continuous loop - tails parallel or doubled back?

[cougarmeat]

Once upon a time I watched a video that claimed the "proper" way to make a continuous loop was to create the Brummel, but then feed the tails back in the direction they came from instead of straight ahead into the weave on the other side.

But in searching YouTube videos, the first three examples showed what seems to be the more common method of (after making a Brummel lock) burying the line from the left into the line from the right; and the line from the right into the line from the left.

I think the alternate method suggested that wasn't the safest way and after making the Brummel, the line from left should be bent back to the left and buried on the left side; the line from the right should be bent back and buried on the right.

The video said at least a few "commercial" (cottage industry folk) create their continuous loops that way and you can tell because those loops have a telltale bump at the Brummel point (think of a boa constrictor that has swallowed a large meal).

Is this just something I dreamed or is this "back from whence it came" method a real thing?

[leiavoia]

They are both real. The argument against the locked version is that it creates a kink that weakens it. The argument against the unlocked version is that it isn’t locked and thus may slip. There has not been any analytical testing to compare fail strength that I know of. I have made and use both types. I prefer the smooth one.

[TominMN]

The only "problem" with turning the tail 180 and burying them back in the direction they came from is that all of the load is placed on the Locked Brummel (the buries aren't carrying ANY of the load.) and that becomes the weak spot because only half of the strands in the cordage are carrying the load. With any reasonably sized cordage, there's enough margin in the strength that it shouldn't really matter for a suspension CL. (I personally wouldn't try this with Dynaglide.)

With the method that has the tails crossing over, that weaving that you're calling a Locked Brummel turns out not to be one at all. You can prove this by pulling on the CL before doing the buries. That said, a CL made this way is stronger than the other, assuming the buries are well done. The only perceived "problem" is that it can creep loose. I've never had that happen. That might be even more true if you skip the so-called "Brummel" part and just do the buries as close together as possible. Doing so is actually the way to achieve maximum strength because, as with all splices, the load is carried in the buries! If you're worried about it creeping and coming undone, the best solution is a lock stitch right between the adjoining buries.

This has been discussed ad nauseum but I hope I've summarized it sufficiently here.

One last thought: Only one of the buries needs to be sufficiently long for the CL to achieve maximum strength. The other can be quite short, as long as they are both properly tapered. Making both buries long does not make the CL stronger.

I hope this helps.

[TominMN]

I was thinking about this late last night. Specifically about the portion that looks a lot like a Locked Brummel but actually isn't one! I'm a knot guy but I've never before had an opportunity to name a knot. (Okay, this isn't actually a knot. I get that.) So, my name for this henceforth is Faux Brummel. (Not to be confused with Beau Brummell. That's an entirely different dude.)

Phantom, I couldn't help myself...

[MAD777]

I would never turn the tails back for fear of placing all the load on a near zero radius turn. A bad thing with any rope. Buries won't slip if one simply puts a few loose stitches into the bury.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[jeff-oh]

I have seen the video you reference. I remember the discussion being more about the difference between a straight splice (sorry TominMN it is already named ) and a locked brummel. The locked brummel is preferred as it will not slip and loosen up. I have had this happen with straight splice CLs. Also the load is transferred through all the fibers not 1/2. This is because the load is applied in-line with the CL, not transversely.

[TominMN]

Easy come, easy go!

But the fact of the matter is that a straight splice can be done without that Brummel-like part as I pointed out above. So that "non Brummel" part could have a name...

[HandyRandy]

You probably saw this video:
https://youtu.be/QSyLAO92iHs

I prefer this video though and it’s worth checking out too:
https://youtu.be/X_X92P2NQxc

[TominMN]

HandyRandy,

I think the fellow in that second video makes a lot of valid points. It doesn't help his argument by calling a 180 degree bend a 90 degree. I also doubt that the cost of raw materials has much of an effect on the various vendors. They're doing what they believe to be best. I also don't think one is easier to make than the other. The major points to consider is that in the straight splice, the load is born by the buries and by using the Locked Brummel ALL of the load is born by the Brummel and, as a result, by only half of the strands in the cord. And that's with the 180 to boot!

Adding locking stitches to that straight splice would certainly add a bit of time and it would be the way to assure that separation doesn't occur. The last thing (okay, maybe not the LAST thing) a vendor wants is to have the suspension come apart.

[cmoulder]

It happens.

https://www.hammockforums.net/forum/...ntinuous-loops

I've been making my own for some time w/locked brummel and opposite-side tucks with no issues.