Quote:
Originally Posted by Renoir
Sorry Dan, I should have qualified further the reasons for my liking the Carrick bend. This bend is easy to tie, easy to untie and strong and can be used with widly varrying diameters and types of line mixed.
The bends that you mentioned are qualified by their being confined to using lines of fairly equal diameters. The Grapevine can be a bitch to untie after it has been subjected to a heavy pull in water. I do like the symmetry, however, of those that you mentioned. I truly don't know how to choose between an Ashley #1425 and the Zeppelin or Rosendahl's bend....any suggestions?
Thanks
|
I've seen another way, but I tie the Carrick in the capsize-the-lattice-form way,
and with different rope types, that will be somewhat tricky. I got my numbers backwards
or my "former" lattered, but #1452--what Day got started as "Ashley's Bend"--is quite
like the Carrick but for being stronger (in some misc. testing), and more secure; it has
a few ways of being dressed/oriented, though. (Another interlocked-Overhands bend,
called "Shakehands" by Harry Asher, and now in some knots books, can similarly be
seen as a derivative of the Carrick.) #1425 can also handle mismatched ropes within
as much range or more than I'd think a Carrick could.
Rosendahl's bend presents two broad, flattish faces, with ends coming out on small
sides to these, so to speak: makes for taking knocking about abrasion pretty well.
Whizz-bang tying methods have been invented for both 1452 & Rosendahl's, both of
which impress me as too clever by half--one must mind picky details in order to get
the final effect; I much prefer to form one Overhand in rope, and then choose how the
2nd gets formed into it (to make 1408 or 1452 or 1425 or ... or Rosendahl's or ... ).
Again, on the strength of the Carrick, I've not seen much testing--just a lot of echoes
of the rumor (Ashley's?); it does not LOOK so strong to my eye, in terms of material
curves (part of the picture).
--dl*
====