Strength of Brummell Splice?

[Mike Maddin]

In (futilely) looking for the origin of the name of the Brummell splice, I ran across this in a thread on www.treebuzz.com:

"You want to use the standard eye splice techniques for making these. ( I didn't use the Brummell as this piece will hold body weight and therefore we went with the stronger splice)"

I have never used a Brummell splice, but nothing I can remember reading suggested that it might not be sufficiently strong to support someone's (falling, I suppose) body weight. How does it rate for strength?

Best wishes,

Mike

[osteoderm]

I've seen two similar-appearing, yet definately different splices, both often referred to as Brummell Splices.
The inferior (and strangly more common) version I've seen is made by passing the bitter end through the standing part several times, then tucking the tail into the standing part. Under load (especially low load), the passing tucks contribute no security; everything is in the buried tail.
The superior version is the "Mobius Brummell", as detailed in The Apprentice, where the bitter end is tucked through the standing part, and the standing part is passed through the tail. Even without the long buried tail (36 rope diametres, if I recall correctly), the tucks of the Mobius interlock and can only slip under low load if the tail unravels. Of course, the long tail must still be buried, as the two tucks, while not slipping, grieviously distort and weaken the line under higher load.
Once you get the hang of the Mobius, it's certianly no harder or slower than the other version, and clearly superior.

[Brion Toss]

Hello,
I didn't see the post on TreeBuzz, but it is possible that they were talking about a Multiple Brummel, also known as a McDonald Brummel. This one, properly done, generates in the high 70's % range in HM rope.
The standard Brummels, locked and unlocked, are not meant as stand-alone splices. The latter is unquestionably more fail-safe secure, but a zig-zag unlocked model, of at least three passes, is a whole lot better than nothing, if done properly. That is, it hardly ever starts crawling out and causing things to fail.
Oh, and it would be 72d or thereabouts for a bury in uncovered HM, 48 for covered.
Fair leads,
Brion Toss

[SV_Chamelea]

A full scan of the Forum for one year past didn't reveal my question ... but I thought I'd expand on this thread's base, better than starting anew.

I bought the Wand and Video, and thoroughly enjoyed making up some babystays for my trailer-26, replacing 1/8" wire stays of 5-feet each with two-ended eyesplices from a Vectran remnant. Following the video instructions for naked Hi-mod, I discovered that I MUCH PREFER brummel splicing of single braid versus my earlier eyesplicing attempt with StaSet!!!.

I later did some two-ended eyesplices in Regatta braid for short, 6' cockpit lifelines, using the simple bury w/lock stitch. That's where I discovered that I much prefer executing the locked Brummel, as it's seemingly more secure. However, I also discovered that the locked Brummel is actually quite a bit more difficult to execute in Regatta braid than the Vectran.

FIVE questions now occur:
1. Seems there's quite an art to performing two-ended eyesplicing that defines a finished length within a tolerance of one inch~!! Any hints?

2. Why is the Brummel more difficult in Regatta than Vectran?

3. Several MFGs suggest a "tuck splice" (their term) for various of their 12-strand products. It's a "weaving" technique that I'm not keen on trying ... how do they determine a favored eyesplice method, and what results are likely if I substituted the locked Brummel?

4. And how can we judge the degree of compromise we might induce by electing a different eyesplice technique??

5. How am I going to renew my SNARE, which is now looking pretty sad??

[Bob Pingel]

1 - The trick is allowing for the length you lose in the bury. The only way I know to determine this is to do a test bury.

2 - You don't need to brummel Regatta Braid. Brummels are only required in high mod.

3 - The tuck splice is required when dealing with a rope that does not have enough room inside it to allow a bury -- New England MegaBraid comes to mind.

5 - A snare should last a long time -- at least dozens of splices, likely more. I suspect that you are twisting instead of milking. None the less, you can get snares or snare material from Brion's office. If you'd like to be more self sufficient, I believe the material is spectra kite string.

Bob Pingel

[Matthew Sebring]

Originally Posted by SV_Chamelea

1. Seems there's quite an art to performing two-ended eyesplicing that defines a finished length within a tolerance of one inch~!! Any hints?

What I typically do is make a mark ten feet or so up the line before attempting the splice. Then when I'm done I measure from that mark to the bearing surface of the eye. The difference will tell you how much length you lose and have to compensate for.

For overly simple example, say you needed a 25 foot double ended piece - you measure 10 feet from the end, make the splice and then measure from that same mark to the bearing surface of the eye and see that you lost 5 feet in the process. That means you now have to measure out 30 feet from that eye, cut the line, and then do your best to make an identical eye.

[SV_Chamelea]

Hmmm - good idea. Thanks.
Wish I'd though of that about 8 splices back!

Bob,
Makes sense, thanks. I guess I found splicing with brummel in HM line so easy, I just wanted to go that way for Regatta braid too. But the stuff seemed very resistant to twisting back on itself. The straight bury splices are working just fine though.

But I just realized I have Megabraid II, to be precise ... and they suggest straight bury~!!!
Guess that means no need for counting & taping those pairs~~

[Brian Duff]

Good luck with that ...

[NickfromWI]

You still need to make a taper with a straight bury.

love
nick