Odd eye splice

[zoidberg]

I sought to work eye splices into some polyester rodes I have, and discovered the lengths of 16mm 'double braid' aren't double braid. The core is NOT braided, but comprised of 4 strands of laid polyester fibre, two RH and two LH. This core is not tubular, so I cannot bury the cover inside it as one would seek to do, with a conventional braid-on-braid eye splice.

How might I form reliable eye splices into this material?

 

[thinwater]

I sought to work eye splices into some polyester rodes I have, and discovered the lengths of 16mm 'double braid' aren't double braid. The core is NOT braided, but comprised of 4 strands of laid polyester fibre, two RH and two LH. This core is not tubular, so I cannot bury the cover inside it as one would seek to do, with a conventional braid-on-braid eye splice.

How might I form reliable eye splices into this material?

Google eye splices for climbing rope. They are based on this sort of S/Z construction. However, climbing ropes have most of the strength in the core, whereas this looks 50/50. The principles are not much different, but the method is a little different. Lock stitching/whipping is also required.

 

[zoidberg]

Thanks for that, Drewe. I shall be using those rodes for 'Rigging some Modern Anchors' so I do want to get it about right.

And yes, I would consider that 'my' rodes have an expected load distribution of 50:50. If I find myself stuck, I may have to drive over to the place where they're made, and knock on the door.....

Edit: Of course, you've been down this path before, I recall.....

Are you still content that such an eye can achieve something close to 100% of rated rope strength? Even 85% would suffice....

 

[Neeves]

Most sailmakers would make you a sewn eye splice and/or as you suggest the manufacturers of the rope will do the same.

These are eyes I had made in my bridles, climbing rope to a similar construction to the rope you have. The addition is the shrink sleeve, added by the rope maker. These are 13mm diameter



I believe it is not uncommon for climbing rope, or rope to a kernmantle construction, to be sold with the sewn splices provided as standard (including Marlow) - which suggest no fear of weakening of the rope - though many climbers don't like a sewn eye as it provides a restriction if you need to retrieve rope.

Jonathan

 

[zoidberg]

That's a good solution, Jon. Perhaps I can find a willing accomplice with a suitable sewing machine.

 

[Neeves]

That's a good solution, Jon. Perhaps I can find a willing accomplice with a suitable sewing machine.

You would need a pretty hefty sewing machine.

It depends how many eyes you need to make but you can sew by hand, use braided dyneema fishing line. But if you are a good customer then your local sailmaker can sew the eyes, maybe for free. It would take a few minutes.

Consider that if you are considering a textile rode - some textiles float. It might be an idea to have a couple of metres of chain at the eye as this will reduce abrasion of the rope. When modern anchors set, Spade, Rocna, Excel, Viking etc they set by burying the shackle and the toe at the same time - so the rope at the shackle will suffer from some abrasion. If its a Fortress the shackles buries last and the whole fluke buries before the shackle.

Jonathan

 

[Daydream believer]

Treat the core a bit like a marlow braid rope & use the marlow braid method shown here
Splice
I have used it & it is quite easy. I do not consider it a strong as the usual braid on braid splice where the inner core is also hollow.
No need to do the whipping method shown above, although I do put some whipping through the tails when finished.

 

[thinwater]

You would need a pretty hefty sewing machine.

It depends how many eyes you need to make but you can sew by hand, use braided dyneema fishing line. But if you are a good customer then your local sailmaker can sew the eyes, maybe for free. It would take a few minutes.

Consider that if you are considering a textile rode - some textiles float. It might be an idea to have a couple of metres of chain at the eye as this will reduce abrasion of the rope. When modern anchors set, Spade, Rocna, Excel, Viking etc they set by burying the shackle and the toe at the same time - so the rope at the shackle will suffer from some abrasion. If its a Fortress the shackles buries last and the whole fluke buries before the shackle.

Jonathan

The also make Dyneema whipping twine (Marlow). It is easier to sew with. But it is generarlly NOT stronger than sewing with polyester of the correct size, because the rope fibers fail first (the Dyneema cuts through). Yes, it is more chafe resistant ... but if it does fail, it is more prone to zippering, because the slippery Dyneema stitches can pull through. Polyester, on the other hand, locks up like a splice inside the rope (which is under tension and pinching) and does not zipper. For example, polyester knots better than dyneema and splices with much shorther buries. So it comes down to preference. I prefer heavy polyester because of the non-slip lock-up. Counter intuitive, but IMO and experience, slightly better. But both are good and manufacturers vary in practices.

Rodes are one of the few applications where I am not a fan of sewn eyes. The concern is chafe on the bottom. Yes, you can cover the stitching with heavy heat shrink or tubular webbing, but I would still rather splice if I can.

Also not a fan of sewing dock lines. Again, the concern is chafe. In that case, a know will do.

As for running rigging, I use sewn splices all the time, for a variety of reasons. They are always covered for UV and chafe:

• Shorter than a splice. Less bulky than a knot. Often tackles have a space limitation or there is a rub you want to avoid.
• Easier to re-do than a conventional splice. You can cut the stitching rather than cut the end off and loose length you may not have.
• Easier to get the length just right. This is one reason sailmakers like them on sails.
• Old rope can be VERY hard to splice. Often just not worth the bother.

Sewn correctly and covered I have never had a failure, except for testing (I have broken more than 100 in testing). The only eyes where stiching failed were when I intensionally reduced the stitch count to induce failures, or when I cut stitiches under load, to simulate chafe (to see if the stitching zippers--it does not if there is enough).

In fact, I sewed-up two eyes this afternoon, related to chafe testing of rope coatings. Very fast, once you get the hang.

 

[zoidberg]

I'm taking all that on board, thanks. I'm like that.....

 

[thinwater]

Trivia ... sort of.

One of the reasons climbing rope are so difficult to splice is that the cover is very tight, to prevent snagging on rock crystals and reduce abrasion. The reason yachting ropes do NOT have tight covers is not because this is structurally better (it is not in terms of chafe or holding in jammers), but so that they can be spliced.

This is not a climbing rope, the cover does not look tight, so splicing should not be difficult.

I think we are all curious what the rope is. Normally parrallel core with half Z and half S twist core is a specially item, used only when some very specific characteristics are needed (high fatigue resistance and non-rotational).

 

[zoidberg]

I'll try to find out, and report back.....

 

[Daydream believer]

The also make Dyneema whipping twine (Marlow). It is easier to sew with. But it is generarlly NOT stronger than sewing with polyester of the correct size, because the rope fibers fail first (the Dyneema cuts through). Yes, it is more chafe resistant ... but if it does fail, it is more prone to zippering, because the slippery Dyneema stitches can pull through. Polyester, on the other hand, locks up like a splice inside the rope (which is under tension and pinching) and does not zipper. For example, polyester knots better than dyneema and splices with much shorther buries. So it comes down to preference. I prefer heavy polyester because of the non-slip lock-up. Counter intuitive, but IMO and experience, slightly better. But both are good and manufacturers vary in practices.

Rodes are one of the few applications where I am not a fan of sewn eyes. The concern is chafe on the bottom. Yes, you can cover the stitching with heavy heat shrink or tubular webbing, but I would still rather splice if I can.

Also not a fan of sewing dock lines. Again, the concern is chafe. In that case, a know will do.

As for running rigging, I use sewn splices all the time, for a variety of reasons. They are always covered for UV and chafe:

• Shorter than a splice. Less bulky than a knot. Often tackles have a space limitation or there is a rub you want to avoid.
• Easier to re-do than a conventional splice. You can cut the stitching rather than cut the end off and loose length you may not have.
• Easier to get the length just right. This is one reason sailmakers like them on sails.
• Old rope can be VERY hard to splice. Often just not worth the bother.

Sewn correctly and covered I have never had a failure, except for testing (I have broken more than 100 in testing). The only eyes where stiching failed were when I intensionally reduced the stitch count to induce failures, or when I cut stitiches under load, to simulate chafe (to see if the stitching zippers--it does not if there is enough).

In fact, I sewed-up two eyes this afternoon, related to chafe testing of rope coatings. Very fast, once you get the hang.

Whilst the majority of the ropes have broken at places other than at the eye one might suggest that that may be due to it being chaffe on old quaility rope. What is evident ( although only from the picture so I may be wrong) is that the eyes that have been stiched are showing signs of distortion. That would immediately put me off such a method . even if as neat as shown in post #4. Although someone has deemed it desirable to add heat shrink & one might ask why? Abrasion on bridles?
I accept that in the picture above I cannot see any of the stitched eyes have actually failed before the rope broke . But not knowing the cause of the break & the distortion of the stitch , coupled with the poor quality puts me off it.
Looking at the green rope bottom right the eye has been formed using a traditional whipping ( actually an extra one has been added). This is infinitely quicker to form, Can be tighter, spreads the load across the whole rope. I would further point out that it shows zero sign of distortion. Of course , one might suggest that it has never had a load applied, so one cannot use the picture as proof. It would be my go to method.
The stitching in #4 is neat. I wonder how many would take the time to do as this. From the picture- very few.

 

[Neeves]

On heat shrink - why not?

Is there a technical reason not to use heat shrink? It cannot be economy - cheap as chips. It cannot be the impact of heat on the underlying rope - the temperatures are too low (if conducted properly).

Jonathan

 

[Daydream believer]

On heat shrink - why not?

Is there a technical reason not to use heat shrink? It cannot be economy - cheap as chips. It cannot be the impact of heat on the underlying rope - the temperatures are too low (if conducted properly).

Jonathan

Nothing against & it certainly stops a sharp point snagging a thread .Climbing ropes should get inspected regularly. That would be spotted quickly & dealt with.
Less likely to fail from such an event with the whipping on the green rope as it is bound the other way as well.

 

[srm]

I have been using sewn eyes for years. Hand sewn with nylon netting twine used by commercial fishermen then a tight whipping over it, again using the nylon twine as each turn is stretched as it is put on and then shrinks. I use the tarred twine and that has held for years in other applications where it has been exposed to sun and all weathers.

If you want a neat finish taper the tail and extend the whipping over it, or if worried about the whipping comming loose over a short taper use a second whipping to cover the tapered section.

 

[thinwater]

Whilst the majority of the ropes have broken at places other than at the eye one might suggest that that may be due to it being chaffe on old quaility rope. What is evident ( although only from the picture so I may be wrong) is that the eyes that have been stitched are showing signs of distortion. That would immediately put me off such a method . even if as neat as shown in post #4. Although someone has deemed it desirable to add heat shrink & one might ask why? Abrasion on bridles?
I accept that in the picture above I cannot see any of the stitched eyes have actually failed before the rope broke . But not knowing the cause of the break & the distortion of the stitch , coupled with the poor quality puts me off it.
Looking at the green rope bottom right the eye has been formed using a traditional whipping ( actually an extra one has been added). This is infinitely quicker to form, Can be tighter, spreads the load across the whole rope. I would further point out that it shows zero sign of distortion. Of course , one might suggest that it has never had a load applied, so one cannot use the picture as proof. It would be my go to method.
The stitching in #4 is neat. I wonder how many would take the time to do as this. From the picture- very few.

You have taken a photo posted in fun, on a forum, completely out of context and looked for meaning within it that just is not there. I have published many articles on the topic; the data is there. Simply, you are seeing what you want to see and annalyzine beyond the data presented. The picture was really taken just for fun and as the bait to draw the eye, on the cover of an article. The actual test pictures came with detailed desciptions and were ... visually boring. But to explain a few things to other readers:

I said in the post that many of the failures were intentionally under stitched, so it is not surpising at all that stitching is strained in some cases. Most of the samples have less than half the stitch count that would be specified. Some of the ropes were old because we want to see if the failure patterns were different from new rope, since I said that one of the reasons to use stitched eyes is that old rope can be impossible to splice. However, most of thetesting (not pictured) was done using new StaSet. Other rope types were also tested, as well as a number of thread materials.

Some of the samples were actually chafe test samples. The goldenrod dog bone on top, for example, was very quickly stitched, put on a chafe machine for hours under low load, and the extent of chafe examined visually. Later, after this image, it was pull tested (it was so chafed on the under side that it failed in the section marked with tape, not the poor stitching).

The green example you point out as better is actually one of the weakest ways to make a sewn eye (many testing iterations), less than 1/2 the strength of the round stitching pattern. It is easy and traditional, and neat looking (not a good measure) but not actually strong, which is why climbing equipment is never sewn that way. Kind of obvious, if you think about that.

---

There is no simple take-away on this topic. Commercially, ropes are either sewn and spliced, depending on the type of rope and application. Anyone who says either method is always "better" has either not learned the topic or is selling something.

 

[zoidberg]

Hmmm. One of the trubls with Thinwater is that he actually knows stuff....

 

[Daydream believer]

Hmmm. One of the trubls with Thinwater is that he actually knows stuff....

Well he says he does, so he must do. ?

 

[thinwater]

Please, break out your sewing kits and splicing kits, make some stuff, break it with a tension meter in line, and report back. The more people that report expereinces, the more we learn.

The primary concerns with sewn joining methods are chafe and UV, which is why good covers are vital. The stitching itself, with a little testing, is not that hard to make bullet proof, which is one reason so much climbing gea is stitched. But anchoring and docking are pottenciall very high chafe, so I don't use sewn splices for those. Tucked is generally better, and knot will do fine most of the time (for example, docklines fail from chafe or rubbing through a chock, not near the splice or in a knot). I venture the same is true of anchor rodes, but we most oten splice those because of handling problems with knots (catch on the roller side plates etc.).

 

[Daydream believer]

Please, break out your sewing kits and splicing kits, make some stuff, break it with a tension meter in line, and report back.

One does not need a tension meter for something that has worked for the past 50 years. If the basic product is the same ( agreed that may alter) & it does the job, one might ask why one needs to change? Experience in the field has a lot to answer for ?