thinwater

Members
  • Content Count

    776
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Kiss-ass

About thinwater

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://sail-delmarva.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-book-store.html

Profile Information

  • Location
    Deale, MD
  • Interests
    Sailing, climbing, kayaking

Recent Profile Visitors

3,474 profile views
  1. thinwater

    How much would you spend?

    ^^ This. Form follows function, or it is just jewelry.
  2. thinwater

    Chain Splice v. Thimble and Shackle

    I ONLY prefer the irony splice IF the back splice won't feed. My last windlass (Lewmar vertical) would jam on back splices and shovel splices, which leads to a sharp stress on the windlass and the potential for putting your fingers at risk. I use a back splice on my current boat. I could use a thimble, but... One more thing to snag on the roller. More failure points. Rougher on the hands. Thimbles have been known to shift in the splice, cutting the rope. When nylon comes under load the splice with loosen a bit because the legs stretch. I've seen it a few times on old mooring lines. I am not a fan of thimbles unless there is no other way to avoid chafe or spread the load, and there often is.
  3. thinwater

    Chain Splice v. Thimble and Shackle

    Data. Prove it. I've used both on multiple boats and I have pull-tested strength. There is no difference in strength (Google it) and there is no chafe with a chain splice (the chain does not move inside the splice). Sorry. I don't think you really need to coat the last link. If you chop the last links and the last few feet of rope every 3-5 years like you should and redo it, corrosion will be minimal. Faster than fooling with coatings. This amounts to 10 feet or so over the life of the combined rode. If you are any good at splicing, it takes 10 minutes while you drink a beer. Easy. splicing over a beer
  4. thinwater

    What is a through deck bush?

    I can think of some applications if the minimum deck thickness was dramatically less, like 1/2 the inside diameter instead of 2x the inside diameter. They need to work with 5-12 mm thickness, with 8-16 mm rope, to serve the purposes I can think of. Like a LFR you can install on a spar or thin deck.
  5. thinwater

    Anchor Geekdom

    Absolutely. It would be good to repeat some of the areas (Solomon's Island) Fortress used. Otherwise, it depends on where you are, anything from fine sand that will max out your gear, to flat rock (useless) and oyster rock and cobbles. We don't anchor in healthy weeds for environmental reasons, but there are areas of old dead submerged grass and lumps of clay that are a challenge. Also thin sand over impenetrable clay. But most areas are variable mud, with sticks and oyster shells sometimes problematic. There can be soft mud over a hard layer of shells, which is bad. Sandy mud and loose sand don't really exist, or at least I have never found them. The biggest problem is probably the layering, where soft mud lies over something older and hard, like an old oyster bar. The down side is that photography will be challenging, to say the least. In shallow water in the winter the visibility might be acceptable, but in summer, forget it, too much algae. Definitely consider adding a bright light and rigging the camera closer to the anchors. You can kinna see when you dive if you have a flashlight, maybe 2-3 feet. Nobody dives on an anchor.
  6. thinwater

    Anchor Geekdom

    I can confirm that the Fortress Solomon's Island test site that Fortress used is thin soup. I've anchored there and tested there. In anything remotely firm, the standard setting is more reliable. A locally common seabed. The anchor can literally pull >5 feet underground, and you may not get it back.
  7. thinwater

    Combo PFD/Harness?

    As he said, they are not load rated AT ALL. I had conversations with several of the makers regarding harness designs that could take a fall and they basically said "not interested." It can be done with just a little redesign. I took eight 6-foot drops on this design, destroying the climbing rope section used in the process. Barely felt the impact, strength to spare. The leg loops are also more comfortable moving on-deck, because they stay in position. Unlike the climbing harness style they resemble, they are self adjusting for movement. load bearing leg loops
  8. thinwater

    Anchor Geekdom

    I did not mean to imply an anchor should be "just strong enough," only that like rode strength, we might want to think about how we should define "strong enough." It seems we have decided the Llyods requirement (40x anchor mass applied in a straight line at about 1/3 of the way from the fluke tip to shank attachment) is not enough. Lloyds does not have a side-bend requirement. And there is no roll bar strength requirement. I'm just posing the question of what better tests might be, what they would be based on, and how the requirement should be related to anchor mass. I don't have an opinion on the topic since I've never bent an anchor, even in testing. I didn't have a big motor, so if they wouldn't winch up or pull loose with wave action, I dove. I never used boat momentum; it seemed like too good a way to break something expensive. But I've seen a lot of bent pivoting fluke anchors, generally damaged by using boat momentum on a deeply set anchor.Although some claim they were damaged by a storm, they obviously don't know what they looked like BEFORE they strained to recover them. We don't have many rocks here, but we do have some very sticky mud and pivoting fluke anchors do NOT like to rotate (veer) when deeply set in sticky mud. So I don't know. I just though you had an interesting point when you implied that 1000 pounds on the tip may not be a fair test for a 12-pound anchor. Lloyds does not think so. Maybe, maybe not. But surely there should be a number past which testing is false, just as we don't fault a rope that fails above its rated strength.
  9. thinwater

    Anchor Geekdom

    The Fortress brings into highlight a difference between veer testing and reset testing. It's isn't the only anchor that shows different veer performance than reset performance, just the most obvious. What would happen if the veer test was run at 50% lower force, such that the anchor did not start rotating right away? Maybe this is more representative of a real front passage (one where the anchor is not truly straining through the whole turn). I'm guessing some anchors will rotate, some will resist for 90 degrees and then reset, and some will do something in between. The soil type and how hard they were set first will matter. The comment about maximum probably force regarding 12-pound anchors makes an interesting point. On my 34-foot catamaran the maximum storm force (measured at about 60 knot squall) was about 1300 pounds, with all chain rode, 12 mile fetch, and a snubber. That boat used a 35-pound new generation anchor, and some might go 45 pounds, although it came with a 25-pound Delta (which was too small in soft mud). The windlass could pull about 600 pounds. My F-24 trimaran, has about half that rode tension, and I've been using 12-pound anchors, though 17-pounds is more the recommended size (I'm mostly day sailing, if there are squalls I find a secure cove, and I can always set two if that feels right). Anchor recovery is by armstrong and the bouncing of the bow, unlikely more than a few hundred pounds. The rode tension at 35 knots, the most I have measured and the most I will likely every feel in a good cove, is 175 pounds, or about 10 times the weight of the anchor I probably should have. So less, 500 pounds is a very serious test for a 12-pound anchor, and 1000 pounds is something a small boat just can't apply. Of course charter boats (and manic testers) can be pretty abusive. So what is the maximum force an anchor should endure without bending? The most it can hold without dragging in good sand? Llyods, I recall, requires about 40x the anchor mass, but the force is not applied to the tip, but about 1/4 of the way back. The Viking would have passed that (480 pounds) easily. But maybe that is not enough. An anchor may be asked to hold 40-50 times its mass in a storm, and a safety factor for jamming under rocks and bending is nice. Maybe the the Lloyd mass applied to the tip would be a good test. I have stopped fluke (Guardian) anchor tests at 200x weight because it seemed foolish to break something at that point. I'm certain the anchor would have failed had the load been on the tips. What would a reasonable test be for a roll bar? They can be bent by soil, and I've snagged them on rocks.
  10. thinwater

    Line choice: continuous line splice

    I should have explained. You don't need a full-strength splice. You can lose the core. Along with some tapering, there is no change in size. It works because the rope was sized for hand, not strength. The cover alone is over one ton.
  11. thinwater

    Line choice: continuous line splice

    If the mainsheet is hand-tensioned, how much strength do you actually need? 50 pounds? I Doubt it is a consideration.
  12. thinwater

    Using an Anchor without a roller ?

    The quality of answers will improve if you tell us the boat size and anchor weight. Otherwise it's a guessing game. For example, my avitar tells you what I sail.
  13. thinwater

    How to deal with freezing spray?

    Frozen lines and furlers are an southerner's problem. How do you suppose ice climbers deal with this problem on frozen waterfalls? A rope that is even slightly stiff cannot be used for either belaying or rappelling, and is thus deadly. The answer is that you dry treat your ropes with Nicwax Rope Pruf or some equivalent product. I do this with ice climbing ropes every season. I also treat some of the boat ropes, not for freezing specifically, but because they handle better (the treatment replaces the spinning lubes, making for a softer hand and less squeaking--like fabric softener, but it lasts a lot longer and the rope stays drier and lighter). I've sailed below freezing many times, but when the decks start to ice the fun goes away. I'd need a very good reason, like being well paid. Sailing in snow can actually be kinna fun, in a twisted way.
  14. thinwater

    Viking Anchors?

    Having several patents, I am sensitive to IP. BUT, if it is functionally different (and any anchor tester would agree that the changes in angles are large enough to make that claim) then it is not a copy. Visual resemblance only matters in copyright and trademarks. By the same token, if the angles made it functionally identical but it had more visual differences, then I would say it is a copy. There are also detailed design patents, but they are very, very specific, and generally only prevent "splashed" copies. For example, three companies make antifreeze. The first is company A and their product is red, uses chemistry "Y", and is pattented. Then comes company B with a red product and chemistry X. Finally, comes company C, with a green product using chemistry Y. Which one has violated the patent? Obviously, company C. I'm not sayin' the Viking is better. I'm not sayin' because have not tested a Viking anchor. The Mantus angles make it the fastest engaging anchor into nearly all bottoms, and that is something. Every anchor is a compromise, and we'll just have to see where it falls in the continuum. There are lots of anchors I like.
  15. thinwater

    Viking Anchors?

    . I see lots of Delta shanks out there. In fact, this is a funny case of obvious superficial resemblance, but considerable differences in all of the angles that make them up. Usually copy cats do the opposite (similar angles but superficially different). Thus, I'd expect it to be quite different in several key ways, and I've seen those differences reported, but I'm not going to report or judge at this time (not enough reports out there). Anchors are about evolution, with only rare step changes (which aren't all better).