Not

You were correct twice over, Ryan. What you tied with the wraps is most specifically a "hitch." However, you must understand that a "hitch" is a type of "knot." It is always best to use the most accurate term. So, although it is a knot, the type of knot is a "hitch."

100%

I'm confused about the untyability though... Why can't you just remove it from the carabiner? Wouldn't it collapse then??

​@@SaltNBattery It would. However it's not always easy to take sinched up knots from carabineers, as those are often thicker in place, where there is a bend.

Classic American perspective. They are doing it for the greater good of the community

J'ai buggé aussi ptdr

You can also watch Hard is Easy's video on it in the meantime 😊

It's hard to see, but he tried that in the speedup but couldn't get it around the bend of the carabineer

" You can't directly compare your test with a knot to the MBS, since there are other variables involved due to your testing protocol inevitably being different to theirs." The HowNOT2 folks have addressed this point in the past. It boils down to "MFR testing protocols don't matter if the rope fails at a lower value in the field". If the MFR testing protocols are so different from the way people are actually USING the ropes and tying their knots, then the test protocol is worthless. if the paper says "tie a retraced figure 8 and expect 20% load reduction" then what matters is whether the rope performs as stated when tied in what the USER thinks is a retraced figure-8, not the MFR testing lab.

@@ShuRugal But here they aren't testing at what strength it breaks but rather what the percentage reduction in strength is. A good experiment only changes one variable at a time. That means you need a denominator that is consistent with the numerators except for the knot, which is what they are testing. There is no way to know whether their testing protocol is more representative of any given user's real world conditions than the manufacturer's testing protocol is and it doesn't really matter for this experiment, since it is the percentage change they are interested in. As long as you compare two values from the same testing protocol, it shouldn't matter to much what protocol you use, but here they are comparing values from two different protocols, which is pretty much useless.

So the knot was wet, or so the audio would be bad? lol

@@HowNOT2 just wondering if it would still unty under big loads when cooled down like in an aquatic canyon. The audio in the canyoning video's weren't that bad;)

That would be an interesting pull test

Is it accurate to say that every hitch is a knot but not every knot is a hitch?

I am quite sure it would be ridiculously strong enough

I think that was in a video some years ago on this channel.

Search "hownot2 zepplin bend" and you'll find the break tests at least

It is basically melted together. It is no longer flexible enough to do anything with it.

I couldn't get it around the D shape bend. I was trying to rotate the carabiner but didn't work.

​​​@@HowNOT2 You don't need to go around the d-shaped bend in the carabiner. You just have to cut the carabiner away to eliminate that bend. Your unwillingness to do what was necessary doesn't mean it's not still a hitch that will fall apart when you remove the carabiner. Please replicate this with a sacrificial carabiner. Just cut the carabiner and wiggle the hitch off to demonstrate it is, indeed, without permanent form when the object it's tied around is removed. Then, update video! 😁

So it’s a hitch when it’s loose and a knot when it’s tight, got it

​@@thedownwardmachinecompletely wrong

​@@thedownwardmachineremove the object (at this time carabiner), it does not stay tied.

@@corower No it definitely stays tied, it's in the video

i’m pretty sure he did test that if my memory is right, results were close i think. largely inconclusive or “super close enough”

I did tests, can't remember what video it would be in atm. It doesn't affect strength and if you want a knot that is easier to untie you just use a bowline. You can untie those every time no matter how hard you pull them.

@@HowNOT2 Any difference in how strong and easy they are to untie when using a different finish for a Bowline? e.g. A Yosemite finish vs a Fisherman's around the loop portion vs just a longer (sailing usage) tail without a finish?

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h6eiYNh5yZ7MaKM.htmlsi=hMyO1TcW6-jyYcFC Hard is Easy did a bunch of testing. Near the last 1/4 of the video he tests tying it both ways. It unties much easier for him if you tie it where load strand is in middle of structure, also makes an inline 8 if you untie the tail one bit.

MMO - munter mule overhand?

You should apply yourself to a lot more research first; resins are a category of chemicals either natural or synthetized. Nylon is by far the most used polymer, but new cross-linked polyethylenes like Dyneema are far stronger, with lower melting points, and way less stretchy, confusing their optimal uses. Aramids like Kevlar are also very durable, but less stretchy. If you're thinking of the resins used in art materials, nothing really has shown any value to this point.

not one I am aware of

Equalization when the bolts or protection are very different heights

@@perplexedon9834 Is equalisation that important? The use of two bolts is for redundancy rather than because one bolt might not be strong enough. If there is a very large difference in height, shock loading could be an issue, but using anything with even a small amount of stretch will resolve that.

@@thomasdalton1508 the shock loading is the big one, but you're right that it's most important with traditional gear where you aren't sure any one piece is strong enough, but spreading the load across pieces is good enough. Shock loading matters a lot more on trad gear too. He biggest idea though is that carrying two specialised short slings I carrying two separate pieces of gear with limited application. On medium slight is super versatile, and the knowledge to use it as an equalised anchor weighs zero grams

@@perplexedon9834 You can carry two medium slings and double them up to make them shorter. That is an extra piece of equipment, certainly, but not a heavy one.

@@thomasdalton1508 I don't really see what your point is. If you can commit a system to memory, and it simplified your rack, even in sport that is a reason enough to do it. You didn't address the most important point, equalised the load across your pieces actually matters when on trad pieces with limited placement quality. Like there are small nuts and cams put there that are rated about 6 kN. If your only option for making an anchor are a bunch of tiny cracks or nuts, then you are going to want to make sure that none of them ever see more than a kN. If there's more than a couple of centimetres of slack, the slack piece may not see any load until well over 1kN is applied. You could safely hang on a bunch of sewing thread if there were enough of them, properly equalised. That's how much equalisation matters. I honestly can't pick what your motivation is here. Are you some gung ho hardcore climber who calls a single micronut an anchor, saying "Equalisation never mattered for me, people make too big a deal of it" or are you making purely theoretical arguments having not left your basement in that last year? (Not trying to be insulting or mean spirited, I just find the extremes funny) While there are concrete examples of when equalisation matters, such a the above, I think that learning and regularly applying rope and anchor systems trains you to effectively reason about safety, and thus safely break the rules in an emergency. Even if you never used a system like the one in the video, having an interest in understanding it and investigating its safety improves your insight. I don't think everyone should belay off a munter, but after accidentally leaving my belay device on my partner harness, I was able to safely belay two followers up at once because I had the know-how. I honestly wouldn't be comfortable guiding people less experienced than me if I didn't have the knowledge to still get out of the situation safely even if I found myself on lead halfway up a cliff with no harness and just the end of the rope in my hand. If your leader took an awful whip and was knocked unconscious, could you get them to safety all alone, and then safely lower back down? If you were on lead and your belayer got knocked out, could you safely get down? Obviously these are separate skills and systems from anchor building, but the kind of person who has learnt how and why to build an equalised anchor is the kind of person who can figure out safe technical work, even when they've never been taught that specific situation. It's about learning how to think, and then practicing that, not learning particular systems. When I teach new climbers how to build an anchor on bolts at the end of a single pitch sport climb, I could either tell them "just clip these two loops in. If they're attached then they're safe enough!", or I could teach them the principles of equalisation and then have them tell me why a quad is better. When it comes to later teaching them how to safely clean a sport anchor, then you don't really need to teach them the step by step. Simply say "there's a way to remove all this gear and end up being held by the rope through the bolts. It'll involve untying and retying, using one or two extra carabiners, and one extra sling. You can do it in such a way that there is no point where the belayer wouldn't catch you in a fall." That'd be enough for someone who understands how to think about rope systems, where the alternative would be "attach self to bolts with sling. Take rope slack through the anchor. Form fixed midline loop and attach to harness belay loop. Have belayer take. Untie climbing knot. Thread rope both rap loops or chain master point. Retie knot. Undo midline loop. Have belayer take. Remove. Anchor material. Untie sling. Have belayer lower." If someone memorised that they'd probably be safe in that particular scenario, but I didn't have to memorise it. I reason it out from first principles every time because it's intuitive, and that kind o knowledge makes you a lot more safe, flexible and versitility if things ever go wrong. It also makes you do things like load test your systems before going off of safety, it makes you know when to let your partner know thingS, etc. I get very uncomfortable when I go climbing with someone who knows how to lead climb and belay, but "forgets" to hold the brake strand on a grigri, or seems to do things off of muscle memory, or so on. If you understand how the belay system works, it is simply not possible to forget to hold the brake strand. I don't think climbers should see technical work as just a means to the end of doing real climbing: technical rope work IS climbing. You seem interested enough that you asked the question, but I think your question is kind of like "why do people indicate while driving with no-one else around" or "why do people put the handbrake on when parked on flat ground?" So on. First there are easy to imagine, concrete reasons why you would do those things even if they seem superficially pointles. Maybe there is a cyclist or motorbike you didn't see, and your lack of indicating risks hitting them. Maybe the ground isn't as flat as it seems to you. But second of all, cultivating good habits and reasoning about road safety should be considered an important instrumental value, because generalising safety principles improves safety, and understanding safety gives you the flexibility to break the rules when you need to.

Many bowline variations have been tested, I think there have been many on hownot2 over the years, and many other places. Often compared to a figure-8 loop. In some tests one is stronger, in some tests the other is, in most comparison tests their is enough variation that both overlap a lot. I think weather various bowlines are stronger or weaker than a figure-8 depends mostly on the cordage used. The difference is always quite small.

​@@mountainmandoug Awesome, thank you!!! 😊👍👍👍👍👍

MBS is supposed to be the minimum load you can expect a product to fail at, but how it's arrived at is a little tricky. Normally it's determined without knots, on a machine that has the rope wrapped around two large drums, so you get a "true strength" of the material/composition. I put it in quotes because no one uses ropes like that, so testing them like Ryan does can give us some better ideas of how the ropes will perform how we actually do use ropes, but means his numbers will always be different from what manufacturers publish, and will vary more, as the dynamics of the rope inside the knots are complicated, and change based of how you tie the knots (which is another reason they're avoided for MBS testing in industry) MBS is also not an ISO defined test or anything, so every MFG has a slightly different method of determining what it would be. The most common method I have heard of is to use the 3rd standard deviation below the mean (aka average) of 5 or more break tests. They're using statistics, but it's not too complicated, basically they're calculating a load where they predict 99.73% of breaks in the double drum set up will occur above. In terms of just using the lower number from the tests, I think because of the variability due to knots, etc, I think it does make sense to use averages, it would probably make the most sense to use an average, along with a std deviation (ie 12.3 +- 1.3 kN), because the tests are not actually MBS, they're something else. But these numbers are meant mostly just to provide insight into how strong things are, you should never buy/use gear expecting to put it under loads even close to half of MBS when yourlife depends on it. UTS is basically what Ryan is finding in his tests, for his setup with the knots, it's just the load stuff breaks at. But since ropes and safety gear in general are sold by an MBS, he's basically just relating that to the numbers we see on packaging. I hope my ramblings were able to help connect some dots, lol.

@@AllinDemopolis That was an impressively knowledgeable answer to my question. That makes total sense to use the standard deviation and not blindly take the minimum value. Thank you!

Rock climbers tend not to carry things that could stab them in a fall. There have already been cases where someone's knife unfolded itself and stabbed them. Aid climbers will often have a hammer however, and hammering a tight knot like a figure 8 can sometimes loosen it enough to get it apart. I've also seen people use a carabiner nose as a makeshift marlinspike. Depends on the size of rope whether that works well enough or not.

Nope. Those knots are far enough apart to be considered independent. The weakest point in the rope should be mbs*0.8 in the 8 to 8 configuration

You do not lose 20% for every knot tied. I thought that once but it's just one reduction in strength. Tying 5 knots in the cord would not make it 0% strength for example.

​@@LeifMahoney I agree with you, I was just going for taking it as a pure math problem.

@@Vaasref The important thing in any maths problem is not doing the maths right (a calculator will do that for you), but doing the right maths. You need to understand why you are doing the maths you are doing so you can know it is the right maths. Multiplying by 0.8 twice is the wrong maths. A chain is as strong as its weakest link and the same is true for a rope. We calculate the overall strength by calculating the strength of the weakest point.

It's not clickbait, it's vague bait. If I posted the name of the knot as the title and on the thumbnail said "Tested" only 10,000 people would watch it. However, 100,000 people will watch if it's somewhat vague. However, i try to make it pretty obvious you're signing up to watch a knot video with the image of the thumbnail and I try to add a lot of value to each one. There is a balance that needs to be managed. Verbal introduction? The first 5 seconds you understand that we are testing a knot that I show the image of. I try to get right to the point so you know if it is something you are interested in.

@@HowNOT2 thanks, yes I understand. The numbers leave you no choice.. You're doing great work! We will get used to it I hope 😅 I just feels off to see a video from you with this kind of title..

Tbh I'm also not a fan regardless of what you want to call it. It's too bad that you're forced to do it because it feels really gross. I get this channel's videos in my feed sometimes still, but I unsubbed because the click bait got too ridiculous