theTreeSpyder
TreeHouser
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2016
- Messages
- 691
Ashley's Book of Knots the knot bible/ hosted by Educated Climber.com
Classically ABoK chapter_22 (pg.297)defines this as a lengthwise pull, that the exclusive chapter is all about this as an extreme (right angle) worst pulling angle possible in rope: as in any material, rope simply no different.
Virtually all single leg pulls in the chapter_22 lengthwise pulls have a Half-Hitch(HH) pre-fixxing the load against the final part/close of seam.
The very first example is to place HH prefix before a Timber to make what we call Killick as cure.
In previous chapter_21(pg.289) is of more right angle hitches as the book standard proper angle of such pull on host.
Chapter_21 starts with (terminating) HH form and extends that to Timber as standards that chapter starts with, to then be over ruled at this angle of pull lengthwise and Timber displaced to non use on these lengthwise pulls.
In any material, even rope, a 90 degree change is a switch to a different gear.
The Killick Hitch above grabs the host vertically for 1Dimension pull as then the external load pull against rope pulls horizontally in another 1D of consideration for 2D sum. Killick can lend this 2D structure against this pull, whereby Timber can't. Timber can try to jam sideways, but is NOT best structure by this measure.
There is another player tho of the rope going over frictional support above as redirect to the climber buffering to this basal tie, giving more forgiveness to Timber choke, but not so much as shown in original post.
i see right angle pull as 1D pull that seats to hug to host at same direction as load pull
But lengthwise pull is 90 degrees from this necessary seating/hug, that is another dimension, hence 2D pull. 2D more a compound consideration vs simplest 1D .
>>rope is working on 2 different axises vs single shared axis of hold and load on same axis of right angle on host.
Full credit to/same examination as Ashley right angle vs lengthwise pull, i only personally use dimensions term to meld with rest of geometric structure theories seamlessly.
Rope is not really tied in choking Timber pic in 1st post but rather more towards basket making even less 2D capable.
Trunk can have receding taper urging slide to errant direction rather than locking tighter against a shelf or enlarging taper.
The 'twirls' of Timber at closing seam are as like a woven splice(only loose) to me pulling along more along than across rope part preceding the bight twirls start after.
.
Any eye2eye sling choke style does not have enough usable architecture to extrude a 2D support architecture from. A round sling choked, wide spread can call on 1D extended architecture for right angle pulls while also able to lend some 2D lengthwise pull also.
.
So we have a non choking, 1D structure possibly on a receding taper with a 2D pull to me.
Also, the seam/loose splice here can take a more direct hit than if eye threaded/'reeved'(ABoK) thru it.
.
Compounded with even if doing 100% as guided;
Even with all the miracles shown in ABoK, on this specific topic of lengthwise pulls Ashley categorically warns:
CHAPTER 22: Lengthwise pulls (pre-ramble for chapter just for this angle of pull:
"To withstand a lengthwise pull w/o slipping is about the most that can be asked of a hitch.. care must be exercised in tying ... and the impossible must not be expected"
And to masts for this type pull notes pre-prep of host with tacky varnish, or dry wood ash or best rubber sheeting for even more grip even w/o receding taper.
i feel this gives a stack of compounding complications against even normal Timber choke.
.
The trace up to over support as friction buffer and down to load/climber seems a saving grace, but to me should be an add-on safety to proper mechanix on trunk, not a saving Hail Mary.
.
Not trying to reach higher forms softens eye to this as okay, as also not buffing to higher shining as preached does not reveal other blemishes and lessons seen once crest this hill.
.
myClassifications schedule:1D:simplest, 2D:compound, 3D:complex; the 2D pull is not most complex, but is more complex than simpler standard 1D pull.
It should be afforded structure to suit for best performance.
Classically ABoK chapter_22 (pg.297)defines this as a lengthwise pull, that the exclusive chapter is all about this as an extreme (right angle) worst pulling angle possible in rope: as in any material, rope simply no different.
Virtually all single leg pulls in the chapter_22 lengthwise pulls have a Half-Hitch(HH) pre-fixxing the load against the final part/close of seam.
The very first example is to place HH prefix before a Timber to make what we call Killick as cure.
In previous chapter_21(pg.289) is of more right angle hitches as the book standard proper angle of such pull on host.
Chapter_21 starts with (terminating) HH form and extends that to Timber as standards that chapter starts with, to then be over ruled at this angle of pull lengthwise and Timber displaced to non use on these lengthwise pulls.
In any material, even rope, a 90 degree change is a switch to a different gear.
The Killick Hitch above grabs the host vertically for 1Dimension pull as then the external load pull against rope pulls horizontally in another 1D of consideration for 2D sum. Killick can lend this 2D structure against this pull, whereby Timber can't. Timber can try to jam sideways, but is NOT best structure by this measure.
There is another player tho of the rope going over frictional support above as redirect to the climber buffering to this basal tie, giving more forgiveness to Timber choke, but not so much as shown in original post.
i see right angle pull as 1D pull that seats to hug to host at same direction as load pull
But lengthwise pull is 90 degrees from this necessary seating/hug, that is another dimension, hence 2D pull. 2D more a compound consideration vs simplest 1D .
>>rope is working on 2 different axises vs single shared axis of hold and load on same axis of right angle on host.
Full credit to/same examination as Ashley right angle vs lengthwise pull, i only personally use dimensions term to meld with rest of geometric structure theories seamlessly.
Rope is not really tied in choking Timber pic in 1st post but rather more towards basket making even less 2D capable.
Trunk can have receding taper urging slide to errant direction rather than locking tighter against a shelf or enlarging taper.
The 'twirls' of Timber at closing seam are as like a woven splice(only loose) to me pulling along more along than across rope part preceding the bight twirls start after.
.
Any eye2eye sling choke style does not have enough usable architecture to extrude a 2D support architecture from. A round sling choked, wide spread can call on 1D extended architecture for right angle pulls while also able to lend some 2D lengthwise pull also.
.
So we have a non choking, 1D structure possibly on a receding taper with a 2D pull to me.
Also, the seam/loose splice here can take a more direct hit than if eye threaded/'reeved'(ABoK) thru it.
.
Compounded with even if doing 100% as guided;
Even with all the miracles shown in ABoK, on this specific topic of lengthwise pulls Ashley categorically warns:
CHAPTER 22: Lengthwise pulls (pre-ramble for chapter just for this angle of pull:
"To withstand a lengthwise pull w/o slipping is about the most that can be asked of a hitch.. care must be exercised in tying ... and the impossible must not be expected"
And to masts for this type pull notes pre-prep of host with tacky varnish, or dry wood ash or best rubber sheeting for even more grip even w/o receding taper.
i feel this gives a stack of compounding complications against even normal Timber choke.
.
The trace up to over support as friction buffer and down to load/climber seems a saving grace, but to me should be an add-on safety to proper mechanix on trunk, not a saving Hail Mary.
.
Not trying to reach higher forms softens eye to this as okay, as also not buffing to higher shining as preached does not reveal other blemishes and lessons seen once crest this hill.
.
myClassifications schedule:1D:simplest, 2D:compound, 3D:complex; the 2D pull is not most complex, but is more complex than simpler standard 1D pull.
It should be afforded structure to suit for best performance.
Last edited:
