Locking Brummel Continuous Loop Tutorial

[PrisonerOfGravity]

FWIW...lock stitching per Samson's spec's preserves the "O" while solving the perceived problem.

I might have to read this thread about twenty more times to understand the perceived problem that this technique solves.

Agree. This is also an opportunity to gain some familiarity with needle and thread, hand sewing. You're actually creating some good, which is not often true when just practicing drills; the looks don't matter so long as you execute. And you can use the same (heavy) thread to whip the end of the constrictor if you like, solving that issue, too.
.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with whipping, stitching, or using a simple bury splice, for that matter. A locking splice is just a clean way to the same end. Just showing something new.

[PrisonerOfGravity]

Check out the continuous loop tutorial by Opie in the suspensions category. Doing in that way eliminates the figure "8".

Assuming you are referring to this thread https://www.hammockforums.net/forum/...ad.php?t=13779

The methods shown in the above thread (original method in post #1 and modified method in post #45 of that thread) make strong loops, but not actually *locked* brummel loops. They look like they should lock while being assembled, but they're loaded such that they can't lock (yes, the modified one too). This is fine, since the bury is where all the strength is. However, in the current thread I'm focused on the elusive *truly locking* brummel continous loop.

[Fish<><]

What snarky was referring to was a McDonald Brummel and if I'm thinking right, might actually give you the results you seek.

[PrisonerOfGravity]

The way this is being used, it doesn't sound like a true locked Brummel. If your able to slide the two lines, and change the size of the loops, then it's not locked. I have made and used several continuous loops and have never had a failure or even a slip. I have not sewed mine, but may start doing so in the future............RR

I believe the locked brummel is on the non-sliding leg of the 8. The sliding leg goes right through the center of the lock.

GMCTTR is bang on. Make one (stop and play with it before the bury step) and that will make it more clear than all the words I can type. You can do it with <18" of line if you're just playing and don't need full buries.

If loaded with at least one connection in each loop of the 8, it truly locks, and loading does not make the loops of the 8 change size. If loaded with two connections in one loop, and nothing in the other, the lock will invert and become a bury splice (which is safe, just unintended, and theoretically more prone to creep under light or cyclic loads (empty hammock blowing in the wind anyone?)). Pretty much any knot will fail when loaded in a way it was not designed to handle - at least this fails safe.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence on HF that points to bury splices not needing to be locked with stitches, whipping or brummels, and that is good info. My feeling is, if you can take something that is already reliable and make it even more reliable, with no additional cost/weight/effort/time, why not?

[PrisonerOfGravity]

What snarky was referring to was a McDonald Brummel and if I'm thinking right, might actually give you the results you seek.

I'm assuming that you leave it as a figure 8 because, if you were to pull one side all the way though, it would leave a hole in the line that would be twisted inside out. So, when you open up the hole initially, couldn't you just feed one end though to make it start off inside out? Kind of like when you make a locked brummel with only one end of the line available.

I'm familiar with the McDonald method of the locking brummel in the context of making a fixed eye using only the working end of the rope. I have manipulated it, only to arrive yet again at the locking 8 shape via a different route. If anybody can wrangle one into a figure '0', I would be very interested to see it, but I haven't been able to without losing the lock. I think Tijereyes's comment (this thread, post #8) regarding Klein bottles was on the money, but would happily be proved wrong.

Not aimed at SnarkyJosh or Fish, but relevant for people researching making loops, since somebody will make the connection: A perfectly good locked brummel fixed eye (by McD or traditional method) ceases to be actually locked if it is loaded as a continuous loop.

[PrisonerOfGravity]

The main functional weakness of this loop seems to be that it could be accidentally loaded up wrong (loaded across one loop only). One way to prevent this is to build something rigid like a ring or buckle into one loop then minimize that loop, leaving the other one as the obvious choice for connecting other stuff to. To invert/unlock it, you'd need to wedge open the minimized loop first, which shouldn't happen by accident.

Technically, it is possible to get something on the other loop too, but that something would have to fit between the strands with the fid, so would be limited to something narrow like a small toggle. Not worth the potential damage to the rope, in my opinion.

Note: the webbing, buckle, ratty old rope and towel pictured are for illustrative purposes only, and I would not necessarily hang from them.

[SnarkyJosh]

I made one of these the other night. When you get to the step in the fifth picture, the locking part becomes clear.

I had a spare piece of amsteel left over from my failed first attempt at making a continuous loop following Opie's directions. I had measured wrong, my bury lengths were too short, and the loop came apart under my weight. Using that same piece of amsteel, I followed PrisonerOfGravity's directions and, with three inch buries, it was able to hold me. But, I would probably still use correct bury lengths for regular use.

When I get another order of amsteel, I'll probably make up a pair to put on one of my hammocks. I like not having to backup my buries with lock stitches.

[Markusforreal]

Prisoner of gravity..... Where did you get that buckle from? How much does it weigh? What is its break strength?

Ahem.. sorry got excited.... Please!!!

Mark

[Markusforreal]

Sorry, forgot to read again... Darn.

[PrisonerOfGravity]

it was able to hold me. But, I would probably still use correct bury lengths for regular use.

When I get another order of amsteel, I'll probably make up a pair to put on one of my hammocks. I like not having to backup my buries with lock stitches.

Happy that it is working out. I too prefer a full length bury.

Prisoner of gravity..... Where did you get that buckle from? How much does it weigh? What is its break strength?

I ordered a pair through a local sailing supplier for use on a kiteboarding control bar (the other kind of hanging). Cast 316 ss, 40g each, *working* load 500lbs, paid $16 each. They're nice, but a pair of SMC rings does the job for half the weight and half the price. Never tried them with a hammock, but they should work.
http://www.suncorstainless.com/star-adjuster