Talk:Trucker's hitch

Untitled
Another knot goes by this name, too. Like the one illustrated, it can be tied without access to the bitter ends, and it also presumes a hook or peg against which it pulls. However, it is configured to pull out slack during the tying, and requires tension to stay tied.


 * 1) The free portion past the hook is doubled back to loosely cross the restricted portion, about 60-75cm from the hook.
 * 2) A small loop (fold) from the restricted portion is pulled up over the crossing of the free portion, to about 30cm beyond the crossing, where it is then put through a twisted loop (or double-twisted loop) to secure it subject to tension.
 * 3) The free portion is pulled, sliding through the 30cm-long loop a bit like a block-and-tackle, to tauten the cord.
 * 4) Finally, the free portion is fastened by pulling a loop around the lower part of the restricted portion and back under itself.

This knot is very easy to untie, as well as very effective at tautening: it is claimed that truckers break rope practicing tautening this hitch.


 * I also learned the trucker's hitch as this knot, and I've found it extraordinarily useful. I'm not sure how to properly represent both of these knots on wikipedia, but it would be great if someone who does would do so. ObsidianOP 23:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I also learened this version: from an Englishman who called it the "lorry driver's hitch". In Australia it is usually known as the truckie's hitch. Is the one illustrated for real? Never seen it, and don't understand the page.

Factor of mechanical advantage
The article talks about a 1 to 3 mechanical advantage. Wouldn't the mechanical advantage be only on 1 to 2? If you pull 2 inches, the length of the rope in front of the hook gets shorter by 1 inch, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinhenz (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I have the same question. Walrus heart (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I believe that 3:1 is correct, because the situation is like that of diagram 3 in the pulley article, rather than diagram 2. Since the question has come up repeatedly, perhaps we should add an explanation to the article. Walrus heart (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * One more try :O) Now I believe it depends on which is the fixed part. If you're trying to move a heavy stone with a trucker's hitch and a sturdy, unmoving, frictionless tree, you actually want to start by attaching the rope to the stone, and then form the trucker's hitch to loop around the tree, in order to get your 3:1 advantage. Would anyone like to confirm or correct my understanding, and perhaps add some explanation to the article? Walrus heart (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding earlier comment: "If you pull 2 inches, the length of the rope in front of the hook gets shorter by 1 inch, isn't it?" True, but there is more travel involved than just the length of rope coming out of the loop. If you pull two inches of rope out of the loop it also travels an additional inch as the system contracts, giving a total of 3 inches of pull compared to the 1 inch of travel on the main line, thus 3:1 advantage. 198.6.46.11 (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It can be a 2x or a 3x advantage depending on which side is the "Fixed" side. Crazy to think about.  Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulley  where there are diagrams which look like this knot in both situations - one is a 2x advantage, the other is a 3x advantage.  I think it is important to note this in the article - for 3x advantage pull rope in the direction of the fixed side (pull with the motion of the moving side, not against it).

--

The theoretical mechanical advantage is indeed 3:1 if the bina is taken as a fixed hook on the bed of the truck. However, in reality, because of rope against rope friction in the first loaded loop, then (unless the rope is something like Dyneema) the real advantage is often quoted much lower in the region of just over 1:1.

It is very easy to check the real advantage, simply put a spring scale on the hauling line and a scale on the loaded line and compare the forces as the load is applied.

DerekSmith (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just reworked the article a bit. I left most of the claims in the Mechanical advantage section, but did add a few  tags where I felt they were needed.  I tried to clarify the fact that the anchor point is acting like the second pulley in the diagram.


 * Derek, when you say "often quoted" do you have any specific pointers for that? It would be nice to put something specific from a published source in the article (e.g. in a test with 5/8" braided nylon the ratio was X.Y:1").   The other issue not yet addressed is the effects of static vs. dynamic friction.  I think one reason the knot is so useful in the real world, whatever the exact mechanical advantage, is that when the knot is moving during tensioning one is dealing with dynamic friction.  When the tensioning is complete the knot can be held with less force due to static friction generally being greater.  Since the trucker's hitch is used to secure static loads (hopefully) this is a great "feature", which would be a "bug" if it were being used for moving something -- say as part of a Z-drag for hauling out a pinned canoe -- where lower friction biners or real pulleys are definitely desirable...  I'm going to start a new section specifically asking if there are any objections to removing the 2:1 claims from the article, as I think they are muddying the water.  --Dfred (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I reconsidered splitting the discussion from here and decided just to be bold as I think I misread what was in the article re: the 2:1 claim. I rephrased and reworked the whole thing.  Please revert or discuss here if anybody objects to what I did.   I don't doubt the real world ratio is probably less than 2:1, but I decided to remove this specific claim pending some sort of supporting evidence.  There's also the issue I raised above of the difference between the force required to tension the standing part, vs. the force required to maintain tension while tying-off.  It would be helpful for any discussion of specific ratios using real rope to address this issue as well.


 * "The mechanical advantage is less than one for most types of rope, without pulleys, a force greater than the weight of the object must be used to overcome the friction."


 * If anyone has supporting evidence for this claim, or any specific real-world testing of this knot, please feel free to add it to the article. --Dfred (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at this diagram you may realize that when used the way the truckers hitch is commonly used, it retains it's tripled force after being tied off, rather than dropping back to double.




 * You can see from this diagram that if the loose end is tied off to the loop in a way that doesn't allow the weight to fall, then the knot must continue to maintain the 600 lb pull. Before tying off, the free end and the two ropes going to the lower pulley will all have 200 lbs tension in them. After tying off, the tension in the two ropes that still go to the lower pulley will rise to 300lb each. Of course a real load on a truck is a little different than this hanging weight. If your rope isn't stretchy enough and/or your load isn't springy enough and/or you let the rope slip looser when you are tying off the end, the rope over your load may slacken and see its tension reduced greatly. But that's not because of the knot, that's just if the tension isn't kept on properly. I'll restore the previous statement pending any objection. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but both sides of a trucker's hitch being used to tension a line are attached to static anchor points. In your diagram you have a live weight that maintains force from the far end.   In the case of two fixed end points when the working end is affixed/tied-off to the upper pulley, the force being supplied from the working end literally disappears from the system when the end stops receiving a pull.   Think about it like this: that portion of the force is being produced externally in the working end and is being applied to the standing part directly via the upper pulley, that external force is simply no longer present in the system when the end is tied off.   Basic tests with a digital hanging scale showed this quite clearly.  (N.B. one cannot use a spring scale for this, as the scale needs to register accurately with near zero-travel since this is a static system.)  Now, if one affixes/ties the loaded working end to the floor (i.e. the truck) without any slippage, then I believe the force would remain in the standing part because the working end was still being pulled on by something external to the trucker's hitch itself.   However this isn't how the hitch is generally used, nor is it practical or necessary in most cases.


 * I generally do not re-revert things where there's a reasonable discussion going on, and I certainly haven't ruled-out the possibility I'm in error. So please let me know if the comments above change your thinking – or try verifying it yourself.   Perhaps there's a physicist lurking around here who can chime in more definitively.  :)


 * BTW, my crude tests also seemed to verify DerekSmith's comment about the final ratio with real rope (in my case parachute cord) not appearing to be significantly more than 1:1, and perhaps even lower. That is the ratio of tension remaining in the tied-off system to the force applied to the working end during tightening.  The ratio neared 2:1 when force was being applied to the working end but dropped greatly after very carefully tying-off with almost zero slippage.  This is what originally prompted me to reevaluate the article's description of the behavior being discussed above.  Both because of WP:NOR and the somewhat Rube Goldberg nature of my test, we should really find one of Derek's "often quoted" sources before putting specific numbers in the article.


 * All that said, in practical use the trucker's hitch is simply a means of tensioning and then securing a static line – a purpose for which it works quite well. However anyone considering using it in non-static situations (say, in place of a proper Z-drag) would be well-advised to understand its comparative mechanical limitations.   --Dfred (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * When figuring the theoretical mechanical advantage of the truckers hitch when tying off to the loop, you have to assume zero slippage. Otherwise you aren't figuring the theoretical advantage you're figuring the practical advantage. As a practical matter, there will be less advantage the more you let it slip. In fact if you let it slip enough, the force will drop to zero for a load that can't take up the slack. This will be the case for any knot or arrangement of pulleys no matter what theoretical advantage they have. Alternatively you can consider the case of a springy load like a stack of mattresses. I'm sure that if you use the truckers hitch to tighten down a load of mattresses and are careful to minimize slippage when tying off to the loop, you will find that the tension remains triple the original pull (minus friction effects of course). In more common loads there is often a little spring in the load and a little stretch in the rope. Another way to keep the tension up without allowing any slack is instead of finishing the truckers hitch by tying off to the upper loop, it is possible to finish it without allowing any slack by instead bringing the free end down to a hook on the bed rail and wrapping around it a few times before tying off. But it would probably be a good idea to explain these considerations in the article. By the way, you made a useful and insightful addition to the article about the friction holding the tension for tie off and contrasting that to using pulleys to haul in a load. Mindbuilder (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I should note that in the case as shown in the diagram where the upper pulley is attached to the ceiling and a weight is hanging from the bottom, the force at the top would indeed drop after tying off to the upper pulley, and the tension in the two lower ropes after tying would remain the same, contrary to my description above of the situation of securing a truck load. Maybe we need a new diagram. I put that diagram in though in order to increase my credibility by using the diagram from the already established pulley article (and because it was a beautifully done diagram). Mindbuilder (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Another source of slackening would be from the 50% increased load causing a little stretch in the remaining two lines. I suppose it may not even make sense to talk about the mechanical advantage of the knot after tying off. The knot basically does not get longer or shorter after tying off like it does before tying, and it will adjust its pull to match the load applied to it. It will exert a pull much greater than the previous 3 to 1 if the load increases somehow, and its pull will fall to .1 to 1 or zero to 1 if the line slackens enough. I don't know how I got my previous comment labeled minor. Must have clicked it by accident. Mindbuilder (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure the parts about the tension after tying off should even be in there. It may just be more confusing than useful. I think I'll leave it, but if anyone wants to delete it go ahead. Of course it may be useful to point out that the tension may drop greatly if slack is allowed to a non-dynamic load. Mindbuilder (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just read the article and parts of the talk. The problem is obvious: The image which states to be a "conceptually similar" arrangement of pulleys is a pretty bad equivalent of a trucker's hitch. Let me explain it in detail:
 * I've just read the article and parts of the talk. The problem is obvious: The image which states to be a "conceptually similar" arrangement of pulleys is a pretty bad equivalent of a trucker's hitch. Let me explain it in detail:


 * If you talk of a mechanical advantage you do have to tell what the two parts of the comparison are: the force required on the working end is one of the comparison partners ... that's clear so far. Its counterpart, however, is NOT the one at the hitch's "bottom" fix point, but the force in the part which is used for tensioning, e.g. to fix a truck's load. This is correctly explained in this section's text, but it still seems to contradict the image ... because the image shows a weight at its bottom, and the mechanical advantage for THIS load is only 2:1. But this is not the issue here.


 * The image hence is not exactly helpful. Reason: Such images are understood as comparing the shown weight(!) to the required force on the working end.
 * I therefore suggest to replace the image by one like the second tackle (from the left) in this image from the German Wikipedia: the weight lifted by the tackle there really symbolizes the achieved tension and not the force at the lower anchor point.
 * The disadvantage of this image is that top and bottom are reversed in comparison to the usual arrangement of a trucker's hitch, as a consequence of the fact that gravity pulls the weight down, not up. I yet consider this a much more suitable image, and I predict that all discussion about the trucker's hitch's mechanical advantage will have an end if a really appropriate image is provided.
 * 94.216.168.95 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The picture in the page is correct but I agree that the pictures in the german wiki are easier to grasp. A few improvements would help: A) use of hooks to clarify which rope is attached where, and B) the fact that the lower loop and the rope-end are both attached to the same spot at the bottom (the weight) thus raising the advantage there to 3 (not 2 as it seems in the picture). Cobanyastigi (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced the picture with one similar to the one from german wiki as suggested. Hope this resolves the issue. Cobanyastigi (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That image is wrong: The weight of 100N is held by two lines with 33.3N each, that doesn't add up. Also in total 3 lines of 33.3N pull on the ceiling resulting in 100N, not 66.7N. The numbers 100N and 66.7N need to be swapped. - Buz11 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It's 3:1 on the standing part (i.e. the line to be tensioned), and 2:1 to the tree/anchor at the working end. Also see [this video] getting about 3:1 with pulleys and static rope. They also show that image from the German Wikipedia. The weight represents the tree/anchor, and the top anchor in the image represents the line to be tensioned. -Buz11 (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting difficult. I replaced Cobanyastigi's image, where the forces do not add up, by a new one, and they changed it back. Since this topic seems disputable, we might solve this the Wikipedia way, i.e. WP:NOR, there should be no statement unless backed by a reliable source. I'll remove the pulley image and exact numbers of the mechanical advantage (2:1 / 3:1) in a few days if it is not settled here. Buz11 (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's some evidence I found: I checked over 20 books; astonishingly many don't even include the trucker's hitch/waggoner's hitch/power cinch. Those who do rarely give details about the mechanical advantage. I found 2 sources with more details: -Buz11 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nic Compton wrote "...the trucker’s hitch gives a mechanical advantage of either 2:1 or 3:1, depending which way round it is used. If the fixed point is on the side of the working end, it’s a 2:1 advantage; if it’s on the side of the standing part, it’s a 3:1 advantage." - I found that formulation a bit unclear, since 'fixed point' is not mentioned elsewhere, and you usually span a line between 2 fixed points. However being 2:1 or 3:1, depending on the oriantation, is quite what we are talking about.
 * Buck Tilton wrote: "The trucker’s hitch (sometimes known as the cinch knot or power cinch) is more accurately described as a system of knots giving a three-to-one mechanical advantage that allows tension to be created in a rope or cord."
 * I also like to re-mention [HowNot2's video], where they measured about 3:1 when using pulleys and static rope. I personally rate that quite reliable as source.
 * For the difference between 2:1 and 3:1 one might take a look at both images on the [German Wikipedia]; also interesting is the image to the right from there.


 * Changed text back to 3:1 (forgot to log in, so it's with an IP) -Buz11 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Truckers Hitch based on Sheepshank and other collapsing knots shouldn't be taught
The Sheepshank and the Truckers Hitch based on the Sheepshank are not just less secure, they are insecure. Not only can they fall apart under too little load, they WILL simply fall apart under too much load. The use of these knots is not only dangerous to the user and his property, but there is also often danger to innocent third parties sharing the road with users of these knots. Other knots that are easy to untie can be used if desired. There are some situations where a knot doesn't need to be secure, where if it falls apart, no harm will come. So theoretically you could teach this knot while explaining to the student that it is prone to fall apart and should only be used when collapse will cause no harm. The problem with that is when the student in turn teaches the knot to somebody else, there is a big chance that the warning will not be passed on. It is best that this insecure version of the Trucker's Hitch be allowed to die out as there are secure and easy to untie alternatives. I'm going to replace much of the safety warning. If you are going to remove or tone down safety warnings on Wikipedia, please be extra careful to get it right, for example by not removing the warning about collapse of the knot when loaded heavily. Safety warnings are especially important when it is not just the user of the Wikipedia information who is at risk, but innocent third parties who could likely be injured by unsafe practices. Mindbuilder (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not our job to censor wikipedia. A personal opinion that a knot should not be taught is no justification for removing it from the encyclopedia.  When used properly (and with 2 half hitches in the sheepshank rather than the one that is sometimes used) the knot is not insecure at all.  I have used it for years, on volleyball nets, to secure kayaks on top of cars, and to tie loads down on trucks.  It has never failed.  Rracecarr (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I have removed the knot with the finishing half hitches again. I would definitely like to have an image with the finishing half hitches shown, but in the one available, the second one is backward, which is poor form.  The two hitches should form a (possibly slipped) clove hitch, not a cow hitch. Rracecarr (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When pulled hard enough the Sheepshank simply falls apart. It doesn't matter how it's dressed. Also if it goes slack it can fall apart. That's insecure. If you used it for ten lifetimes before it failed and killed someone, that wouldn't be an acceptable risk, especially when safer alternatives exist. The Sheepshank is actually called an un-knot. If you look at its structure closely you'll see that it relies on nothing more than the stiffness of a small loop of rope to stay together. Pull hard enough and it simply comes untwisted. As I had it the Truckers Hitch article mentioned the Sheepshank version and had a link to the Sheepshank knot, so the information is there if someone really wants it or wants to use it for a non-safety critical application like a volleyball net. But for trucking purposes, that knot puts people's lives at risk. As Wikipedia is on notice about the danger of this knot, it would be negligent to teach the knot for this purpose. Especially since there are other knots that are very easy to untie that can be substituted. There is no need to show the Sheepshank version. Why teach something that is pointless and dangerous? I'll look a little more for a reference to the demonstration that the Sheepshank just collapses. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed the image finished with two half hitches. You may have to refresh your browser cache to see the new version. Mindbuilder (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing the image. I just plain disagree with some of your claims.  The stiffness of the loop is not required to keep the knot together.  You can cut the loop with a pair of scissors and the knot remains secure.  In very strong or slippery rope, It may be possible to pull out the knot before the rope breaks--this is the case with many knots.  But for everyday trucker's rope, such as polypro, I believe the rope will break before the knot will slip (I'll try it with nylon string).  It certainly can come untied if the rope goes slack, and it can be easily tied incorrectly, and for these reasons you may well be correct that it is unwise to promote it as a knot for critical applications.  However, I think the knot is still notable, and worthy of inclusion in the article.  There is already a warning about security, and more can be added if you think it's necessary.  Rracecarr (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just did the experiment. I used 2 mm braided polyester string.  The string broke.  It did not even break at the trucker's hitch, but at the bowline at the far end, which is impressive because the bowline is a fairly efficient knot.  Of course, this does not prove that the knot will never slip or spill under any conditions.  But it should get you to reconsider some of your statements. Rracecarr (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a link demonstrating the failure of the Sheepshank and recommending it never be used. http://www.animatedknots.com/sheepshank/index.php?Categ=scouting&LogoImage=LogoGr...&Website=


 * It's not whether the loop is cut or not but just if the base of the loop which is being pinched can bend around and release the twist. It is notable, but all that needs to be noted is that there exists a version based on the Sheepshank and that it shouldn't be used for trucking. Just the fact that it falls apart under no load is enough to make it dangerous. Loads sometimes shift or slack develops somehow, sometimes leaving the load unsecured by the Sheepshank version. The rope may break before collapse in some ropes, but in others it will collapse easily. Lets not expect amateurs or even professionals securing loads to know whether it's a suitable Sheepshank rope. Remember, there are other knots that can safely serve the purpose just as well. It's not worth it. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The sheepshank has a single half hitch at each end. The trucker's hitch can be tied with a single half hitch too, which works ok for low tensions in stiff ropes.  But that version is certainly liable to capsize.  If you add a second half hitch, as in the picture you don't like, the security improves a lot.  if the separation between the two half hitches is too great, spilling is still possible, but when they are positioned close to each other the knot is quite secure as long as it remains under tension.   Once again it is not Wikipedia's job to try to be responsible for every dumb thing a reader might ever do, and to remove information accordingly.  I would bet that far more accidents are caused by using rope that's too weak, not securing the load in enough places, tying the load down in such a way as it can shift and come loose, and any number of other stupid mistakes than from using the wrong version of the trucker's hitch.  It seems a little silly to me to try to save readers from themselves by attempting to hide this interesting knot from them.   I'll add a louder warning not to use it in situations where failure could be dangerous. Rracecarr (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Using the bottom bight as a pulley in the Truckers hitch greatly stabilizes the bottom part of the Sheepshank, but the weakness of the Sheepshank is just as bad at one end as the other. The Trucker's hitch version is just as vulnerable to fail at the top as a Sheepshank is to fail at either end. Keeping a short distance between the loops might help, but it's very unlikely to eliminate the risk completely or even reduce it to an acceptable level. It might make sense to ignore a small risk except that there are other knots that work just as well. Using the Sheepshank version of the Trucker's Hitch isn't a dumb thing to do. Many intelligent people used it without knowing that it can just collapse under heavy load. Some people such as yourself (I assume you don't consider yourself dumb) might not even believe when told, that it could collapse, unless it was demonstrated. When Wikipedia knows that some information might be used dangerously by people of normal intelligence, putting innocent third parties at risk, and there is no good reason to display the dangerous idea other than it is a mildly interesting variation of something that can be done just as well another way, then it IS the job, or at least decent thing to do, for Wikipedia's editors to leave out that info. There are many more dangerous things that cause accidents, but that doesn't mean this one should be perpetuated. Having a load line go slack is something that could easily happen by accident to almost any intelligent person, even if they took care to prevent it. Unexpected things happen. I've had it happen to me. And judging by the tie in jobs I've seen others do, I'm a lot better at this than average. It's interesting, but if you are interested in the theory of knots, you will surely become acquainted with the Sheepshank, and Wikipedia has an article about it. But we should keep it safe in the Trucker's Hitch article. We have a quote from the most famous knot book of all time that the Sheepshank is unsafe unless bound, and probably the most popular knot website in the world says that it should never be used, and reports a demonstration proving its vulnerability, and for what it's worth, there is also me saying it shouldn't be taught for this purpose. And since there are other knots that work just as well, the only reason left to include it seems to be that it is mildly interesting, though there is an article on the Sheepshank to fulfill such interest. Mindbuilder (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it say anywhere in Wikipedia policy that potentially dangerous things should be deleted? Should we delete the article on base jumping so as not to give people dangerous ideas?  In my opinion, no.  It is oversimplifying to say that there are other knots that work just as well, I think.  A carrick bend is more secure than a reef knot for tying two ropes together.  That does not mean there should be no reef knot article.  And sometimes, a reef knot is better than a carrick bend--if the need is temporary and will not be subjected to much tension, a reef knot is much more quickly tied, and it's smaller and consumes less rope.  Similarly, there are situations where a sheepshank trucker's hitch might actually be preferable to other versions.  I'm not aware of any other version that does not require access to the end of the rope.  It is probably easier to untie after loading than any other version.  Of course, there are many situations where other knots are better.  But there is no knot that is the best choice in every circumstance, so if that was the requirement for inclusion, every single knot article would need to be deleted.


 * I think we've both pretty much made our points, and are apparently not convincing each other: I'm not sure there's much point in continuing this debate. Instead, we should seek a compromise.  I would like to keep the sheepshank trucker's hitch image in the article, or, better, replace it with one that shows the finishing half hitch, but I'd be happy to include whatever additional text or images you feel is warranted. Rracecarr (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

In defence of the sheepshank-style Trucker's Hitch
Safety concerns are always an issue, but are best addressed by making the dangers clear, rather than by censorship. Should we stop eating for fear of choking?

Anyway, I would like to point out the one very clear and outstanding advantage of the sheepshank style of trucker's hitch, that being that it does not require the end of the rope to be tied. This means that an extremely long rope can be used to make several crossings of a load, being tied at one end, without endless noodles having to be passed through a knot at each tie. The tie (if done properly) may be done using the standing part each time. It is recommended that, in this case, a bight be taken and a clove-hitch be tied after each couple of trucker's hitches, to ensure that one failure is not passed on and the load is lost.

A simple way to add security to a system of knots tied in this way is to pass a spare line through each of the bights at the end of each sheep shank.

The advantages as well as dangers should be known about knots - let's not erase the wisdom of our predecessors in an effort to become nannies.

I may submit a video to explain what I have described, in due course.

Wikiuserami (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ratcheting the finishing knot
The newly added paragraph about ratcheting finishing knots (by an unidentified user - IP number!?!) is unclear and needs a reference, and either an illustration, or a better description.Cobanyastigi (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)