Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3

  • Culinarytracker
  • Culinarytracker's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Expert Boarder
  • Expert Boarder
More
15 years 5 months ago #132545 by Culinarytracker
Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3 was created by Culinarytracker
I was pointlessly poking around Wikipedia tonight and found this little gem.

If the hitch does not hold securely due to slickness of the standing line, an extra turn should be made around the line, with the end still tucked only under two.

If the hitching line has trouble gripping because it is relatively stiff, an extra turn should be made and the end tucked under it (which gives more thickness for the stiff rope to compress).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #132547 by Davej
Replied by Davej on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
Interesting. I have been wanting to experiment with 4:2 vs 5:3 and with 12 vs 16 strand but decided to wait a few more days for my new rope.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #132550 by oldtimer
Replied by oldtimer on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
We gave up on trying to correct wikipedia because someone comes after you and changes all up with some of the info being incorrect in the first place. People that have never seen a rope or used a figure 8 go there and change things just to demonstrate they can do it! :ohmy:

Them someone else comes later looking for info and reads some of that stuff and thinks it is correct just because it is posted on a Bulletin Board. You are better off reading stuff posted here or at TCC or at any of the Professional Arborist sites

About using 5/2 or 5/3 I personally use 4/2 most of time on my split tail ropes and it works fine for my weight. I have not used the Traditional system in a long time and now I mostly used a Distel or a Schwabisch prussic with a mini pulley instead. Moss has posted photos somewhere here before or look in his Flickr site.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 5 months ago #132551 by moss
Replied by moss on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
Yup, the 5/2 sounds redundant, I can't see how it would be any more useful than the 4/2. Adding more wraps above a 4/2 to get a 5/2 or a 6/2 doesn't make much sense. 5/3 and 4/2 are standard Blake's configurations that work very well.

If a rope is stiff enough that it won't hold weight with a 5/3 or 4/2 then it's probable that the rope is not designed for \"self-tied\" or trad friction hitch tree climbing.

I do like the tip that mentions tucking the rope up through multiple wraps (more than 3) to allow a rope with not enough minimum bend radius (like a typical static rope) to grab. Nothing I'd do for day-to day climbing but could come in handy for an emergency. Definitely would want to test low first to see if it works as advertised.
-moss

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 4 months ago #132813 by Davej
Replied by Davej on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
Here's some weird griping about the Blake's 5/3...

http://www.treebuzz.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=152701&an=0&page=0#152701

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 4 months ago - 15 years 4 months ago #132814 by moss
Replied by moss on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
That was JZ posting on Treebuzz about a 5/3 slipping. I've never seen a properly tied 5/3 not holding. It will hold even when set very loosely. The more typical problem with a Blakes is that it binds up after long hang times, the 5/3 does this less than the 4/2. The only adjustments I've ever had to make to a Blakes during a climb was to loosen it.

I think there's something missing from the picture. JZ would have to reproduce the problem and document (photo of the hitch and the TIP) to move the discussion forward. The rest of the thread is work climbers who rarely climb on a 5/3 and the rest who rarely climb on a Blakes.

The last comment by Mark Adams about the F8 on the bridge was interesting. I'd like to hear more about why that's no longer considered a useful knot for rescue. Clearly it's a mainstream convention in rec climbing. The question is should it be revisited to determine if it is actually useful or problematic.
-moss
Last edit: 15 years 4 months ago by moss.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 4 months ago #132815 by oldtimer
Replied by oldtimer on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3

So....I think the knot was tied incorrectly.

Also, its better to use a cinching knot for a carabiner, not a Figure 8 on a bight. The 'biner can rotate in the setup in the photo.


That is precisely was I was think the knot was incorrectly tied. (ie Operator error)

In the past, one method of aerial rescue was to have the ground worker take a wrap with the fall of the injured climbers climbing line and have the rescuer then cut the bridge of the injured climber's tie-in to the saddle. The injured climber could then be lowered to the ground. The 8 was to help the rescuer identify what section of the climbing line should be cut.

There were many problems associated with that method so it is no longer advocated and thus there is no need for the 8 in the bridge.


My feelings the same. Since I never have any plan to cut anything why tie the extra F-8knot? I realise that the Trainers make a big deal of that but it is not practical in the real rescue world. :blush:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 3 months ago - 15 years 3 months ago #132818 by Davej
Replied by Davej on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3

Mahk_Adams wrote:So....I think the knot was tied incorrectly.

Also, its better to use a cinching knot for a carabiner, not a Figure 8 on a bight. The 'biner can rotate in the setup in the photo.


oldtimer wrote:
That is precisely was I was think the knot was incorrectly tied. (ie Operator error)


Uh, why? The exact setup JZG used is straight out of Peter Jenkins' DVD. Also Mahk is the guy who suggests using a B 5/2 (which seems a little goofy to me).

Last edit: 15 years 3 months ago by Davej.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 3 months ago - 15 years 3 months ago #132820 by moss
Replied by moss on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
Rotating a loose bight over the gate is more of a working climber concern, I've never seen the F8 bight rotate over the gate in hundreds of facilitated climbs. If you feel that your climbing style is \"active\" enough that crossing the gate is a potential real problem then switch to a cinching attachment knot.

I see no advantage to tying a Blakes in a 5/2 configuration, might as well tie a 4/2, the grabbing occurs where the tuck goes under the lower wraps so you will see a difference in behavior between a 5/3 and a 4/2, 5/3 has more surface area (tuck) contacting the down rope.

The Blakes in the photo is not tied incorrectly, it's a standard B5/3.
-moss
Last edit: 15 years 3 months ago by moss.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
15 years 3 months ago #132822 by oldtimer
Replied by oldtimer on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
Well, we are assuming that knot on the photo is the exact same knot they were using in the tree while climbing. It was probably not the same, otherwise it would have not slipped.

Also a NEW rope is covered with a waxy material that makes knots slip. That is a common occurrence. That could also have been the problem. The final observation is that 3 over two is not the same as 2 over three. Also a left handed versus right handed Blake is not the same. Very similar but not the same knot.:dry:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 years 2 weeks ago #134507 by 2chops
Replied by 2chops on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
Here's an observation that I've made about the Blakes Hitch as illustrated in Jepsons "The Tree Cllimbers Companion". Take a look at the way the BH is illustrated on page 53. It's Wrong!!
It shows the tail passing BEHIND the bridge and IN FRONT of the running end of the rope. Now turn to page 83 where the book tells you how to tie the BH. Here the illustration is correct, with the tail passing OVER THE FRONT of the bridge and BEHIND the running end of the rope. One of the younger climbers that I used to work with first taught himself how to tie the knot by looking at the ill. on page 53 and found that it didn't work. He knew I used the BH and asked me what the deal was. I had him show me how he was tying it and he referred me to the book. As soon as I saw the ill. he was going off of I set him straight.
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this snafu in Jepsons book. Don't get me wrong, it's a great book. I just hope that in the next edition this error is corrected.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
14 years 2 weeks ago #134508 by oldtimer
Replied by oldtimer on topic Re:Blake's Hitch 5/2 vs. 5/3
I agree w/ you there is a drawing error on page 53 but correct drawing on page 84.

Good eyes! :laugh:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.080 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

Join Our Mailing List