot, Bowlines, etc.

[ ] End-to-end joins ('bends') eg, Double Fishermans bend, Sheet bend, Zeppelin bend, etc.

[ ] Hitches eg, Prusik hitch, Clove hitch, Munter hitch, etc.

All knot book authors have traditionally included all 3 sub-categories in their publications.

The sub category of 'hitches' includes: binder hitches, noose hitches, slide and grip hitches, load control hitches.

# Example of a load control hitch = Munter hitch

# Example of a slide and grip hitch = Prusik hitch

# Example of a binder hitch = Constrictor hitch, Clove hitch, etc

# Example of a noose hitch = Purcell

...

It does appear that you don't regard 'hitches' as being a type of 'knot'. And this might explain why you make claims

of "no knots", or "knotless", in your various posts.

Given the fact that 'hitches' appear in all knot books, do you believe that the authors are in error?

That is, do you believe that authors should not have included 'hitches' in their knot books?

Ben Zartman wrote:

Ah, there it is, the picture of elegance and low-profile-ness.  The Knotless Swami!

Except for those hitches, which is a kind of knot.

Mark Gommers wrote:

Hello Ben,
You managed to 'stay living' for 8 pages in this forum - nice work :)

On a slightly more serious note, I am genuinely curious as to how you define what a 'knot' is?

The title of this topic thread indicates 'no knots', and your swami belt is also claimed to be knot free.

Historically and traditionally, a knot has generally been defined to be:

A fastening tied by hand which has an intentional geometry that is repeatable - in order to achieve a desired outcome.

The term 'knot' broadly captures a range of hand tied fastenings.

A knot can be further divided into specific sub-categories according to function:

[ ] Fixed eye knots - eg Figure 8 eye knot, Bowlines, etc.

[ ] End-to-end joins ('bends') eg, Double Fishermans bend, Sheet bend, Zeppelin bend, etc.

[ ] Hitches eg, Prusik hitch, Clove hitch, Munter hitch, etc.

All knot book authors have traditionally included all 3 sub-categories in their publications.

The sub category of 'hitches' includes: binder hitches, noose hitches, slide and grip hitches, load control hitches.

# Example of a load control hitch = Munter hitch

# Example of a slide and grip hitch = Prusik hitch

# Example of a binder hitch = Constrictor hitch, Clove hitch, etc

# Example of a noose hitch = Purcell

...

It does appear that you don't regard 'hitches' as being a type of 'knot'. And this might explain why you make claims

of "no knots", or "knotless", in your various posts.

Given the fact that 'hitches' appear in all knot books, do you believe that the authors are in error?

That is, do you believe that authors should not have included 'hitches' in their knot books?

If hairs must be split, yes, you can consider a hitch a type of knot, and a bend as well.  But because they have different purposes, professionals in their use tend to be nitpicky about the difference.  That you are nitpicky in the other direction is a testament to diversity.  In my primary refences (Lever, Toss, Garret-Smith), the difference seems to be highligted rather than downplayed, and they add a further dimension of splices, so that one book (author forgotten) is titled, "Knots, Hitches, and Splices."

The knotlessness of which my lashings consist, since technically they do contain "knots," is in the elimination of a giant knot in the primary members.  It was probably before your time that swamis were made of 2" webbing, tied about the waist with a water knot.  That knot created an awkward bulge in a squeeze chimney which you had to rotate to whichever side of your body was least inconvenient for it.  So, the Holy Grail of swami design was to eliminate the Big Knot.  I have done so, trading in its place a discreet, low-profile lashing.  Fish had something similar, but lacked the Dyneema that really makes it cool.  I suppose we could call it the "Lashing Swami," if that's more technically accurate, and we could call my proposed skinny-rope lashing a....."Lashing Between Two Eyes?"

I rejoice, though, that the only real objection to my cutting-edge technology is one of semantics.  Once you're tried my products in real life, even that objection will melt away in the glory you'll experience knowing that you're rocking the best of the best, and you'll increase exponentially in confidence, ability, and attractiveness.

Again: This post is solely directed at Ben:
Thanks for your reply.
I'm trying to be very clear and careful with my questions - because I am trying to understand how you define what a 'knot' is.
You answered as follows:

...yes, you can consider a hitch a type of knot, and a bend as well

There is no "hair splitting" here, its simply about getting our definitions in order (language is important, and words have meaning).

If you concede that a 'hitch' and a 'bend' are both a type of knot - are you willing to alter the title of this topic post?
And the 'Knotless Swami harness' - are you willing to remove the reference to 'knotless'?

It was probably before your time that swamis were made of 2" webbing, tied about the waist with a water knot.

I started full time climbing in 1983 (in Australia). My first experience was with a harness improvised from sisal rope in Perth, Western Australia. A year later, I purchased a swami type harness from a climbing shop at Mt Arapiles in Victoria. I used the 'swami' system for 3 years then upgraded to a buckle system. There were no climbing bans at Mt Arapiles in the 1980's and 1990's.

So, the Holy Grail of swami design was to eliminate the Big Knot

 In the early 1980's at Mt Arapiles, the most common method to secure a swami belt was with two or three 360 degree turns of tubular webbing and a tape knot (aka 'ring bend'). You had to suck your belly in and hold your breath while tying the tape knot ('ring bend'). It worked - but was a bit fiddly. None of us at the time considered the 'tape knot' to be a big knot.

I rejoice, though, that the only real objection to my cutting-edge technology is one of semantics.

No 'real objections' per se - rather, trying to understand your definition of what a knot is - and why you make claims of no knots and knotless systems. As stated, we need to get our definitions in order. Words have meaning, and language is important.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to engage in a meaningful dialogue if everyone applied their own definitions.

If I were in your position, I would not make the claim of "no knots" and/or "knotless". Instead, I would make the claim that I am employing low profile knotting techniques - ie using hitches to unite 2 ends in a secure way.

Tldr anyone from the rigging world reply cause 100% viable if can fit through rappel hardware 

Mike Lindell stopped selling pillows, and he's posting on MP. 

Ben Zartman wrote:

If hairs must be split, yes, you can consider a hitch a type of knot, and a bend as well.  But because they have different purposes, professionals in their use tend to be nitpicky about the difference.  That you are nitpicky in the other direction is a testament to diversity.  In my primary refences (Lever, Toss, Garret-Smith), the difference seems to be highligted rather than downplayed, and they add a further dimension of splices, so that one book (author forgotten) is titled, "Knots, Hitches, and Splices."

The knotlessness of which my lashings consist, since technically they do contain "knots," is in the elimination of a giant knot in the primary members.  It was probably before your time that swamis were made of 2" webbing, tied about the waist with a water knot.  That knot created an awkward bulge in a squeeze chimney which you had to rotate to whichever side of your body was least inconvenient for it.  So, the Holy Grail of swami design was to eliminate the Big Knot.  I have done so, trading in its place a discreet, low-profile lashing.  Fish had something similar, but lacked the Dyneema that really makes it cool.  I suppose we could call it the "Lashing Swami," if that's more technically accurate, and we could call my proposed skinny-rope lashing a....."Lashing Between Two Eyes?"

I rejoice, though, that the only real objection to my cutting-edge technology is one of semantics.  Once you're tried my products in real life, even that objection will melt away in the glory you'll experience knowing that you're rocking the best of the best, and you'll increase exponentially in confidence, ability, and attractiveness.

My man, I doubt you’re going to win a knot debate with mark Gommers. Certainly not by implying he’s young blood when he’s the knot GOAT that contributed so much to PACI…

Seriously, scroll down This page and take note of how much he’s researched and authored….

Mark Gommers wrote:

Again: This post is solely directed at Ben:
Thanks for your reply.
I'm trying to be very clear and careful with my questions - because I am trying to understand how you define what a 'knot' is.
You answered as follows:

There is no "hair splitting" here, its simply about getting our definitions in order (language is important, and words have meaning).

If you concede that a 'hitch' and a 'bend' are both a type of knot - are you willing to alter the title of this topic post?
And the 'Knotless Swami harness' - are you willing to remove the reference to 'knotless'?

I started full time climbing in 1983 (in Australia). My first experience was with a harness improvised from sisal rope in Perth, Western Australia. A year later, I purchased a swami type harness from a climbing shop at Mt Arapiles in Victoria. I used the 'swami' system for 3 years then upgraded to a buckle system. There were no climbing bans at Mt Arapiles in the 1980's and 1990's.

 In the early 1980's at Mt Arapiles, the most common method to secure a swami belt was with two or three 360 degree turns of tubular webbing and a tape knot (aka 'ring bend'). You had to suck your belly in and hold your breath while tying the tape knot ('ring bend'). It worked - but was a bit fiddly. None of us at the time considered the 'tape knot' to be a big knot.

No 'real objections' per se - rather, trying to understand your definition of what a knot is - and why you make claims of no knots and knotless systems. As stated, we need to get our definitions in order. Words have meaning, and language is important.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to engage in a meaningful dialogue if everyone applied their own definitions.

If I were in your position, I would not make the claim of "no knots" and/or "knotless". Instead, I would make the claim that I am employing low profile knotting techniques - ie using hitches to unite 2 ends in a secure way.

Mark,

I think I explained in what the knotlessness consists.  I'd change the title to "Joining Two Spliced Eyes to Rappel" if I knew how to edit a title in this forum, just to appease you.  Maybe one of the mods can do it.

It is because precision in language matters (to some more than others), that I'm careful to call a bend a bend, a knot a knot, and a hitch a hitch.  When someone describes splicing as "twisting rope together," I want to leap up and correct them. So, I get (a little) where you're coming from.  But seriously, you're entering the realm of the petty when you insist that a swami devoid of the big knot cannot be called "knotless" if there's hitches.  It's a swami without the classic big knot!

With all the baggage you're dragging, I'd almost think you were trolling, but I can see that you take this very seriously.  So, with apologies for the semantic deathblow, "Knotless" is a good descriptor, a killer trademarkable name, and I'm inclined to keep it.

@Jared E  I had won already, when Mark leaped at a typo because he had no other substance.  Incidentally, the argument about bends themselves was in another place: here it is just about semantics.  What is a knot? When is it not?

I would like to come back to some more essential points: What is the USP of this product? What is the value proposition?

From the replies in this thread a lot of climbers, including myself, do not understand the benefit of having a thin line with a spliced eye, especially one that is not a Kernmantel construction and by that loosing strength with every damage to the line.

Understanding that would benefit the discussion a lot I think!

Best

Ben Zartman wrote:

Ah, there it is, the picture of elegance and low-profile-ness.  The Knotless Swami!

Awesome. This is the perfect complement to my carbon fiber Alpenstock and titanium hobnailed boots. 

Ben Zartman wrote:

I'd change the title to "Joining Two Spliced Eyes to Rappel" if I knew how to edit a title in this forum,...

Go to your original post that started the thread, click on the 'Edit' link, change the title, click 'Save'.

Marc801 C wrote:

Go to your original post that started the thread, click on the 'Edit' link, change the title, click 'Save'.

Correction. It's not Mike Lindell posting. It's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

Pavel Pavelovish wrote:

I would like to come back to some more essential points: What is the USP of this product? What is the value proposition?

From the replies in this thread a lot of climbers, including myself, do not understand the benefit of having a thin line with a spliced eye, especially one that is not a Kernmantel construction and by that loosing strength with every damage to the line.

Understanding that would benefit the discussion a lot I think!

Best

Hi Pavel,

A thin line is useful as a lightweight tag line: there's several much-discussed methods of single-rope rappelling with a tagline to pull down the primary rope.  A thin line is useful also for toproping; for hauling extra gear up mid-pitch on a bigwall, or the anchor-building and hauling gear at the end of the pitch; it's useful for rappelling from a freesolo; for canyoneering; for alpine climbs where a rope is only used to descend: I'm sure others can list more uses.

But skinny ropes still need to be strong.  Having a dyneema core allows them to be stronger than other ropes of similar diameter.  Now, while a knot weakens every sort of rope, it weakens a dyneema one by a greater percentage than a nylon or polyester one.  So one advantage of dyneema is cancelled if it's knotted.  It becomes, like Samson without his hair, like other ropes.  If it's spliced, it retains more than 90% of strength.  So there's a huge advantage to a splice in the end of a Dyneema-cored rope: super light, super strong.  The only challenge is figuring out how to easily integrate it into a climbing system where it's not practical to splice every rope, and where rappel devices for fat rope may not be suitable for skinny rope.

Not sure why you think damage to the line is a specific disadvantage to skinny ropes: every rope, regardless of sort, loses strength with damage.  It's harder, though, to damage the sort of rope I'm working on: a Technora/polyester cover will protect from abrasion and heat (belay devices can generate a lot of heat on a long, fast rappel), and the dyneema core is far harder to cut than a nylon or polyester one.  Another neat feature of Dyneema is that it's light enough to float, whereas Nylon is heavy, and if not dry-treated, absorbs water and becomes weaker while doing so.  The only real virtue of Nylon is that it stretches. If we could figure out how to absorb shock loads without nylon, we could reduce a lot of weight and bulk.  So far, that problem has proved insoluble.

Ben Zartman wrote:

Yates says their rabbit runner is Dyneema webbing.  They have other slings that are blended Nylon/dyneema, but the only ingredient of the rabbit runner is listed as Dyneema.

In case anyone was curious, I did email Yates and ask about the construction of this product.  They replied to me today: 

Hi Kyle,

Thank you for contacting YatesGear.com. The answer to your question is below:  Dyneema/Nylon blend

I don't think that's a surprise to anyone who looked at the picture, since the weave is clearly a blend, not a 100% dyneema product.  But anyway, there you have it, directly from the manufacturer.

Presumably Ben will have another red herring or ad hominem retort, but since he hasn't provided any data or evidence for 8 pages of claims, I don't expect anything substantial this time either.

Kyle Tarry wrote:

In case anyone was curious, I did email Yates and ask about the construction of this product.  They replied to me today: 

Hi Kyle,

Thank you for contacting YatesGear.com. 

The answer to your question is below:

Dyneema/Nylon blend

I don't think that's a surprise to anyone who looked at the picture, since the weave is clearly a blend, not a 100% dyneema product.  But anyway, there you have it, directly from the manufacturer.

Presumably Ben will have another red herring or ad hominem retort, but since he hasn't provided any data or evidence for 8 pages of claims, I don't expect anything substantial this time either.

What a lot of energy you're devoting to proving yourself right!  I ask again, as I did once before: what insecurity have I triggered in you that you've taken this so very personally?

This is not an ad hominem attack: I'm genuinely astonished that you're so resolved to prove that my clearly superior products are not, when you've never seen, handled, used, or tested them.  Why not keep an open mind? Why not do some comparative engineering? Why not answer basic questions such as, what are the credentials of the testers you're citing? Are they ISO-9000 certified? Are they engineers?  Is their testing equipent calibrated?  With all your energy to look things up, why not look these up?

Ben Zartman wrote:

What a lot of energy you're devoting to proving yourself right!  I ask again, as I did once before: what insecurity have I triggered in you that you've taken this so very personally?

This is not an ad hominem attack: I'm genuinely astonished that you're so resolved to prove that my clearly superior products are not, when you've never seen, handled, used, or tested them.  Why not keep an open mind? Why not do some comparative engineering? Why not answer basic questions such as, what are the credentials of the testers you're citing? Are they ISO-9000 certified? Are they engineers?  Is their testing equipent calibrated?  With all your energy to look things up, why not look these up?

Is this whole thing just a grade A, 10/10 bit? Or are you genuinely serious. There’s no way you just said “any testing that shows my superior products are worse is suspect” because that’s what I’m getting from your posts. 

Ben Zartman wrote:

Why not do some comparative engineering?

See the comparison table of popular anchor options, including citing multiple trustworthy sources that corroborate the data.

Why not answer basic questions such as, what are the credentials of the testers you're citing? Are they ISO-9000 certified? Are they engineers?  Is their testing equipent calibrated?  With all your energy to look things up, why not look these up?

Many of the data sources (BD, Edelrid, Petzl, and DMM) are ISO certified, and are doing testing on calibrated Instron testers, by engineers and other experts.  More importantly, there isn't any reason to doubt the data; it's all consistent across multiple facilities on multiple continents, with data spanning several decades of testing.

This isn't really about the data, you're being ridiculous.