This knot has some great qualities: easy to make and also undo, and doesn't cinch. The similar alpine butterfly is easy to make but does cinch under high strain and is less easy to undo. The slip knot is easy to make and undo, but of course it slips, which is only sometimes desirable. As a groundmen for line work I'm going to start using this knot to tie down transformers to the back of trucks. Very useful! Thanks for sharing!
You are most welcome. It's better to know several knots that could work in a certain application. And then it's just plain fun when you choose which one is best suited for your needs.
Rebecca, thanks for sharing this. I have found the butterfly knot both useful and frustrating to untie after it's heavily loaded. I even had to cut one out of a rope once. This looks not only easier to untie, but easier to tie as well. I often run short on rope when tying the butterfly, mostly because I'm in the tree and dealing with rope weight. I'm eager to try this; it looks like rope weight is a non-issue. Thanks for the clear and easy to follow instruction!
you are right about the alpine after it is loaded hard it is difficult or impossible to get apart, this might depend on what kind of rope you are using
I can't add anything to the nomenclature debate below but am happy to tell class I practice my knots in the trees behind the church as my dogs play with fallen branches. Usually I hide behind the holly tree as church goers arrive and have a wee muttering "never get a bowline out of that".
Great demo. One thing: you and many other knotty folks evidently have a problem with the difference between 2 and 3. You make two passes over the palm after the first lay. And by my count this makes two complete loops. There is just three lays in front, BUT there are not three complete loops.
@@tomcanfield705 you got one thing right: us arborist tree climbing folks are a little bit outlaw! You got two things correct actually, catching the poor wording and direction. I do try to keep my language and actions and terminology consistent and accurate. I know there’s a ton of inaccurate terminology regarding rope and accoutrements. So I thank you for helping clarify, truly. The knot as demonstrated has two full round turns on the hand, and the “third” lay. I shall amend my language going forward. Many thanks! Rebecca
Old thread but since your such an expert in your critique you should know that a bowline WITH a bight is wrong nonsensical name, its a bowline ON the bight I think you meant.
Thank you Rebecca for producing and sharing this video. Your work is very much appreciated! But, you need to exercise great care when publishing information about knots into the public domain - because when doing so, you have a responsibility to make sure all of your information is 100% accurate. Unfortunately, this video is an example of how misinformation can be spread through the climbing/roping community. EDIT NOTE: Giving technical feedback is not often appreciated - and indeed - you can see some replies where people have become rude and/or decided to sling insults. Those who choose to sling insults are usually intellectually challenged - and are actuated by malice (which is unfortunate). So here is some detailed feedback - all given in good faith! At 0:19 in your video, you correctly (but very briefly) mentioned that the knot is called a 'farmers loop'. However, you then proceed to refer to the structure as a type of 'Bowline' (circus Bowline). The title of your video also implies the name is 'Three Ring Circus Bowline'. History has been re-written - as it always has over the ages. Here is the earliest known source for the #1054 Farmers loop: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112105559030;view=1up;seq=740;size=125 (at page 1438). Note the source is dated as 1910...which predates your video by more than 100 years! Clifford Ashley also refers to this knot as a 'Farmers loop' at illustration #1054. The 'Ashley Book of Knots' was published in 1944 and is considered to be a primary reference source for all knots. Virtually every knot is carefully illustrated and discussed in this seminal publication. Knotting experts reference all knots against this source. Ashley diligently followed the established naming convention - ie 'Farmers loop'. The 'scientific' name is #1054 - which contradicts your statement that there is no scientific name. Some other examples are; #1053 (Butterfly knot); #1047 (Figure 8 loop); #1010 (Simple Bowline); #1431 (Sheet bend); #1415 (Double Fishermans), etc etc. The reason I am pointing this out is two-fold: 1. The #1054 Farmers loop has absolutely nothing in its structure that could even remotely be described as a type of 'Bowline'. 2. Because this video is published in the public domain and can be openly sourced by anyone - it is important to get the facts correct. You have a responsibility to do this. People who view your videos will have the impression that you are an expert, or at least - a person who is a leader in his field of work. So they would tend to take your information as factual. It also is important not to lose our history - and to rewrite it with something else. The lay public will likely repeat your information to others - and this is how misinformation is spread. Now - you may tender a counter argument that you did not personally assign the name 'Three Ring Circus Bowline'. And if so - it would miss the point of my post. Your videos are a source of information to the public - and people will repeat what you have published. You therefore have a general duty of care to get the facts correct. Because you seem to want to refer to this structure as a type of 'Bowline - it leads me to believe that you don't actually know the underlying structure and geometry of a 'Bowline'. Fundamentally, all 'Bowlines' have a 'nipping loop' as a key component. The nipping loop is loaded at both ends and can have either 'S' or 'Z' chirality. In addition, the 2 legs of the 'Collar' must be fully encircled and clamped by the 'nipping loop'. Since neither of these crucial requirements are present - the #1054 Farmers loop is automatically disqualified from being a 'Bowline'. At 1:13, what you are attempting to explain is the concept of 'eye loading' in contrast to 'biaxial through loading' (ie through-loading from SPart to SPart). Fixed eye knots that are also stable and secure in a biaxial loading profile are in a special class of their own. The #1053 Butterfly knot is a good example of such a knot. In fact, it is able to sustain a tri-axial loading profile. Unfortunately, the #1053 Butterfly knot is vulnerable to jamming when eye loaded (as you tried point out). However, when it is biaxially loaded, it is jam resistant. Note: The pre-fix of 'alpine' is somewhat nonsensical (for #1053 Butterfly knot). Its original name was 'Linemans loop' - per Burger in his 1914 publication. Wright and Magowan rediscovered this knot in 1928 - calling it simply a 'Butterfly'. They popularized it in the climbing community and the name stuck. Given that a 'Butterfly' knot can be used anywhere on or beneath the Earth's surface, it seems the pre-fix 'alpine' is misplaced. For example, I live in a tropical region of the world - where there are no alpine regions within a 1000 miles. People who climb in arid/desert regions also use the 'Butterfly' - where there is no snow and ice. I would like to bring to your attention the #1074 Bowline with a bight - which was published by Ashley in 1944 at illustration #1074. #1074 is in a special class of 'Bowlines' that are both 'Tiable In the Bight' (TIB) and able to be biaxially loaded. As far as we know - #1074 is the only type of 'Bowline' that can be loaded in this way. There are known enhancements to #1074 - such as Scotts lock and Yosemite finish which totally lock the structure down. The #1074 Bowline with a bight mimics the core function of #1431 Sheet bend - and this is how it can sustain a biaxial through loading profile. In my opinion, #1074 Bowline with a bight is superior to #1054 Farmers loop. You should learn about #1074 and experiment with it - that is, induce 'eye loading' and also 'biaxial through loading' and see if it jams. Of course, the trusted and remarkable #1053 Butterfly knot does everything that the Farmers loop does - but heavy loading in eye loading profile does induce jamming. For further information 'Bowlines' - you might be interested in this technical paper: Link www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #2 in the table).
Mark, Marlinspike! Thank you for your reply. Not only is it thorough and thoughtful and respectful, it is also backed with support. You are absolutely correct; I am changing the title. Of course, I do have a copy of Ashley's Book Of Knots. And I agree with what you said about the common names, regional usage, and the need for information in the public domain to be correct and responsible. I am an arborist. I tree climber and trainer of tree climbers. I learned this as the "Three Ring Circus Bowline", but to your point, it's not fundamentally the knot we know as a bowline, nor is it a variation, such as the Yosemite tie off, or the Bowline On A Bight. The Farmer's Loop is it's own knot, an in line anchor knot with advantages and disadvantages. Part of education is enabling students to make choices of what to use where, based on those attributes. Again, many thanks from a fellow knot enthusiast; it would be my pleasure should we meet in person some day. Until then, Rebecca
@@justinwang3286 Your proposition that the 'farmers loop' contains a 'bowline' element is manifestly wrong. Furthermore, a #1431 Sheet bend doesn't have a nipping loop - so it cannot be so. For a detailed analysis of 'Bowlines', I suggest that you read the technical paper at this link: www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #2 in the table).
This knot has some great qualities: easy to make and also undo, and doesn't cinch. The similar alpine butterfly is easy to make but does cinch under high strain and is less easy to undo. The slip knot is easy to make and undo, but of course it slips, which is only sometimes desirable. As a groundmen for line work I'm going to start using this knot to tie down transformers to the back of trucks. Very useful! Thanks for sharing!
You are most welcome. It's better to know several knots that could work in a certain application. And then it's just plain fun when you choose which one is best suited for your needs.
Rebecca, thanks for sharing this. I have found the butterfly knot both useful and frustrating to untie after it's heavily loaded. I even had to cut one out of a rope once. This looks not only easier to untie, but easier to tie as well. I often run short on rope when tying the butterfly, mostly because I'm in the tree and dealing with rope weight. I'm eager to try this; it looks like rope weight is a non-issue. Thanks for the clear and easy to follow instruction!
Always happy to try a different knot, ta.
Keeps it fun and interesting!
Left, right, left, pull. Really easy once that's tried a couple of times. Thanks, I'll try it under load and see how it does! 😊
@@markm8188 cool-lmk!
you are right about the alpine after it is loaded hard it is difficult or impossible to get apart, this might depend on what kind of rope you are using
I can't add anything to the nomenclature debate below but am happy to tell class I practice my knots in the trees behind the church as my dogs play with fallen branches. Usually I hide behind the holly tree as church goers arrive and have a wee muttering "never get a bowline out of that".
So, the middle one should end up in the middle again before being pulled up.
💖 12.7mm line
Great demo. One thing: you and many other knotty folks evidently have a problem with the difference between 2 and 3. You make two passes over the palm after the first lay. And by my count this makes two complete loops. There is just three lays in front, BUT there are not three complete loops.
@@tomcanfield705 you got one thing right: us arborist tree climbing folks are a little bit outlaw! You got two things correct actually, catching the poor wording and direction. I do try to keep my language and actions and terminology consistent and accurate. I know there’s a ton of inaccurate terminology regarding rope and accoutrements. So I thank you for helping clarify, truly. The knot as demonstrated has two full round turns on the hand, and the “third” lay. I shall amend my language going forward. Many thanks! Rebecca
@@treespiritconsulting I had always preferred the Alpine butterfly as it us easier to tie, but will practice this loop more.ove knots!
Awesome, thanks!
You are most welcome!
I guess you could double this, and make 2 loops, but it would require 6 turns.
Left and tight is possible...just coil around hand opposite direction
good word there ...
I ment left and right
Old thread but since your such an expert in your critique you should know that a bowline WITH a bight is wrong nonsensical name, its a bowline ON the bight I think you meant.
*you’re*
Thank you Rebecca for producing and sharing this video.
Your work is very much appreciated!
But, you need to exercise great care when publishing information about knots into the public domain - because when doing so, you have a responsibility to make sure all of your information is 100% accurate. Unfortunately, this video is an example of how misinformation can be spread through the climbing/roping community.
EDIT NOTE: Giving technical feedback is not often appreciated - and indeed - you can see some replies where people have become rude and/or decided to sling insults. Those who choose to sling insults are usually intellectually challenged - and are actuated by malice (which is unfortunate).
So here is some detailed feedback - all given in good faith!
At 0:19 in your video, you correctly (but very briefly) mentioned that the knot is called a 'farmers loop'.
However, you then proceed to refer to the structure as a type of 'Bowline' (circus Bowline). The title of your video also implies the name is 'Three Ring Circus Bowline'. History has been re-written - as it always has over the ages.
Here is the earliest known source for the #1054 Farmers loop: babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112105559030;view=1up;seq=740;size=125 (at page 1438).
Note the source is dated as 1910...which predates your video by more than 100 years!
Clifford Ashley also refers to this knot as a 'Farmers loop' at illustration #1054. The 'Ashley Book of Knots' was published in 1944 and is considered to be a primary reference source for all knots. Virtually every knot is carefully illustrated and discussed in this seminal publication. Knotting experts reference all knots against this source. Ashley diligently followed the established naming convention - ie 'Farmers loop'. The 'scientific' name is #1054 - which contradicts your statement that there is no scientific name.
Some other examples are; #1053 (Butterfly knot); #1047 (Figure 8 loop); #1010 (Simple Bowline); #1431 (Sheet bend); #1415 (Double Fishermans), etc etc.
The reason I am pointing this out is two-fold:
1. The #1054 Farmers loop has absolutely nothing in its structure that could even remotely be described as a type of 'Bowline'.
2. Because this video is published in the public domain and can be openly sourced by anyone - it is important to get the facts correct. You have a responsibility to do this. People who view your videos will have the impression that you are an expert, or at least - a person who is a leader in his field of work. So they would tend to take your information as factual. It also is important not to lose our history - and to rewrite it with something else. The lay public will likely repeat your information to others - and this is how misinformation is spread.
Now - you may tender a counter argument that you did not personally assign the name 'Three Ring Circus Bowline'. And if so - it would miss the point of my post. Your videos are a source of information to the public - and people will repeat what you have published. You therefore have a general duty of care to get the facts correct.
Because you seem to want to refer to this structure as a type of 'Bowline - it leads me to believe that you don't actually know the underlying structure and geometry of a 'Bowline'.
Fundamentally, all 'Bowlines' have a 'nipping loop' as a key component. The nipping loop is loaded at both ends and can have either 'S' or 'Z' chirality.
In addition, the 2 legs of the 'Collar' must be fully encircled and clamped by the 'nipping loop'. Since neither of these crucial requirements are present - the #1054 Farmers loop is automatically disqualified from being a 'Bowline'.
At 1:13, what you are attempting to explain is the concept of 'eye loading' in contrast to 'biaxial through loading' (ie through-loading from SPart to SPart).
Fixed eye knots that are also stable and secure in a biaxial loading profile are in a special class of their own. The #1053 Butterfly knot is a good example of such a knot. In fact, it is able to sustain a tri-axial loading profile. Unfortunately, the #1053 Butterfly knot is vulnerable to jamming when eye loaded (as you tried point out). However, when it is biaxially loaded, it is jam resistant.
Note: The pre-fix of 'alpine' is somewhat nonsensical (for #1053 Butterfly knot). Its original name was 'Linemans loop' - per Burger in his 1914 publication. Wright and Magowan rediscovered this knot in 1928 - calling it simply a 'Butterfly'. They popularized it in the climbing community and the name stuck. Given that a 'Butterfly' knot can be used anywhere on or beneath the Earth's surface, it seems the pre-fix 'alpine' is misplaced. For example, I live in a tropical region of the world - where there are no alpine regions within a 1000 miles. People who climb in arid/desert regions also use the 'Butterfly' - where there is no snow and ice.
I would like to bring to your attention the #1074 Bowline with a bight - which was published by Ashley in 1944 at illustration #1074.
#1074 is in a special class of 'Bowlines' that are both 'Tiable In the Bight' (TIB) and able to be biaxially loaded. As far as we know - #1074 is the only type of 'Bowline' that can be loaded in this way. There are known enhancements to #1074 - such as Scotts lock and Yosemite finish which totally lock the structure down.
The #1074 Bowline with a bight mimics the core function of #1431 Sheet bend - and this is how it can sustain a biaxial through loading profile.
In my opinion, #1074 Bowline with a bight is superior to #1054 Farmers loop.
You should learn about #1074 and experiment with it - that is, induce 'eye loading' and also 'biaxial through loading' and see if it jams.
Of course, the trusted and remarkable #1053 Butterfly knot does everything that the Farmers loop does - but heavy loading in eye loading profile does induce jamming.
For further information 'Bowlines' - you might be interested in this technical paper:
Link www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #2 in the table).
Mark,
Marlinspike!
Thank you for your reply. Not only is it thorough and thoughtful and respectful, it is also backed with support.
You are absolutely correct; I am changing the title.
Of course, I do have a copy of Ashley's Book Of Knots. And I agree with what you said about the common names, regional usage, and the need for information in the public domain to be correct and responsible.
I am an arborist. I tree climber and trainer of tree climbers. I learned this as the "Three Ring Circus Bowline", but to your point, it's not fundamentally the knot we know as a bowline, nor is it a variation, such as the Yosemite tie off, or the Bowline On A Bight.
The Farmer's Loop is it's own knot, an in line anchor knot with advantages and disadvantages. Part of education is enabling students to make choices of what to use where, based on those attributes.
Again, many thanks from a fellow knot enthusiast; it would be my pleasure should we meet in person some day.
Until then,
Rebecca
in fact, the farmer's loop contains the bowline (or sheet bend) -like element.
@@justinwang3286 Your proposition that the 'farmers loop' contains a 'bowline' element is manifestly wrong. Furthermore, a #1431 Sheet bend doesn't have a nipping loop - so it cannot be so.
For a detailed analysis of 'Bowlines', I suggest that you read the technical paper at this link:
www.paci.com.au/knots.php (at #2 in the table).
@@treespiritconsulting now I've seen it all. You could have never guessed someone would write something that long about a knot
Johnny Cash it’s cool. I have only respect for the way in which he made his points, and it’s true. We should all aspire to be knot heads!