Documentation on single bowline failures?

Hello, I'm seeking some definitive reference that I can point to that documents failures of the single bowline.  I'm teaching a short course this week for the fire service and want to add it as a footnote to the lecture handout.  The more definitive the better... consensus, editorials and conjectures are decidedly unhelpful because those do not carry the validating weight of data.  Hoping for something from UIAA or ITRS but haven't found any.

In addition to the figure eight, the NFPA fire standard requires the ability to tie the single bowline, but I'll push students to replace that with a bowline with a follow-through (looks like a bowline on a bight), the 4th picture here:  https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/112122298/incident-climbers-bowline-came-untied-while-climbing-at-rifle.  Plus a double-overhand backup, since the fire service is conservative.

Thanks!

RalphE
(30 years climbing, CO state firefighter, CO licensed professional mechanical engineer w/30 yrs & 32 utility patents)

RalphE wrote: NFPA fire standard requires the ability to tie the single bowline

I suspect this requirement might be related to the fact that the single bowline can easily be tied with one hand. One handed knots are an awesome skill to have - for example, when you are holding the victim with one hand, and are able to secure them to rope with other. 

i would think that it would be preferable to get rid of the bowline requirement altogether and stick with the figure 8.  easier to inspect, easier to remember how to tie when you don't do it on regular basis, etc.  when climbers (who tie the knot on a regular basis) are screwing it up, how can you expect somebody who doesn't use it on a regular basis to get it right?

The Austrian Alpine Club recommends against the bowline: http://www.bergundsteigen.at/file.php/archiv/2006/3/print/8-11%20%28dialog%29.pdf

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. Bowline killed my father. Prepare to die."

slim wrote: i would think that it would be preferable to get rid of the bowline requirement altogether and stick with the figure 8.  easier to inspect, easier to remember how to tie when you don't do it on regular basis, etc.  when climbers (who tie the knot on a regular basis) are screwing it up, how can you expect somebody who doesn't use it on a regular basis to get it right?

Read amarius’ post. 

Maybe something here: http://sarrr.weebly.com/presentations-and-webinars.html

There may be something of interest in the Knots research page on that website.

Thanks peeps!  Still if anyone knows of some list of failures or other reference, that'd be great!

amarius wrote: "I suspect this requirement might be related to the fact that the single bowline can easily be tied with one hand." 
^^  short answer; that's NOT why.  It's more historical, and there's other fuddy knots where the same "historical" also applies.

T G wrote:  "I'm not an expert, Ralph, but I suspect you're not going to find what you're looking for." 
^^  yea, reckon so.  But I did follow your lead and sent the question to the AAC librarian!

slim wrote:  "i would think that it would be preferable to get rid of the bowline requirement altogether and stick with the figure 8."
^^  I wouldn't mind this but the NFPA standard has big, big inertia.  A fella could commit his life's work to it, but that wouldn't be a life worth living.  Better choice for me to give the members of my fire department a practical perspective.  Also giving fire peeps an option that can be more readily untied has value for the cases when there's larger than human loads that could weld a figure 8.

Nathan Hui wrote:  "Maybe something here: http://sarrr.weebly.com/presentations-and-webinars.html " 
^^  Could be a winner!  There's several links here that might work out:  http://sarrr.weebly.com/knots.html like this 32-page 2014 paper "Analysis of Bowlines";  http://caves.org/section/vertical/nh/59/Bowlines_Analysis.pdf  Long enough that I better wait until after work tonight to read it.

It is possible to tie a bowline with one hand, but tieing it around your waist with one hand (the so-called "sailor's tie" , because your other hand was holding onto a spar for your life) is quite difficult to work out if you haven't seen it done.

I had a (single) bowline-on-a-coil untie on me.  The "coil" was a swami belt of 1-inch nylon webbing, wrapped 3-4 times and tied with a bowline-on-a-coil. Both ends then tied off with half hitches.   Only the friction of the multiple coils of the webbing and the friction of the rope-tie-in-knot (a double bowline) prevented me falling from the OH on Birdie Party at the Gunks. I was doing it on aid and kept calling for tension from my belayer but always seemed to be slipping back a bid, then looked down to see my swami slowly unraveling. In 50+ nyears of climbing, using (just about) only the bowline or double bowline to tie in, that was the only time I even heard of that happening; however, we always used a tie-off knot after the bowline. BUT..like others have said, this kind of failure (like rapping off the ends of the rope) does not lend itself to many "survivor tales"; and whether a knot untied itself or whether the climber failed to tie a knot the first place is difficult to tell. (I've had a partner do that...he reached down to clip the first piece and his end of the rope fell to my feet.)  

BTW - In "laid" ropes (like old hemp and Goldline) there was importance in how the "tail end" fit through the knot (I can't remember exactly what, but it had something to do with untieing or strength) , but with modern kernmantel ropes there's no difference, and the bowline, if you tie it technically incorrectly, to that the "tail" gets crushed first; it is actually stronger than a correctly tied bowline. Back in the early '70's some climbing friends of mine ran the tests at Bell Labs (Homdel) but never published.

rockandice.com/climbing-new…

Grew up on the double bowline back in the 70's with Goldlines. Figure 8 on Goldline would be as big as baby. Still a good knot if you need to tie something in the dark. Had experience at the City of Rocks, with new rope, as a second and tied in quickly with double bowline and stopper knot. As I pulled up to my partner at belay he pulled my entire rope through it. Taking credit for free soloing the last half or so of the climb. I think the the route was Scream Cheese. He mad me swear to never use a double bowline again. I swore with fingers crossed behind my back. New rope, dry coated, etc.. Just need to be watchful when using it, especially with new rope. Lesson learned.

British Columbia's SAR has just overhauled their rope rescue manual (long overdue).  A small part of the overhaul was to include the single bowline part of the standard list of knots - they can be great in a rescue scenario - expanding from just the figure 8 family.  The caveat is that the tail has to be finished off somehow - either tied as a longtailed bowline and clipped to an attendant or finished off with a double overhand.  I don't think there is any publication of their findings but I do know that anything that made it into the new manual went through (substantial) testing.  It's a great knot in appropriate scenarios and yes, it isn't as easy to recognise as being tied properly as a Figure 8 - but the target audience are professionals who train, not dumbass climbers who watched a video on Youtube once.

Bowlines aren't rocket science

I got into a donnybrook about bowlines https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/114451948/tie-in-knots and haven't even the slightest urge to repeat that here.  I'm still convinced that, whatever the relative merits of different knots, failures, however they end up being described in the literature, are primarily because the knot in question was never (fully) tied.  If this is true, then the thing you want to emphasize with your students is that knot is the only thing they should attend to until it is fully done, with whatever backup knots are required, and that it be properly tightened by pulling separately on all strands exiting the knot.

I think everyone agrees that a single bowline without some kind of additional finish is not appropriate for dynamic climbing ropes---I don't know how they behave in static ropes and ropes used by firefighters, but I can't imagine the requisite level of security is ever present.  The finish or backup knot has to be taught as an intrinsic part of the knot; unfortunately the nomenclature "bowline" traditionally describes an intermediate stage of the appropriate knot.  There are several finishing methods, the easiest of which is to tie a barrel knot (half of a double fisherman's) around the bowline loop.

The retraced bowline you described is probably the best knot for tying in in terms of strength security, and ability to untie after heavy loading.  I'm not sure it conforms to the letter of the regulations, but that's something you have to decide.  For a bowline with but a single loop through tie-in points, what seems to be called "Lee's locked Yosemite bowline" is, in my 50-year experience with bowline variations, the most stable (and probably the strongest) bowline version there is.

The final locking tuck that makes the LLYB good is sometimes used on figure-eights in order to make them easier to untie.  In the context of the figure-eight, that final tuck is somtimes called a "Yosemite finish," although it doesn't seem to me to be structurally analogous to the real Yosemite finish for bowlines.  The point to understand is that that extra tuck makes the figure-eight prone to rolling if it is ring-loaded and so would have to be considered a dangerous addition unless the user fully understands to never ring-load the knot.

dave custer wrote: The Austrian Alpine Club recommends against the bowline: http://www.bergundsteigen.at/file.php/archiv/2006/3/print/8-11%20%28dialog%29.pdf

The ÖAV do not recommend against the bowline, the re-threaded bowline is still a standard tie-in knot.

O.P. here.  Thanks everyone for their fun replies!  

I t'was hoping for some sort of list of accidents from bowline use or better yet some kind of lab test that tries to mimic real-world loading & unloading to document knot loosening compared to figure eight.  My mission isn't to defend the bowline, but instead discourage use of it for my firefighters, as we don't use knots enough to truly stay proficient.  I was wrong in my original post above... Colorado State firefighter certs do not require the ability to tie a whole bunch of different knots, just be competent at an approved one that works.  Kinda like climbing.

rgold wrote: .... called "Lee's locked Yosemite bowline" ....

^^^ Question for you rgold:  Where did you get this (Mark Grommers) picture?  It's a little different from the picture he has in the 2013 write-up I have... the one I have does not have the padlock icon for "secure and stable", page 20 here:  http://caves.org/section/vertical/nh/59/Bowlines_Analysis.pdf

Also FWIW, on page 19, he describes how the "Yosemite" bowline can be easily mis-tied and gives that a skull and crossbones.

For anyone else interested in reading general knot testing stuff, here's a huge list of articles:  http://sarrr.weebly.com/knots.html   Tho lots of papers are about ultimate breaking strength and we as climbers are not crane riggers and ultimate strength isn't tip-tip priority.  

Ralph, there seem to be differing copies of the Bowlines Analysis paper.   The  image i posted is one  lying around on my hard drive, but you can find a copy of the paper with that image at www.paci.com.au/Downloads/Bowlines_Analysis.pdf.

As for the Yosemite finish, we've known about the problem for about six years now (see youtube.com/watch?v=1dj5Y3h… .)  It is extremely difficult to swap the tail and nipping loop strands during ordinary tying; you have to tie a very loose bowline to enable the swap, which is something I've never done and never seen anyone else do.  Moreover, although the knot resulting from the swap isn't a bowlne, it isn't clear how good or bad it is; Jim Titt tested it to a reasonable (but not definitive) level with the equipment he had available to him at the time.

Since you don't have to teach the bowline, best not to bother eh?

rgold wrote: Ralph, there seem to be differing copies of the Bowlines Analysis paper.   The  image i posted is one  lying around on my hard drive, but you can find a copy of the paper with that image at www.paci.com.au/Downloads/Bowlines_Analysis.pdf.

The link you post above is the newer 2016 paper!

I'm gonna minimize talk about the bowline... and if anything do bowline on bight (BOB) or LLYB

dave custer wrote: The Austrian Alpine Club recommends against the bowline: http://www.bergundsteigen.at/file.php/archiv/2006/3/print/8-11%20%28dialog%29.pdf

The recommendation is based on the fact that the bowline won't withstand ring loading.  Since a backed-up bowline does withstand ring-loading, this recommendation only applies to a bowline without any kind of backup, which by now everyone knows is not an appropriate tie-in knot.

rgold wrote: I got into a donnybrook about bowlines https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/114451948/tie-in-knots and haven't even the slightest urge to repeat that here.

You got into a...what now?

Ted Pinson wrote:

You got into a...what now?

don·ny·brookˈdänēˌbro͝ok/nounNORTH AMERICANAUSTRALIAN/NZ

1. a scene of uproar and disorder; a heated argument.