Jump to content

Anchor Geekdom


Recommended Posts

I bought another Bruce ($150, Craigslist) to add to the Bruce "scaling" investigation.

This one is 50kg/110lb.  It was a hassle fitting to the bow roller because the toe interfered with the trailer winch/pylon.  Anchor is "boosted" up by a block of wood that will be removed after launching.

Weather looks good for a test tomorrow. 

Will film the looks on peoples faces if they notice this monstrosity.

9feUIxh.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think saw Q made the place a bit un-friendly. Who needs that?

When I started the anchor videos, it was just the underwater stuff and on-screen text.  Right away the accusations started flying that I was working for a particular anchor manufacturer.  Understandab

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Panope said:

 

Rocna would probably compare more favorably in another part of the world with different seabeds.

A7wkGtz.png

Its quite possible that the soft mud holding is the reason its got so much favour around here. 
On the Humber the mud is literally so soft that the boats at the yacht club dry out upright and pretty much to their waterlines.

Thanks for the information & charts, very interesting, & nice to see some independent testing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, the Dyneema Dead Man anchor rode was damaged during the last anchor testing.

- maximum load on this line was 2,400 lbs. (20,000 lb. breaking strength). 

- damage is confined to a 4' section, mid span.

- damage confined to a narrow strip oriented "axially" (like a mohawk). 

- damage appears to have occurred when the line was under tension (straight nature) and therefore unlikely to have been cause by the propeller because this is the "dead mad" rode which is deployed forward of the bow.

- under "high" load, the damaged area could have passed over the bow roller, but NOT over the aluminum "turn" of the aft part of the bow roller structure (see pic).  

- under "hand" load, the damaged area could have come into the "side cheeks" of the bow roller.  

- damaged area was unlikely to have come in contact with the seafloor because Dyneema is positively buoyant.  I did place a few lead weights along the rode to keep the line clear of passing boats (there were no passing boats).

The Damaged section will be removed. 

I am completely stumped and I hope it does not happen again.

CYQS6dU.jpg

ojYlaof.jpg

2fNiPr7.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2021 at 9:33 PM, Panope said:

I am completely stumped

 

From the photos you posted, I would double check the weld beads on either side of the roller channel - make sure they are super smooth and there is not even a single spot which could catch strands.

That is not overloading damage - it is some sort of snag/cut damage.  And unless there is some other area outside your photos it would seem to either be the weld beads or like an abandoned refrigerator sitting on the bottom. 

I am always curious to see the remaining strength left in damaged dyneema - if you ever get the urge to make a bang, I would be curious what the breaking strength of that section is now.  I would guess it lost a lot of strength (like 50%? - depends on if those are different strands which are cut or if it is the same set each time), but it still may be above what you are comfortable pulling.

Interesting testing on the Bruce - thanks for doing that - still puzzles me, but is definitely useful objective fact to throw into the equation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, estarzinger said:

That is not overloading damage - it is some sort of snag/cut damage. 

I agree.  I'll check again for a snag.  Part of the damaged area could not have reached the weld beads.

 

2 hours ago, estarzinger said:

I am always curious to see the remaining strength left in damaged dyneema - if you ever get the urge to make a bang, I would be curious what the breaking strength of that section is now.  I would guess it lost a lot of strength (like 50%? - depends on if those are different strands which are cut or if it is the same set each time), but it still may be above what you are comfortable pulling.

.

I'd love to break (test) the damaged section but I am really not set up for it.

I could drop it in the mail, however.

Being on a strict Dyneema budget/ration, I did not leave much material to "grab hold of" adjacent to the damaged area when I cut it away. Sample is about 5 feet long with the worst damage favoring one end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Panope said:

I could drop it in the mail, however.

I'm in full bicycle mode atm, shop all taken over with 6 active bikes and associated parts and equipment, trying to build my efforts back up after taking most of covid year off.  So my pulling bench is all tucked away. But keep the damaged section and one of us or thinwater might have time to give it a pull this winter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had long observed that mud fouling seemed to have little affect on my Spade, much as Steve is experiencing in this video, which is even more surprising given the results for other anchors. I have no explanation for this, except perhaps the excellent tip weight.  Any theories?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Garth, I think Spade's marketing says/said that being a spade (concave) shaped fluke makes it hold better than a plow (convex) shape; the plow anchor plows a furow where a spade goes in the seabed like a shovel and sticks.  I have to say that my Fortress f16 holds much better in mud than my Spade A80.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eric1207 said:

Garth, I think Spade's marketing says/said that being a spade (concave) shaped fluke makes it hold better than a plow (convex) shape; the plow anchor plows a furow where a spade goes in the seabed like a shovel and sticks.  I have to say that my Fortress f16 holds much better in mud than my Spade A80.

Have you bothered installing the "mud attachment" that changes the angle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blue, I've never had a plow type anchor.  I just recall the above from Spade's marketing info of some 6 years ago.  Are you saying that Spade has a mud attachment that will bring it up to Fortress's mud effectiveness?  My Fortress does not have the mud plates, I don't seem to need them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, eric1207 said:

Blue, I've never had a plow type anchor.  I just recall the above from Spade's marketing info of some 6 years ago.  Are you saying that Spade has a mud attachment that will bring it up to Fortress's mud effectiveness?  My Fortress does not have the mud plates, I don't seem totalk need them.

Nah ,I was just talking Fortress. I have several (long story).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2021 at 8:12 AM, gwilcox said:

I had long observed that mud fouling seemed to have little affect on my Spade, much as Steve is experiencing in this video, which is even more surprising given the results for other anchors. I have no explanation for this, except perhaps the excellent tip weight.  Any theories?

It is possible that the mud that is observed on the fluke after retrieving is collected entirely during the upward "breakout" process.

I could test this by breaking out the anchor, and then attempt a set without clearing the mud.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

@Panope

was in the local marine resale thrift, and there stands a Fortress 125. They want $500 for it…

Not a bad price if it is in new condition (the big ones often are because who in the heck could possibly handle such a beast!).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, that Viking anchor just knocks it out of the park, doesn't it?  I never heard a peep about it until I noticed it by accident on your channel, on that table posted above, then went back and found the actual videos.  I know you want to test everything, but I'm really curious about this anchor and what it makes it nearly perfect.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, low bum said:

Boy, that Viking anchor just knocks it out of the park, doesn't it?  I never heard a peep about it until I noticed it by accident on your channel, on that table posted above, then went back and found the actual videos.  I know you want to test everything, but I'm really curious about this anchor and what it makes it nearly perfect.

Viking anchors are somewhat larger (dimensionally) than other anchors of the same weight.  In an effort to maintain the needed strength, high strength steels are used throughout the anchor, not just the shank.  I will note, however, that the rollbar on the Viking 20kg, while positively massive in height, uses a quite small diameter tube/pipe.  This rollbar is easily deflected by hand and may permanently deform when subjected to high anchoring loads, similar to the way Mantus M1 rollbars bend (I have bent 2 M1 rollbars during testing).  Stay tuned as I continue testing the larger anchor's max holding power with the new winch test rig.

The question of "how strong does an anchor need to be" will never be answered once and for all.  Too many variables - especially the large differences in individual risk assessment and tolerance.

That said, I will keep torturing anchors as best I can and giving reports.  Last week, the shank of a new (to me) test anchor (not a Viking) did bend during my 180 degree reset test. 

Steve

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panope Have you considered (or completed) tests of identical scopes at varying water depths? e.g. 3:1 at 15, 30, & 45 ft? My experiences have convinced me  200ft chain + water depth in rode as a maximum is safe unless I'm able to get the chain bar tight but it's always reassuring to see empirical data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clime,  I have not conducted "same scope - different depth" testing.  I reckon it would make for a good demonstration even though the math (amount of catenary) is well understood.  A potential problem:  I cannot be sure the seabed will have the same consistency at the various depths.  At 15 feet, eelgrass will be prevalent.  Deeper depths will be further from the beach and have more/less sand.

I'll think about it.

Steve  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

Any thoughts or plans for the Kobra from Plastimo? I’ve seen it mentioned around as a good budget option, though I have the feeling it’s a cheap delta clone. 

Theres also the Bügel and the Brittany .. you see them around Europe particularly in charter trade. 

(I’m a simple Bruce & Fortress man, but looking to upgrade to an Excel or Spade next season)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

Can you do more tests on anchors in the <15 lb range? Many more people own smaller boats than those that own larger boats. Most of your tests are ~20+ lb anchors. A lot of people with 15-25'' boats will be really interested in the smaller anchors.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 23feet said:

Hi Steve,

Can you do more tests on anchors in the <15 lb range? Many more people own smaller boats than those that own larger boats. Most of your tests are ~20+ lb anchors. A lot of people with 15-25'' boats will be really interested in the smaller anchors.

Thanks

23footer,

A light anchor study would be great - for a later time.  I am swamped with life, work, and a ton of testing to be done on the larger anchors.

Also, the cost of purchasing another batch of anchors is more than I can justify at this time.

That said, if someone were to send to me, an 8 pound Mantus "Quick Connect Stainless Steel" model, I would br glad to fit that one in.  The similarly constructed, 2.5 pound Mantus Dinghy anchor had VERY impressive performance and I wonder if it scales up.  If so, the 8 pounder could be a real winner.

Steve

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity - I re-ranked that table by how I think the long distance cruiser might think - eg wanting an anchor that has the least bad performance in its worst bottom condition.  The bottom 4 anchor stay the same - but the top several have some change in rank order.


image.png.5be10b0f435241c1d79f98f1a85034bb.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

Steve seemed to think the Vulcan was well made. Any reason to fear the Made in China factor?

when motivated to do it well, the Chinese can do metal work as well as anyone.

the only question is whether they are supervised and motivated sufficiently to continue to do it well and not to cut corners

we had the case with rocna where the Chinese factory substituted lower grade steel than specified, which was hard to detect unless you were specifically testing for it

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

when motivated to do it well, the Chinese can do metal work as well as anyone.

the only question is whether they are supervised and motivated sufficiently to continue to do it well and not to cut corners

we had the case with rocna where the Chinese factory substituted lower grade steel than specified, which was hard to detect unless you were specifically testing for it

That's exactly the problem. Was your anchor made while the supervisor was on holidays?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

when motivated to do it well, the Chinese can do metal work as well as anyone.

the only question is whether they are supervised and motivated sufficiently to continue to do it well and not to cut corners

we had the case with rocna where the Chinese factory substituted lower grade steel than specified, which was hard to detect unless you were specifically testing for it

Happens all the time. In a past life I had 3 high volume plants for industrial compressors.  What was one of the biggest teams? Receiving.  Castings with bubbles or inclusions? Castings with the wrong alloy? Anyway, we left all of the high precision / high tolerance stuff back in Taiwan. (non-US firm)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2021 at 10:52 AM, robtoujours said:

Steve,

Any thoughts or plans for the Kobra from Plastimo? I’ve seen it mentioned around as a good budget option, though I have the feeling it’s a cheap delta clone. 

Theres also the Bügel and the Brittany .. you see them around Europe particularly in charter trade. 

(I’m a simple Bruce & Fortress man, but looking to upgrade to an Excel or Spade next season)

Those do interest me, especially the Bugel.  Also, the Bullwagga would be intriguing.

I'll test pretty much anything that falls into my lap, but for now, I need to wrap up testing of the current anchors and get on with finding more challenging seabeds.

Given enough time, I believe that nearly every anchor type in existence will become available to me by way of Manufacturer submissions, Private party lending/donating, or Craigslist.

The flow of anchors into my shed as been constant, if not increasing.  Last count was 46 anchors in my shed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, estarzinger said:

Just out of curiosity - I re-ranked that table by how I think the long distance cruiser might think - eg wanting an anchor that has the least bad performance in its worst bottom condition.  The bottom 4 anchor stay the same - but the top several have some change in rank order.


image.png.5be10b0f435241c1d79f98f1a85034bb.png

It occurred to me that in addition to a long distance cruiser, a local mariner who, for whatever reason, simply does not know what seabeds lie beneath him/her - could find value in this 'least bad in worst bottom' data.

Going forward, I hope to focus on more challenging seabeds.  I want to find places where a good number of anchors do not set at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking at a bay with a big mound of old scallop shells in its middle, my bet is this is the worst holding bottom you can find…

CA63B985-593E-4A14-BD6C-78C402FA0AE8.thumb.png.0c5decd68670489a630de5ce6047c70e.png

 

it’s the spot in the middle with no moorings, it’s shallow as well..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, estarzinger said:

Just out of curiosity - I re-ranked that table by how I think the long distance cruiser might think - eg wanting an anchor that has the least bad performance in its worst bottom condition.  The bottom 4 anchor stay the same - but the top several have some change in rank order.


image.png.5be10b0f435241c1d79f98f1a85034bb.png

From an engineering perspective the Viking looks like a design that will develop some exceeding high stresses in some loading situations.  The flat design of the leading part isn't a robust design. 

Particularly if a snatch load ends up on the point ( hooked on rock or coral)  its likely to yield. The roll bar also looks extremely flimsy. To me it looks more like a backup emergency anchor rather than a main permanent anchor. 

The Vulcan is a much stronger looking design as is the Excel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

How did that happen? Some huge seafood restaurant using the pace as a bin?

The Scallop processor on the shore to the south dumped the shells there over decades.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Panope said:

Those do interest me, especially the Bugel.  Also, the Bullwagga would be intriguing.

I'll test pretty much anything that falls into my lap, but for now, I need to wrap up testing of the current anchors and get on with finding more challenging seabeds.

Given enough time, I believe that nearly every anchor type in existence will become available to me by way of Manufacturer submissions, Private party lending/donating, or Craigslist.

The flow of anchors into my shed as been constant, if not increasing.  Last count was 46 anchors in my shed.

 

Thanks Steve,

sounds like you have some sort of modern art installation at this point! Maybe charge admission to the shed? ;-)

The Bugel and Britany anchors are budget options for sure. 

Jimmy Green in the UK is my usual chandlery for safety critical stuff, though they’re not the cheapest. They have some interesting information on their site.

So with JG a 22lb Britany is 90€, 44lb is 180€. My experience (not my boat) was ok for a lunch hook but otherwise poor - but it was undersized for the boat I was on. Like the Kobra a Plastimo product. 

Have no direct experience with the Bugel, but SVB24 in Germany sell a version called “Skorpio” - 20lb for €72, 44lb for €154.

The Kobra 22lb from SVB is €137, 44lb is €237.

Not sure if you ever tested a genuine Bruce vs a Lewmar or cheaper copy of the same weight? Bruce anchors seem to be almost universally used by small trawlers and fishermen around here. 

I also came across this 2006 German test article from Segeln which compares a good few anchors. 

http://www.marine-moerth.com/Katalog2010/Ankertest.pdf

Let me know if you want any translations (within reason)

Thanks again for your work, I’ll have to head to Patreon soon to chip in ..

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panope said:

Going forward, I hope to focus on more challenging seabeds.  I want to find places where a good number of anchors do not set at all.

Well, we've mentioned the hardpan bottoms in Biscayne Bay but no need to go to all that expense and travel. Next huge rain, go find a parking lot under water ... et voila! ... anchor testbed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Well, we've mentioned the hardpan bottoms in Biscayne Bay but no need to go to all that expense and travel. Next huge rain, go find a parking lot under water ... et voila! ... anchor testbed.

It is soooooo tempting for me to "engineer" a test bed.

So far I have resisted.

Trying to keep it real.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MikeJohns said:

From an engineering perspective the Viking looks like a design that will develop some exceeding high stresses in some loading situations.  The flat design of the leading part isn't a robust design. 

Particularly if a snatch load ends up on the point ( hooked on rock or coral)  its likely to yield. The roll bar also looks extremely flimsy. To me it looks more like a backup emergency anchor rather than a main permanent anchor. 

The Vulcan is a much stronger looking design as is the Excel.

Agreed.  

Viking 7kg after a straight line holding test (1,100+lbs.).  The toe of the anchor had (unknowingly) come up against a large boulder.  Toe bent downward during the test - NOT during retrieval.  Anchor released as a result of the anchor bending.

Viking as since changed the design such that the "thickened" part of the toe has a "V" shape rather than a "straight" stress riser across the fluke (where my anchor bent).  Probably not a huge improvement, but is something. 

Also, Viking lengthened the shank "base plate" (not visible in picture) to extend underneath (and help support) the toe.  Also not a huge improvement (because this "stack" of plates are not fully connected to each other), but is something.

To Vikings credit, considering the size of this anchor, the loads involved would be an extremely rare event (hurricane + lodged up against a boulder).

S6sL8WX.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Panope said:

Agreed.  

Viking 7kg after a straight line holding test (1,100+lbs.).  The toe of the anchor had (unknowingly) come up against a large boulder.  Toe bent downward during the test - NOT during retrieval.  Anchor released as a result of the anchor bending.

Viking as since changed the design such that the "thickened" part of the toe has a "V" shape rather than a "straight" stress riser across the fluke (where my anchor bent).  Probably not a huge improvement, but is something. 

Also, Viking lengthened the shank "base plate" (not visible in picture) to extend underneath (and help support) the toe.  Also not a huge improvement (because this "stack" of plates are not fully connected to each other), but is something.

To Vikings credit, considering the size of this anchor, the loads involved would be an extremely rare event (hurricane + lodged up against a boulder).

S6sL8WX.png

 

Flat plate would need to be much thicker and higher strength steel to get the required section modulus.

But expect point loads: Logs and rocks in sand and mud, Coral, rock shelves and larger rock/boulder bottoms will all load the point at the full rode tension. High loads would be from the jerk arresting surge motions. You don’t need a hurricane just the odd wave surging the boat. Marginal exposed anchorages are common enough if you cruise.

None of the anchors for smaller vessels actually require proof testing for class society holding ratings, they just have to demonstrate superior holding over a stockless anchor in uniform bottoms. There's not even a requirement to demonstrate initial structural design strength and fatigue adequacy, let alone proof testing of the final manufactured item.

The same anchor that might demonstrate remarkable holding when uniformly loaded may fail every time when adversely point loaded. And it's predictable from just a precursory inspection.

Some designs are a joke in low strength high fatigue materials like Aluminium Alloy or 316 Stainless steel, and they are marginal designs even when in high stress steels, with poor stress flow  in highly stressed areas.

The surest guarantee of robust design will be the smaller sisters of the larger class rated proof and impact tested commercial anchors when in the same pattern and materials from the same manufacturer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeJohns said:

None of the anchors for smaller vessels actually require proof testing for class society holding ratings, they just have to demonstrate superior holding over a stockless anchor in uniform bottoms. There's not even a requirement to demonstrate initial structural design strength and fatigue adequacy, let alone proof testing of the final manufactured item.

That prompts a question.  If go to buy an anchor in a chandlery in Schull or San Francisco or Stornoway or Saint Malo, are there any certification standards to look out for?

All the anchors I have seen in shops have just been lumps of galvanised metal with a price scribble on the side in felt tip.  Maybe I don't frequent posh enough gear shops, but i have never seen any sort of certification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

That prompts a question.  If go to buy an anchor in a chandlery in Schull or San Francisco or Stornoway or Saint Malo, are there any certification standards to look out for?

All the anchors I have seen in shops have just been lumps of galvanised metal with a price scribble on the side in felt tip.  Maybe I don't frequent posh enough gear shops, but i have never seen any sort of certification.

The purchaser has to look for certification. Anyone in the retailer/wholesaler/manufacturer supply chain should be able to tell you which models are certified, and who that certifier was. They can be a class society such as Lloyds register or a flag regulatory body such as a national transport authority with a testing facility. 

Most Asian suppliers seem to like Lloyds. Manufacturers only have to proof test the larger anchors, but for a certain approved type the same  materials, welds, and quality control apply across the range. Approval certificates should be able to be produced with a ref number for verification.  Any manufacturer who has genuinely had their gear pass muster is more than happy to furnish the certificate.

An anchor may have a certified High holding power test from some testing lab but not manufacturing and material approval nor a proof test of any description. For Boaters in the leisure market it's buyer beware. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, estarzinger said:

Ouch.

But re the question above: to place credit where it is due - that is a almost certainly a design fault and not a 'chinese' fault.

Absolutely not a 'Chinese' fault as the anchor is not made there!

(Ukraine, I believe)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MikeJohns said:

 

............Flat plate would need to be much thicker and higher strength steel to get the required section modulus.

But expect point loads: Logs and rocks in sand and mud, Coral, rock shelves and larger rock/boulder bottoms will all load the point at the full rode tension. High loads would be from the jerk arresting surge motions. You don’t need a hurricane just the odd wave surging the boat. Marginal exposed anchorages are common enough if you cruise.........

I figured a 12 pound anchor would typically be used with fairly light boats.  Hard to imagine a 20 footer making a 1,200+ pound snatch load (assuming nylon rode or snubber).

Viking does say that size (Viking 7 - 12lbs.) is good for up to 30 feet.  But that is a subject for another discussion..........

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Panope said:

I figured a 12 pound anchor would typically be used with fairly light boats.  Hard to imagine a 20 footer making a 1,200+ pound snatch load (assuming nylon rode or snubber).

Viking does say that size (Viking 7 - 12lbs.) is good for up to 30 feet.  But that is a subject for another discussion..........

They also say "will hold your boat in the worst gale in seafloors with the poorest holding

I don't think their definition of a poor holding seafloor matches mine. They are touting a 35kg anchor for a 40 ton 70 foot boat. Hooked on a rock ledge on a scoured bottom it's life would be short.

And " the use of light steel give you the opportunity to use a better performance anchor with a lot less weight (sic)"

Trading strength for low weight works for emergency/backup anchors. But it's made of a simply folded formable steel sheet. To leave the entire leading point an un-stiffened flat plate is a recipe for failure. It needs either some shape stability (veed)  or a decent welded keel. The whole leading part is set up for a simple hinge failure.  The strap bolted along the bottom will do very little to stop this.

None of their range would pass a proof test at the ratings they claim.  So it's no surprise that the only testing they claim is their own inline pull in uniform sand/mud sea beds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panope said:

I figured a 12 pound anchor would typically be used with fairly light boats.  Hard to imagine a 20 footer making a 1,200+ pound snatch load (assuming nylon rode or snubber).

Viking does say that size (Viking 7 - 12lbs.) is good for up to 30 feet.  But that is a subject for another discussion..........

I suggest testing it in the class it claims. In that way we'll see if the high strength steel makes the difference. No point in testing it as a 12-pound anchor, just as you test alloy anchors up to the next heavier class.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MikeJohns said:

They also say "will hold your boat in the worst gale in seafloors with the poorest holding

I don't think their definition of a poor holding seafloor matches mine. They are touting a 35kg anchor for a 40 ton 70 foot boat. Hooked on a rock ledge on a scoured bottom it's life would be short.

And " the use of light steel give you the opportunity to use a better performance anchor with a lot less weight (sic)"

Trading strength for low weight works for emergency/backup anchors. But it's made of a simply folded formable steel sheet. To leave the entire leading point an un-stiffened flat plate is a recipe for failure. It needs either some shape stability (veed)  or a decent welded keel. The whole leading part is set up for a simple hinge failure.  The strap bolted along the bottom will do very little to stop this.

None of their range would pass a proof test at the ratings they claim.  So it's no surprise that the only testing they claim is their own inline pull in uniform sand/mud sea beds.

That's what you get when you knock off someone else's design without understanding why it's designed the way it is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thinwater said:

I suggest testing it in the class it claims. In that way we'll see if the high strength steel makes the difference. No point in testing it as a 12-pound anchor, just as you test alloy anchors up to the next heavier class.

I hear what you are saying, but Viking's claim that their anchors are Larger/lighter does not always hold up - at least with the smaller anchors.

Here is a 12lb Viking (my scale) and a 13lb Mantus (my scale).  They look the same to my eye.  Fair fight.

K3XhBWx.jpg

 

Here is a 21lb (my scale) Viking and a 22lb Rocna (my scale).  Again, other than the giant rollbar, same size.

PH6d9it.jpg

 

The Viking "20" is a different story.  It truly is a MONSTER (tempered a bit by the fact that it weighs MORE than advertised).

51lb Viking (my scale) and 44lb Rocna (my scale). 

AdvhH06.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Exactly. Another example is alloy anchors, which commonly hold more than steel anchors of the same weight, but less than the same anchor in steel. In many ways, they are in their own class. I over simplified, but my point is that neither mass or area are sole determinants of the "class." Confusing, yes. But if an anchor is in the top of its "mass" class and the maker claims a higher rating or it is alloy/strong steel, perhaps some tests (veering) should be at the tension of the next higher mass class. You never know unless you try. I don't have a guess.

Interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2021 at 12:50 AM, Panope said:

It occurred to me that in addition to a long distance cruiser, a local mariner who, for whatever reason, simply does not know what seabeds lie beneath him/her - could find value in this 'least bad in worst bottom' data.

Going forward, I hope to focus on more challenging seabeds.  I want to find places where a good number of anchors do not set at all.

A Vulcan anchor saved my boat from a disaster becoming a total boat loss. I ended up on the beach after a hurricane ripped out a Helix mooring that was down 20 ft. I bounced against a breakwater and ended up high and dry on the beach about 6 feet from the breakwater. Minimal hull damage. The incoming tide would put me against the breakwater and that would have been game over. I had a friend take my vulcan out on a mixed rope and chain rhode to keep me off the rocks as the tide came in. During the eye of the storm, he took it out in a runabout and just dropped it. I took up tension on the windlass and it dug in immediately. Firm mud bottom. It kept me off and 9 hours later I floated off the beach with a gentle tug from a tug. Love my Vulcan.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2021 at 10:58 AM, estarzinger said:

when motivated to do it well, the Chinese can do metal work as well as anyone.

the only question is whether they are supervised and motivated sufficiently to continue to do it well and not to cut corners

we had the case with rocna where the Chinese factory substituted lower grade steel than specified, which was hard to detect unless you were specifically testing for it

The Chinese factory did what the licence owner, Holdfast, based in NZ, requested.  Who else knew the change of steel is not known but the designer of the anchor might be questioned for being so trusting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2021 at 8:42 AM, IStream said:

That's what you get when you knock off someone else's design without understanding why it's designed the way it is.

The roll bar uses by Mantus was patented by Peter Bruce.  The removable shank was used by Spade and then Anchor Right, the foot print (its plan view) of a Mantus is identical to a Rocna and Spade (and possibly others).

 

Who was copying who.

 

Mantus is an unballasted anchor (it has no weight in the toe).  A Bugel, Bruce, Knox are unballasted (as is a Danforth).  Their crown is at the heel.  Delta, Rocna, Vulcan, Spade, Ultra are ballasted they have 'extra' weight in the toe.  Mantus has its crown in the same location as a ballasted anchor, sets shallow and has a low hold.  Viking has its crown 'aft' and has a high hold.  Viking publish hold data, compare with the hold data of Mantus - Oh dear - they don't publish any hold data......

 

......I wonder why

 

Viking is the anchor Mantus should have offered  but did not understand simple anchor design.  I wonder why they have never offered hold data.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Viking, here are some clarifications:  

Viking anchors are made totally of HT steel which allows us to make them thinner and lighter achieving the structural strength needed, being thinner they penetrate better.  

The bent roll bar cases we have studied were on anchors made by Mantus and in all of them, it was the roll bar bases (fluke) that deformed and not the rollbar itself, Viking roll bar bases are made much thicker and wider and from HT steel.  we didn't have a single complaint yet of bent roll bar but we already designed rollbar support in case we will think it is necessary to add them to the anchor, see photo.  

As for steve's tests, if you look at the anchor performance only you can see a different picture, it happened that we had one batch of 60 anchors with minor damages in galvanizing, and unfortunately, steve got the anchors for testing from this batch, that's life, we think that testing should be done on mass production anchors and not on specially chosen ones.

Steve already mentioned the changes we made on the toe, no need to repeat that.  

The yellow line you see on the photo is our new Z shank that passed the concept stage and now is in Betta testings, this shank will allow boats with bowsprits, certain catamarans, and more to use a roll bar anchor which we think is a better design, but this is for another day.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ii1rt7ur109faih/Roll bar support Viking 20 sample.png?dl=0

 

Take care and stay safe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Izi kalvo said:

As for Viking, here are some clarifications:  

Viking anchors are made totally of HT steel which allows us to make them thinner and lighter achieving the structural strength needed, being thinner they penetrate better.  

The bent roll bar cases we have studied were on anchors made by Mantus and in all of them, it was the roll bar bases (fluke) that deformed and not the rollbar itself, Viking roll bar bases are made much thicker and wider and from HT steel.  we didn't have a single complaint yet of bent roll bar but we already designed rollbar support in case we will think it is necessary to add them to the anchor, see photo.  

As for steve's tests, if you look at the anchor performance only you can see a different picture, it happened that we had one batch of 60 anchors with minor damages in galvanizing, and unfortunately, steve got the anchors for testing from this batch, that's life, we think that testing should be done on mass production anchors and not on specially chosen ones.

Steve already mentioned the changes we made on the toe, no need to repeat that.  

The yellow line you see on the photo is our new Z shank that passed the concept stage and now is in Betta testings, this shank will allow boats with bowsprits, certain catamarans, and more to use a roll bar anchor which we think is a better design, but this is for another day.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ii1rt7ur109faih/Roll bar support Viking 20 sample.png?dl=0

 

Take care and stay safe.

 

I'm already a Viking fan. Steve loaned me the 12 pound Viking for a cruise and I liked it. I purposely anchored in places where I've had issues before and it performed better. Why aren't they easily available? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Izi kalvo I'm wondering if you've done analysis on offering aluminum anchors.  I'm interested in a "modern" style aluminum anchor for my lighter displacement (under 5000kg) 37' racer/cruiser sailboat that has no windlass.

A Viking 15 that weighed 8kg instead of 12kg would be very attractive.  I'm probably not the only one with this desire, there are a lot of racer/cruisers in the 30-35' range that don't have windlasses and might not even have bow rollers.

Spade makes some nice options that have tested well by Steve, but sort of have a hole in the size/price range.  The A80 is a little too small for my boat.  The A100 is 60% jump in weight (matching my Vulcan) and is physically too large to fit on my bow.

I use a Rocna Vulcan 12kg anchor for overnight anchoring today and an undersized FX-11 for a lunch hook/race anchor, but I'd prefer something with slightly more holding power than either and less weight than the Vulcan.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alex W said:

@Izi kalvo I'm wondering if you've done analysis on offering aluminum anchors.  I'm interested in a "modern" style aluminum anchor for my lighter displacement (under 5000kg) 37' racer/cruiser sailboat that has no windlass.

A Viking 15 that weighed 8kg instead of 12kg would be very attractive.  I'm probably not the only one with this desire, there are a lot of racer/cruisers in the 30-35' range that don't have windlasses and might not even have bow rollers.

Spade makes some nice options that have tested well by Steve, but sort of have a hole in the size/price range.  The A80 is a little too small for my boat.  The A100 is 60% jump in weight (matching my Vulcan) and is physically too large to fit on my bow.

I use a Rocna Vulcan 12kg anchor for overnight anchoring today and an undersized FX-11 for a lunch hook/race anchor, but I'd prefer something with slightly more holding power than either and less weight than the Vulcan.

 

There is a neat but expensive aluminium Excel.

A problem with aluminium is that high tensile aluminium is difficult to bend/fold and weld.  Basically you need to engineer the design using flat pieces of aluminium.  Roll bars, for example, become an issue.  Both Spade and Excel weld the aluminium to engender strength.  But you cannot make a Viking, to the same design - and you would actually not save much weight over their, Viking's, usage of High Tensile steel.  The other problem with HT aluminium is that the alloys are expensive - which is one reason the aluminium Excels are not cheap.  Vikings use of HT steel in the fluke is novel, not used by anyone else, and maybe they could be persuaded to look at thinner steels with a higher tensile strength than they currently use.  The problem is that most of the customer base think anchors have to be heavy and they reject the idea that anchors can be light and work by design.  Until Viking gain sufficient traction and the customers join the 21st century there is not much incentive for Viking to introduce an even lighter anchor.

 

But I'm with you Alex - HT steel is the way to go.  Maybe wait for Viking to introduce a non-roll bar anchor and maybe it will meet your needs.  They seem to be amazingly innovative (they are the only company using HT steel in the fluke, they have a decent 'anchor righter, a single snubber and bridle chain hook (that are bullet proof) and the only company listing holding capacity data based on actual testing for almost all of their range.  Hold is the key characteristic of an anchor - can you imagine selling a product that does not define, in some way, its key characteristic - truly bizarre.  And as the market place does not mind a lack of hold data - what hope is there for a company that takes the time to produce it.......?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Saw Q said:

The roll bar uses by Mantus was patented by Peter Bruce.  The removable shank was used by Spade and then Anchor Right, the foot print (its plan view) of a Mantus is identical to a Rocna and Spade (and possibly others).

 

Who was copying who.

 

Mantus is an unballasted anchor (it has no weight in the toe).  A Bugel, Bruce, Knox are unballasted (as is a Danforth).  Their crown is at the heel.  Delta, Rocna, Vulcan, Spade, Ultra are ballasted they have 'extra' weight in the toe.  Mantus has its crown in the same location as a ballasted anchor, sets shallow and has a low hold.  Viking has its crown 'aft' and has a high hold.  Viking publish hold data, compare with the hold data of Mantus - Oh dear - they don't publish any hold data......

 

......I wonder why

 

Viking is the anchor Mantus should have offered  but did not understand simple anchor design.  I wonder why they have never offered hold data.....

That's funny, both my previous Mantus M1 and my current M2 are ballasted. Please save your shilling and misinformation for some other forum. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, IStream said:

That's funny, both my previous Mantus M1 and my current M2 are ballasted. Please save your shilling and misinformation for some other forum. 

There is a sudden influx of newbies with major opinions into SA. I wonder what that's all about.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Saw Q said:

.......... and the only company listing holding capacity data based on actual testing for almost all of their range.  Hold is the key characteristic of an anchor - can you imagine selling a product that does not define, in some way, its key characteristic - truly bizarre.  And as the market place does not mind a lack of hold data - what hope is there for a company that takes the time to produce it.......?

 

I have found a variation in holding power of up to 10X between two mud seabeds.

Slippery slope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IStream said:

That's funny, both my previous Mantus M1 and my current M2 are ballasted. Please save your shilling and misinformation for some other forum. 

Have a look at the ballast in a Rocna, a double thickness of steel in the front of the fluke plate, have a look at the ballast in a Spade (a big pocket at the front of the fluke plate full of lead), have another look at your Mantus M1, maybe take a picture as my Mantius M1 has a tiny triangle of steel reinforcing the front of the fluke but hardly of a size to compare with the double thickness of steel in a Rocna, lead in a Spade, or cast steel in an Excel.

Get real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:

There is a sudden influx of newbies with major opinions into SA. I wonder what that's all about.

Funny how people don't like new blood.  Maybe they only want sycophants.

 

Query the information by all means - I assumed new people are allowed opinions, sorry if I upset.  Life is hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panope said:

I have found a variation in holding power of up to 10X between two mud seabeds.

Slippery slope.

We might be forced to anchor in mud but most of us prefer sand - its clean and provides a more reliable hold.  Viking has pictures of their testing location and clearly state all their testing is conducted in the same place.

Does anyone know the hold of a Mantus in clean sand?  Does anyone question why Mantus have never published any data?  How do you rate an anchor if there is no hold data (yes I know Greg is a nice guy).  Spade has hold data, Delta has hold data, Excel has hold data, Epsilon claims SHHP certification, which puts it alongside Rocna and Supreme of the same size - but like lemmings to the cliff and lambs to the slaughter.......Can you imagine someone releasing an anchor with a mild steel shank - no? - then you have short memories.  Do you recall what happened when Rocna changed to a mild steel shank (and the brouhaha that followed) - you would think anyone releasing an anchor with a mild steel shank after the brouhaha must have been living in a cave - but you all follow the Pied Piper.

Beggars belief.

Why don't you guys ask the relevant questions (scared of the truth?) - instead of complaining about one Maverick, or a Saw Q.

And 'Shill' is a noun - a shilling is/was a unit of currency.

Open your eyes and if you are looking for a shill, some might look in a mirror.  Ballast in a M1?  :) where do you guys come from?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, random. said:

 

Then they progressively start posting in PA, which is the real target.

 

The colourful language is, actually, not really necessary.  It is, sort of, ignored - maybe some pity

but 'PA' ?  

I confess total ignorance, which makes your post intelligible and a complete waste of space

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2021 at 6:25 PM, Izi kalvo said:

..........Viking anchors are made totally of HT steel which allows us to make them thinner and lighter achieving the structural strength needed, being thinner they penetrate better.  ..................

I'm curious, which high tensile steel specifically?  It's a very general term. It can be anything from a marginally higher yield over mild steel to Aermet. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MikeJohns said:

I'm curious, which high tensile steel specifically?  It's a very general term. It can be anything from a marginally higher yield over mild steel to Aermet. 

 

 

Aermet is hardly, very, high tensile.

Close to you, Woolongong, and made famous by Peter Smith you can source Bisplate 80, which is a Q&T 800 Mpa steel (they make higher grades, higher Mpa, and was used in the Rocna shank, though now they (possibly wisely) don't declare what steel they use.  If you declare what steel you use and then there are supply issues you are caught in a bit of a cleft stick - better to leave it slightly ambiguous (as there are many suppliers of HT steels, including China - which after all is where Rocna (and Mantus) are made).  I think Mantus now say, or said, they use an 800 Mpa steel for the shank (sorry is that being a shill for both Mantus and Rocna - can you be a shill for 2 companies competing???) and be a shill for Bisalloy - if they paid I could be really rich :)

 

Its amazing - you can point out the good design of a product and then be accused of being a shill!  Really odd - better to leave technical developments in the dark.  We'll be burning books, I'm surprised the internet survives.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All we want to know is which is best. Lead us from the desert, Cap.

All we have here are at least three very experienced guys who've tested anchors, videotaped 'em, written books, and sailed around the world with all the anchors ever made so far.

Plus you, noob guy with no history, no boob pics, but plenty of attitude. And is grammatically challenged: "shilling" is used commonly as a verb. 

Asking for online friends.

I buy my anchors factory direct from Brent Swain. For backup, I use a you tube DIY anchor for 20 bucks, or double wide anchors from Lowes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

 

 

 

Plus you, noob guy with no history, no boob pics, but plenty of attitude. And is grammatically challenged: "shilling" is used commonly as a verb. 

 

Shilling a verb, not where I come from.

45 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

 

All we have here are at least three very experienced guys who've tested anchors, videotaped 'em, written books, and sailed around the world with all the anchors ever made so far.

I'm fascinated - who are the 3 guys who've tested anchors AND video taped them AND written books AND sailed round the world AND with all the anchors ever made.

I think you exaggerate, ever so slightly - or you are easily impressed and believe everything said to you.

 

Starzinger I recognise (and rate) - but others.....?

 

49 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Saw Q said:

I'm fascinated - who are the 3 guys who've tested anchors AND video taped them AND written books AND sailed round the world AND with all the anchors ever made.

I think you exaggerate, ever so slightly - or you are easily impressed and believe everything said to you.

Starzinger I recognise (and rate) - but others.....?

RTFT.. Nothing sez ignorant noob than a guy jumping in with THE REAL ANSWERS.

No worries, just tell us all what's best. That's what you're here for. Me? Going sailing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IStream said his Mantus M1 had ballast - but seems unable to show the ballast, big words - but a bit meaningless without back up.

Instantly recognisable, because it says so - so easy for you guys - yes its a Rocna.  The ballast is that double thickness of steel in the pointy part of the anchor.  The steel is about the same weight as the lead in the pointy part of a Spade, cast steel in an Excel etc etc.

Now show me the equivalent part of the Mantus M1 with the same ballast?

My guess is you will struggle

 

Mantus is like a bolted up Danforth, or the German Bugel - but the joint between shank and fluke is in the wrong place.  Check a Bugel, Danforth - yup the shank/fluke joint is at the back, rear, of the anchor - Mantus did not understand, still don't - but then it would cost them a fortune and reputation to be honest.  So Mantus fluke/shank joint is similar to the location of the Rocna - but they forgot about the ballast.  And you guys we're all taken in (and are having problems coping with reality - sad really).

 

Nothing wrong with any of this but Mantus has the same sort of hold as the same sized CQR - which has proved a successful anchor - still in use almost 100 years later.  But what did you guys think you had?

I think someone wrote all this up in Practical Sailor, maybe it was Practical Boat Owner.

 

You'll all be saying that white is the new black next.

IMG_0073.jpeg.68859da5db52b9a228f15da63468f0b8.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Saw Q said:

Shilling a verb, not where I come from.

 

shill

[ shil ]
 
Slang.
 
 
 
 
See synonyms for: shill / shilled / shilling on Thesaurus.com

noun
a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
verb (used without object)
to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
verb (used with object)
to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.
 
QUIZ
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panope said:

A question for the engineers/metallurgists:

What happens to the properties/strength of HT Steel in the HAZ (heat affected zone of welding).

I'm neither, but am a hobbyist bicycle framebuilder where I've built structural things (and trust my life to them) with heat treated steel in a goal of building the lightest safe structure possible.

HT steel will anneal in the heat affected zone.  It can be heat treated as an object to restore the strength, but I doubt that this is typically done.

On a properly designed object the annealing won't matter.  Most anchors have a shank that goes to about twice the size at the weld point compared to the rest of the shank and I'm guessing covers most of the lower strength from the HAZ.  The big fillet at that joint on most anchors also spreads the stress over a wider area.  I will note that the fillet is huge on a Vulcan and it appears to be small on a Viking.

I'd love for a real engineer to correct me where I'm wrong since I'm just an armchair hack.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites