Add new comment


I note that there are numerous errors in your article.
In the first instance, you prefix the word 'the' with 'Bowline' which in fact should be 'a' type of Bowline (not 'the' Bowline). There are many different types of Bowlines.
If you are going to tie-in with 'a' Bowline - you should select and use one of the inherently secure Bowlines.
The simple #1010 Bowline was never intended for life critical applications - it was discovered hundreds of years ago (likely by sailors) and used on the high seas.
An inherently secure knot is one that does not require any form of 'backup stopper knot' to lock-down the structure.
In other words, if you tie-in using one the inherently secure Bowlines, it is perfectly fine and does not require any form of backup stopper knot.
Inherently secure Bowlines include: EBSB Bowline, Scott's locked Bowline, Lee's link Bowline, Harry Butlers Yosemite Bowline.
Your article is misleading because it zeros in on one particular type of 'Bowline' (the Yosemite Bowline) - which is known to have have certain vulnerabilities. You then mislead the reader into thinking that all 'Bowlines' are somehow unsafe (based on the Yosemite Bowline).
Furthermore, the failure mode you describe in your video is incorrect. The real failure mode is triggered by premature yanking on the tail before the knot core has been properly set. This displaces the tail to a position outside of the nipping loop thus altering the knot structure.
I have written to you before about this - but you choose to ignore my advice.
Why do you ignore the facts?
Do you realize that you are circulating misinformation into the public domain? I think you have a responsibility to correct your content.
Mark Gommers