New and improved double soft shackle

[Dan Lehman]

Originally Posted by allene

Dan,
I am not completely following what you are saying but let me respond to what I think you are getting at. Clearly this is not a fisherman's knot but half of one with another knot. I think you may be pointing out that the combination has a name but I am not completely sure what you are saying.

Yes, the "half" is a strangle --and one can attach "knot"/"binder" or "hitch" depending how much you want to advance some nomenclature : the knot is typically promoted for being tied around something to bind it (such as for whipping, where a multiple strangle can work quite well, in slick material!), but also tied around another strand as a securing of an end --lightly or heavily loaded (the "Barrel knot" is one name at used to denote a noose employing this).

A nice aspect of using "strangle" (which is a double overhand ) is that the modfiers "double", "triple", ... will match the visible "overwraps" that give it such security.
(Whereas, as I remarked, a "dbl.fish" has 1 overwrap, the triple, 2, and so on --mismatching.)
(So, for rockclimbers, who often use dbl./trpl., going with "Grapevine (bend)" which begins with strangle (single) components, one gets the nominal matching.)

As far as pre-tying and using a larkshead to attach the sheets, that was what my previous designs were. You can look up my older posts. Those designs had three shortcomings that this design solves. First is that they constrict the sheets which is a strength concern for the sheets. Second is that it is more difficult to attach than this design, although that is minor.

You seem to mistake what I'm recommending : simply have a single doubled-line structure in which you have at the fold-back point your "Brummel"ish small *eye*, and the two ends joined by the diamond knot or other stopper (Ashley's, e.g. ?) ; and so the use entails first loosening & separating the join of eye around stoppered end, and then reeving the eye through the clew and re-attaching it.
Which puts the nature of the connector the same as you have above --a twin line w/stopper being connected to the eye. At the clew end (well, this joint would be able to shift position, hitching to nothing), the twin line simply loops through it, knotless.

You have 2 twin-strands spanning the connection, with a turn around the clew and the sheets --no more/less compression than above (identical), and more material throughout than any of your designes (double the doubled strands).

But it turns out that this design is stronger by about 50%. With the larkshead the failure is at the larkshead and at a force about 2/3 the force that this design yields. With a smaller stopper loop, the failure would be at that end but with a larger size stopper, the failure moves to the larkshead.

But in your earlier design you have full load on the doubled line which forms the larkshead (oddly, in British climbing circles, this has become "larksfoot"!?), in contrast to having the doubled line essentially being stopper-connected to form a circle of twinned line --halving the load on any twin-lines part.


Now, I referred to my suggested structure as "loose", by which I mean that it isn't *hitched* in place; its only security is in the well-fit small eye choking the stoppered end, and I think that that's adequate (for loose jostling around ; certainly for full tension). If this is a concern, one can I think arrange for some more knotted structure to include a hitching of your connector to the sheets (this seems to be desired by you), and then one will again reeve the eye-end through the clew and bring it back to the sheets-end for ensnaring the stopper (which, e.g., could be positioned as the crossing arc of the larkshead --just to show an idea), perhaps preferably after doing some knotting or just turning through the sheets (thereby offloading some force before choking the stopper).

Working in such slick material as HMPE, though, takes some care in choosing a hitch (perhaps a *doubled* larkshead --i.e., where the "arcing" part is a full round turn, to try to give some frictional security-- ; sometimes called "bull hitch" (stronger than "cow")).
But, then, your systems --all-- seem to involve a pre-tied larkshead + stopper second piece of line on the clew, which I'd think is vulnerable to loosening and falling off! !?

As for constricting the sheets, I should think that their mere turning around the thinner twin strands of the HMPE connector would be as much damaging --maybe only showing on one spot vs more generally, but ... "weakest link", still. .:. minor difference, overall.

Cheers,
--dl*
====

[Dan Lehman]

AND ... , to present a further idea, though one that seems
to miss some of your design goals (in having connector at
clew only, and bringing the sheets to that, vs. having the
connector piece attached to the sheets initially, and all
being brought to the clew),

... consider you on-the-clew larkshead + stopper.
Make that longer, of adequate size (strength & length)
so that the attachment process is as follows:

1) reeve stopper end through the eyes of the sheets;

2) bring stopper back to the clew end;

3) loosen the larkshead (around clew);

4) reeve stopper end through clew (CAN this be done, always?!);

5) and now tuck the stopper out between the *center* of the
larkshead (i.e., between legs & between arcing part & clew),

6) and then cinch tight the larkshead to lock all.

Were the clew too small to receive the stopper, the stopper
could be just tucked out through the hitch directly --but then
the hitch is taking full load vs. half, though I think it might be
a little stronger so oriented.
(NB: there is no brummel'd eye in this.)

--dl*
====

[allene]

I am thinking you are suggesting something similar one of the variations I have on my web site but with the sheets where I show the pad-eye:


Let me clarify the application of the double soft shackle. The idea is that you have a jib out on a pole and a single sheet on the clew. You want to take the pole off, add a second sheet, and gybe. You are trying to attach a sheet to a sail that is already flying. You want to basically lasso the stopper knot that is attached (and stitched so it won't come off) to the clew. This needs to be a single hand exercise.

Another application is attaching a foot line to the tack. Again, you want something very fast. Because the shackle and eye are not bent, they do not have to be adjusted or milked around any curves.

These double soft shackles are very fast to attach. Faster than a standard stainless shackle. You cannot say that about anything you have to thread through the clew and put over the stopper knot.

Allen

[Dan Lehman]

Allen, yes, BINGO! --that's it, with the added nicety of the
eye holding it to the ring. Would it be possible for this to be
as shown (attached to clew), and then it's a an action of passing
the eye-end through the sheets and then lassoing the clew-side
stopper?

Your emphasis for speed is what I'm missing:

you can fasten it to the sheets ahead of time and then very quickly attach it to the clew ring.

In the OP structure, what I saw was
- pre-tied piece w/stopper on clew;
- then the connecting piece, which needs to sometime
be reeved through the sheets & lassoing that side's stopper,
- and finally connected by the opposite end's eye lassoing
the clew piece's stopper.

And this OP structure was double-strength through the sheets,
but going single-strength to connect to the clew piece; so, I'm
looking for a way to have it double throughout.

I'm *knottically*, not nautically inclined, so pardon my ineptness
to understand well your context, but I'm thinking simply that if you
can reeve the right-side eye through those two red sheets and
then connect eye-to-stopper there,
can THIS act be the entire one? --and using an arrangement as
you've just presented (which might be set on the clew vice the grey
rope), the reeving and lassoing are done through the sheets and
no further connection is wanting? --and you have doubled material
throughout, to boot.
Granted, that isn't as simple-quick as ONLY lassoing the already
connected-to-two-red-sheets piece by lassoing the grey stopper;
but you've done this "already connected..." step sometime.

The only (dubious) thing I can think of to match your quickness
is having two eyes,
the tails of each leading to be joined in the stopper knot,
and the bight between the eyed having itself and eye, to lasso
the stopper through the sheets; this leave then the double-eyes
(reeved through each other ?!) to lasso, in one fell soup, the clew's
stopper knot. The "dubious" assessment comes from the need
here to be so precisely measured for balance to the now two small
eyes connecting pieces --their interreeving being a move to try to
achieve this balance (and make the structure without an *order*
to their attachment --as they jointly attach (vs. one closer, other
farther, from the choked clew stopper).
And "dubious" is the assurance of such intertwined small eyes
gripping and not being pulled around the stopper knot (as each
will have one strand of the other inside its eye).
("too clever by half" comes to mind ... )


--dl*
====

[allene]

Just for reference and to make sure I was not saying something incorrect, I did an experiment. I put the stopper loop on a coat hanger that is hanging from a rope in my garage and attached the double soft shackle to a line. With the hanger swinging back and fourth, I can easily and quickly attach the shackle and sheet to the stopper eye with one hand. You basically hold the open eyed shackle in your hand and grab the stopper knot pushing the eye onto the stopper. Then you let go of the shackle, keeping hold of the stopper knot. Gravity tightens the shackle and it is attached. It is very fast.

I have used normal soft shackles a lot over the last year. They are not easy to put on. The idea of my line shackle and this double soft shackle is that with the working part of the shackle straight, it closes very easily. When you double it back, it is not so easy.

In terms of strength, this double soft shackle is not as strong as the line it is made of from but it is very close. In my test, I put about 1900 pounds on a 7/64 line. The line is rated at 1600 pounds so while I put more than the rating of the line, I did not break a test section of line so it is not as strong as the line but close. For the real shackles, I am using 5/32 line which is rated at 4000 pounds. If I was using 7/16 XLS line, typical line for my boat, with a bowline on it reducing the strength by 40% I would have about 3500 pound strength. So, without even going to 3/16 line, I get an attachment that is as strong as I would have using a bowline. The point is, I don't need the double strength.

I do appreciate your correction on the name of the knot. I used the knots I did because I analyzed what broke and modified what I had to make them stronger. There were many iterations and I wasn't completely sure what to call what I ended up with. The double bowline is not a double bowline as it has that line coming back through the "rabbit hole". That adds greatly to the strength but it is not a bowline. I just call it that because it is otherwise a bowline.

By the way, there are many iterations of soft shackles including a new standard soft shackle on my web site. You might enjoy looking it over if you have not done so already.
http://L-36.com

Allen