Page 30 - Nate Fitch, Ron Funderburke "Climbing Knots"

I need a predictable and fixed set of criteria to evalu-
ate each option. Knots, generally, have five variable
qualities:
1. Strength: What percentage of material strength
will be lost while the knot is in a critical
application?
2. Failure mechanism: When the knot fails, how
does it fail? Does it break the rope? Does it
capsize? Does it slip apart?
3. Security: How many steps does it take to
distort the failure mechanism or reduce the
strength of the knot?
4. Efficiency: How many steps does it take to tie
and untie the knot, how many additional tools
are required to accomplish the task, and how
much rope is needed to tie the knot?
5. Visual clarity: Does my knot look reliable, and
is it recognizable from a distance? Does it look
goofy, or does it look tight and tidy?
I know the figure 8 follow through is a strong
knot. It reduces the strength of the rope by only
10–20 percent in my personal tests, and there are
numerous other studies showing comparable strength.
But this is also true of a well-tied bowline or the fig-
ure 8 on a bight with carabiners.
I know that all three knots fail by breaking the rope.
I know that one gesture of the rope could change
the integrity of all three knots, so none of them is any
more secure than the next.
In terms of efficiency, the figure 8 with a bight
uses two extra carabiners. Those are carabiners that I
have to deploy, inspect, and dismantle when I’m done.
Instantly, the other two knots seem better.

The Application Heuristic 17