Talk:Offset overhand bend

Binder's knot???

I moved this page from "Binder's knot" because I can't find any evidence that anyone calls it that. Rracecarr 21:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed (once again) all references to "Binder's knot" aside from the image label. If you can find a single reference calling this knot a binder's knot, which is not derived from, and does not link to, Wikipedia or the image in this article, rv me. If none can be found, makes sense to assume "Binder's knot" is an error. Rracecarr 18:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain, but I suggest the following reason that the name "Binder's knot" became associated at some point with the overhand bend. ABOK #246 and #1236 both show a form of Overhand bend that a mechanical harvesting machine uses when binding sheaves of grain. About this form of overhand bend Ashley says "The knot tied by the mechanical binder is an Overhand Bend with bights tucked instead of the ends...", and "...It is impractical to tie this knot for the purpose by hand." Both times it is illustrated in ABOK, this machine-tied overhand bend is listed immediately after a knot called the "Binder knot" which was historically used for binding wheat by hand. While used for a similar purpose the knot named "Binder knot" is definitely not any sort of Overhand bend. I concur with leaving this name out of the article unless other evidence comes to light. --Dfred 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this knot?

The title calls it a One-sided overhand bend, but in the article it's referred to as an Offset Overhand Bend. I'm not sure where the Offset Figure of Eight Bend fits in either... Note that I removed one para. that appeared to me to be either duplicate info., or be irrelevant. I've flagged it for expert attention. Smalljim 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right the name should be consistent in the article, and also it currently does not fit the current layout standards for WikiProject Knots and the content does need editing. Please remember though in any article on knots their may be many names for the same knot: that may even vary by region, materials used in tying, or who is tying it. On this particular knot part of WikiProject Knots is currently reviewing where to place common knot structures to their functions so if merging is to be considered. I would recommend considering where the specific knot Overhand bend belongs in the Overhand knot family leaving a brief mention and link to EDK, and moving the bulk of EDK to a page describing the list of knots that are called that EDK (their are several). Side not I think the main page for EDK should be European Death Knot and EDK and Euro death-knot should be redirect pages to European Death Knot. WikipedianYknOK 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that consolidation (and rewriting) is necessary. I'm not sure how far your suggesting going in consolidating the overhand-based knots, but they are probably too varied a group to cover in one article. I suggest we take that more general discussion to Talk:Overhand knot.

The traditional names for this knot are (from Ashley) "Overhand bend", "Thumb knot", (via Bowling) "Openhand knot", (and from Day) "Creeler's knot". I agree that Overhand bend is probably the most straight-forward and descriptive of these. While there are other bends made with overhand knots (e.g. water knot, single fisherman's, etc.) I don't think there's much likelihood for confusion.

And finally, the proposed merger with EDK... Your observation that more than one knot has been called EDK is reason enough to avoid merging it into this page. A brief section in this article with a "See main article" note would probably be the way to go. The idea of changing the name of the EDK page to "European Death Knot" is less clear to me. My sense is that when the term was coined, it was as simply "Euro". If that's the case, then renaming it with the full word would be like calling someone whose legal name was Beth by the name Elizabeth; correct more in theory than reality. But since I don't know the entire history of the term EDK, I would be glad to be corrected. --Dfred 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds logical, which page is a redirect really has no bearing on the material.

The discussion clarifying the consolidation of closely related knots and variations sounds good. WikipedianYknOK 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I was perparing to fix-up the EDK article and found my position on the merger expressed above changed during the process of gathering additional information. Additionally, while discussed above the idea of renaming this article to the more simple and common Overhand bend the proposal was never made explicit. Starting a explicit discussions below for these two proposals in a moment. --Dfred (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of article history 11:13, 28 March 2007 remaining that need verification

"It can be made more secure by tying off one end around the other with an overhand stopper knot, snug to itself."

The Needle sports article referenced through the EDK citation actually suggests a further Overhand Bend (which he calls the double overhand - the knot is referred to as an 'overhand' in English climbing terms) to secure the knot, pushed tightly against the first one - maybe worth putting this back-up in instead, since it is both referenced and tested?

Ben1983 (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths associated with either knot. (preferably total overall and/or average per year)

WikipedianYknOK 11:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the same EDK article plus the needle sports one there have to date been 4 accidents, and one fatality - but only one, non-fatal from use of the overhand bend rather than the figure 8 equivalent.

Ben1983 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal to "Overhand bend"

I propose this article be moved to Overhand bend. The name "Overhand bend" is the ABOK name for the knot; it is simpler and not likely to cause confusion with other knots. While there are other knots which use overhand knots as the basis of a bend, they generally all have more specific names (e.g. water knot, fisherman's knot, Zeppelin bend, etc.). This contrasts with the case of the figure-eight knot used as a bend. In that case the most common figure-eight bend, the Flemish bend, is tied by re-threading in opposition rather than tying with the ends held together. Therefore differentiation using the terms "flat", "one-sided", etc. to describe the dangerous form of the figure-eight bend is definitely required for clarity. Of course the terms flat and one-sided can still be used/described/defined within this article.

This renaming proposal was discussed above, but it was mixed in with a number of other issues. Please respond here if there are objections. Thanks. --Dfred (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Overhand bend" is also used for the water knot, though. Probably should be moved to Offset overhand bend.

Offset rope joining knots says: "The term ‘offset’ refers to the core of the knot being displaced from the axis of tension. ... The persistent use of the term ‘flat’ or ‘one-sided’ is incorrect".

I'll move it unless someone has an objection. — Omegatron (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Euro death-knot into this article

Although I mildly opposed the merger of Euro death-knot (EDK) into this article in the discussion above, I now believe this is the best course of action. When I recently began to consider a cleanup of the current EDK article, I found myself writing about exactly the same knot as is being covered here: a practical bend used to connect two lines for load-bearing purposes. Although the EDK name has been used (and some might argue used incorrectly) to refer to other knots, the primary knot discussed as the EDK is the overhand bend. If these other knots need to be covered, then it should be in separate articles under their own proper names with a "see also" header above the EDK section in this article. Comments? --Dfred (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Absolutely. I only found important information on the knot's use after clicking through to the overhand bend article. Please excuse my poor editing. - K.Beder —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbeder (talk • contribs) 04:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support and in the merger remove the how-to phrasing in favor of description. ^Bongo_matic 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, and have redirecting euro death-knot here. Its content should be merged into this article as desired. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"EDK" and recommendations

The article currently sounds like "EDK is a misnomer and the knot is perfectly safe and recommended and used by everyone", but in trying to research it, it seems more controversial than that. It does capsize, especially with wet or frozen ropes, and some recommend against it:

AMGA Single Pitch Manual says it "rarely" injures anyone and is virtually impossible to get it to fail, but lists the 1997 Tetons accident and attributes it to being "sloppily tied with too short of a tail". Suggests stacked overhand for safety. Not for different diameters, very stiff rope, or webbing. Offset 8 is worse.
- quotes Rock and Ice Magazine editor George Bracksieck calling it "the best knot for rappelling"
Grant Prattley, OTE Rescue says "not a recommended bend for tying two ropes for live load due to the low break strength and failure by rolling" and recommends double overhand instead, and says stacked overhand, overhand 1.5, and triple fisherman's are all ok. This is canyoneering, so more likely to be wet?
Mark Gommers recommends Zeppelin bend when it isn't going to get caught on edges, or an offset knot when it is. "Offset overhand bend (with extra binding turn)" is the recommended variation? (pictured, but not written, in Conclusion)
- More discussion
Tom Moyer says it's fine, but not for slings or more than body weight. "tying a second overhand on top of the first is probably a good idea." (stacked overhand) Capsizes more easily when wet or sloppily/loosely tied. Offset 8 is worse.
David Drohan (Bushwalkers Wilderness Rescue) says "Overhand Knot appears to be the best knot to join two canyon ropes together when considering cliff friction issues" "Overhand Knot should not be used on tape due to progressive cyclic slippage" "More testing is required to confirm if there may be a safety issue when the Overhand Knot is subjected to a shock load." "may be an issue with the strength of the Overhand Knot when used on older rope" Offset 8 is bad.
Chockstone says "simplest and fastest knot you can form to join two ropes together for abseil" Prefers rethreaded Figure 8.
Needle Sports recommends "double" (stacked) overhand, primarily due to likelihood of tying single overhand wrong. Pull tests for single and stacked overhand were both fine to 1 kN.
I can't read German, but this recommends offset fisherman's and offset "Triple T-Overhand" before the offset overhand. "because of its simple form it needs carefully tying with enough ropetail of more than 30 cm, difficult to open after loading"
Tom Jones recommends offset stacked overhand (but not for stiff ropes, use double fisherman's instead)
Jack Geldard says it's weak when tied poorly, but is recommended knot for normal abseiling (dry ropes, well-tied, neat, single overhand knot with ample tails (30cm)) "If I was double loading the ropes with 2 people at once, or if the ropes were icy, I use a [stacked] overhand knot."
American Alpine Institute says EDK is safe, but typically backed up as a stacked offset overhand. Offset 8 is bad.
Andy Kirkpatrick recommends stacked offset overhand instead of single offset overhand. Has a story of a wet single offset overhand rolling and almost coming apart and killing someone, and mentions Spanish climbers being killed by it.
Philippe Brass also recommends a stacked overhand "The tests show us that the eight and the simple knot are in principle sufficient. ... However, the simple double knot offers a better guarantee, hardly more bulky than one and for sure less than the eight. Indispensable for ropes of different diameters, new and slippery ropes, and in all the cases enumerated above (1-c), one can also make the choice to use it systematically."

— Omegatron (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested removal of inadequate source

To support the claim that the offset overhand bend "can fail by capsizing under high loads", four videos are referred to as sources.

This video (source 6 in current version) does not show a knot capsizing under high loads, but rather a rope ripping where there is no knot (time code 02:30). Plus the knot in this video is a double fisherman's knot, not an offset overhand bend. I assume removing this source should be uncontroversial.
This one and this one (sources 4 and 5 in current version) are obviously self-published (and therefore unreliable due to complete lack of editorial gate-keeping) and as far as I can tell provide no pertinent data such as force, rope material or rope measurements. In the second video of these two it's not unequivocal whether the knot capsizes or the rope rips inside the knot. Both these videos are therefore too dubious to serve as reliable sources and should be removed.

Dan ☺ 14:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those videos clearly show the knot capsizing under high loads. The fact that they also show rips or breakage is irrelevant. There's nothing "unreliable" about self-published sources that illustrate a physical fact. — Omegatron (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested replacement of badly-tied knot image

The thick and thin ropes do not occupy equivalent positions. The "roll" instability (the "death" part of the knot) involves the rope wrapped around the standing part lifting over the turn of the rope above. It can be much more stable in configurations in which the thinner rope is being pulled over the thicker than it is in the reverse configuration now shown.

TL;DR: the same knot with the thin rope in place of thick and vice-versa is much safer! Please use an image of the safer form! 2A00:23C7:598B:6F00:246D:657B:FF39:B3C8 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]