Talk:Munter hitch

Munter or Italian?
I attended a talk by Werner Munter on the 3x3 filter method (Avalanches). At the beginning of the talk he referred to his fame at the person with the knot named after him. He expressed his regret that the knot carried his name since he did not invent it and would prefer to have it called the "Italian Hitch" which was it's name when he popularized it. The German name for the knot is Halbmastwurf I'd like to propose that we honor this with and rename this article to "Italian Hitch" and redirect "Munter Hitch" to "Italian Hitch" Also, from what I understand this knot is referred to in [ http://www.amazon.com/Ashley-Book-Knots-Clifford/dp/0385040253 Ashley Book of Knots (Hardcover)], a well respected and referenced manual for knots, as the Italian Hitch. (Tsylos 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC))
 * The naming of knots has been a constant struggle for those attempting to document and categorize them. I've started writing some draft guidelines, currently residing on the WikiProject_Knots page...  In this particular case my gut feeling is to leave the article title as it is; the term "Munter hitch" is both quite common for this knot and less ambiguous than a "country-name" knot like "Italian hitch".  That said I'm not really wed to either name, just what makes the most sense for readers.   Is the usage of "Italian hitch" particularly common outside the US, for instance?  I think the most important thing is that all the common names be clearly mentioned in the article and having proper redirects pointing to whatever the article is called.  In any case, though, I think it would be great to add a "Naming" section where the history and naming issues are discussed, including if possible a citable source regarding Munter's modesty.


 * Is the wikipedia preference for the most common name, or the most technical name? (For example, "Heart Attack" is a redirect to "Myocardial infarction", but I would say that the former is much more common.  But "Cerebrovascular accident" redirects to "Stroke", so I guess it goes both ways.)  I don't think that it really matters in this case -- both Italian and Munter hitch point to the same article, and it mentions both names at the very start of the article -- but I'm curious.


 * Regarding its presense in Ashley... The name "Italian hitch" does not appear in the index and no knots like it are found in the (admittedly sparse and badly dated) climbing section on pp 62-63.  In the chapter on crossing knots it's shown as #1171-1173 as a crossing knot for wrapping packages and also in an intermediate step of #1195 the "Zig Zag Knot".  The only other thing I found was #1818 where its shown again as a "Crossing knot" to run a line along a set of posts or stakes.   However none of these are shown in any sort of variable friction role that the Munter is used for.  Do you have any more specifics on that Ashley reference?  Thanks.  --Dfred 19:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this knot should be called an "Italian hitch". i was unaware of the name munter hitch and italian hitch is by far more common. --StuartfinniganDGG (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

braking position?
It would be nice if the article could say something about whether the knot has a specific braking position, and, if so, what it is. Unfortunately, I'm seeing contradictory info. Let's call it 0 degrees when the brake strand and load strand are basically touching one another, and 180 degrees when the brake and load strand form a line with the carabiner in the middle. The standard mountaineering textbook Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills discusses the knot, but doesn't state any braking position. A private instructor (Kier Stiteler) and this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02RrSIRl_rQ both say 0 is braking and 180 degrees is maximum travel (the opposite of belay devices such as the ATC). Rock Climbing, Kidd and Hazelrigs, says brake position is with the strands at 90 degrees. Alpine Climbing, Houston and Cosley, says the brake position is the same as the traveling position, "brake strand is parallel to the rope going to the climber;" it's not clear whether "parallel" means 0 degrees or 180 degrees here.--75.83.64.6 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been told that 0 degrees is considerably more effectice because you can press both parts of the rope against each other in your fists, thereby generate additional friction which helps with the braking. I think 180 degrees is about as good as 90 degrees, as long as you do not do something weird like wrapping the knot around opposite ends of the carabiner, Probably something which one would have to try out, though. Yaan (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been studying up on the physics behind knots, and it looks to me like 0 degrees is the best braking position, and the reason is actually not to do with the hands, but is a matter of friction between the rope and the carabiner. However, for WP purposes it's not good enough for me to have done the calculations and convinced myself. We need a published, verifiable source. I'm obtaining the standard text on the physics of knots via interlibrary loan, and will see if I can find an explicit, citable statement to this effect.--75.83.64.6 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think both the braking and the traveling position are at 180 degrees. When the load (climber) is moving, the brake hand is holding the brake strand at 180 but loosely. To brake, the brake strand is pulled hard at 180.  To lock the climber off, the brake strand is wrapped further around the carabiner to 0 degrees (parallel to the load strand).RobLandau (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)