Page 59 - Mark Gommers "Bowlines Analysis"

CONCLUSION

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it
is accepted as being self-evident.

– attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860)

Historic photos of Sir Edmund Hillary and early mountaineers indicate that they used the common
Bowline (#1010) – and also the Portuguese Bowline (#1072). However, it should be pointed out
that ropes in the 1950’s were made from hawser lay vegetable fibre and so were more frictive. With
the introduction of modern synthetic kermantel ropes – the rope was smooth and slick and so the
common #1010 Bowline was found to be insecure. This led to the widespread adoption of #1047
Figure 8 eye knot.

Modern climbers desire super lightweight and strong ropes. Rope manufacturers have responded by
developing progressively thinner ropes. At the time of this writing, single EN892 dynamic ropes
have reached 8.5mm diameter – which is almost a 25% reduction from the once standard 11.0mm
ropes of the 1980’s. However, a side-effect is that repeated falls leads to compression of the knot
core with little relaxation of rope fibres. The nipping loop in all Bowlines acts to inhibit jamming –
maintaining some resilience of the core – and this propensity to resist jamming is one of the
cornerstones of knot efficiency (in conjunction with the amount of rope consumed to form the knot
structure). With the reduction of rope diameters comes the corresponding resurgence of the
Bowline.

The journey to find a definition of a Bowline has led to several new and interesting discoveries. My
research has allowed me to posit that Bowlines can be classified and described by the structure of
their nipping loop – a key element common to all Bowlines.

Single nipping loop – a key Double nipping loop – a key
element of the common (#1010) element of the double Bowline
Bowline and its derivatives. (#1013) and its derivatives.

Within the general climbing community, advocates of #1047 Figure 8 eye knot often
cite lack of familiarity and structural complexity as key elements in their argument
against widespread uptake of secure Bowlines. The familiarity argument is further
expanded in terms of not being able to have a climbing partner check and verify the #1047
knot. Bowlines are often cited as being a smoking gun in accidents where knot tying (Figure 8 eye knot)
errors were made and that if #1047 (F8) were used instead, the accident would never
have happened. At first instance, these arguments seem valid and are readily accepted
by those who resist change.

The reality is that concepts such as familiarity and complexity are entirely dependent on the training
and experience of the individual. Training is the key to learning new skills. What is ‘complex’ to
one – may be simple to another. Furthermore, a person can make a mistake or have a lapse in
concentration with any knot – it is just coincidence that a ‘Bowline’ was involved (and since
‘Bowlines’ might be commonly used by those individuals who climb more often/frequently – it is
automatically implicated by default).

Page 58 of 59 Bowline Analysis Version 2.7a 16 July 2016 © Copyright Mark Gommers