Advice on choosing a windlass, Lofrans X2, Lewmar VX2+, etc.

The only reason I have encountered for not having a groove is when a neighbour had to replace his cheap rubber insert with another cheap insert because that was all the shop had at the time...a groovles bow roller. Sometimes you have to buy the shoe because it fits!

Also.... A steel hoop on the end of the bow roller is missing on many bow rollers...so the chain can not jump off the bow roller and cause untold damage. Even a steel pin manually positioned or a well tied line would be better than nothing.
 
Neeves said:
Mikko, I assume you have seen this.

How to: The Right Electric Windlass for Your Boat

I have not read it, no time (just happened to trip over it). Sam was editor at Sailing Today (might still be editor)
Click to expand...

Yes i have, it is a good article - but thanks :)

The available fall for the chain is a good point, horizontal windlass having a small advantage with that. I am planning to have a vertical pipe for the chain that would lead to a dedicated space under the waterline, further back than the chain locker normally in found in OE32s, so there would be more than a 1 m of fall. However, if i choose to use the original rope/chain locker, the vertical height might be limited a little limited in case of a vertical windlass. I definitely need to measure it.
 
On grooved rollers - if the anchor is required to self right on the roller than, depends on the anchor and size of chain, the shank can lock into the groove and stop the anchor self righting. This would not be common - but a surprising number of smaller yachts (here on YBW) use 10mm chain and smaller anchors, 15kg and the slot in the roller is almost ideal to catch some shanks.

Jonathan
 
Mikko M said:
Yes i have, it is a good article - but thanks :)

The available fall for the chain is a good point, horizontal windlass having a small advantage with that. I am planning to have a vertical pipe for the chain that would lead to a dedicated space under the waterline, further back than the chain locker normally in found in OE32s, so there would be more than a 1 m of fall. However, if i choose to use the original rope/chain locker, the vertical height might be limited a little limited in case of a vertical windlass. I definitely need to measure it.
Click to expand...

You will need to add a decent deck wash to your upgrade (if you do not have one already).

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
Star Lord

I am interested in your views on anchor chain - you are using Cromox G60 Duplex stainless, why?

Jonathan
Click to expand...

It is a compromise between Grade 70 and Grade 40.

My old lady weighs over 12.5 tons with a shallow and poorly shaped anchor locker. In retrospect when changing the old windlass I could/should have fitted an above deck Lofrans with a 10mm gypsy and smashed the anchor locker around and maybe (maybe) I could have got 80m of 10mm chain (I prefer 100m all chain). But I changed the windlass before I had purchased the super duper rust magnet Aqua 7 from Italy which I thought would solve all my problems!

cromox G6 PLUS Electro Polished Stainless Steel Anchor Chain AISI318LN

The catalogue says, 'Tensile Force = 50% Breaking Force' I take that to mean the working load is 3365kg (half of the breaking load at 6730kg). G43 chain working load is one third of breaking load. If my sums are correct the working load is therefore considerably stronger than 10mm G43 Titan at 1800kg.

I think the working load of this chain is 50% of break load but could be wrong.

The chain I had before was Italian Grade 70 (Aqua 7) with a working load of approx 300kg and a working load of about 700kg so my new chain is not quite as strong but seems to have a higher working load. (8mm Titan Grade 43 working load is 1100kg and breaking load of 4400kg.)

The Italian stuff was strong and rusted to hell. It actually started to look dodgy after two years. This German stuff is like something you find on a space ship. There is no rushing below to knock over the cone every 15 meters. The Cromox chain just slips nicely in like mercury. My windlass works even faster. Or maybe that is my imagination! There are no flakes of galvanising all over the place. The chain is always clean. And it has a 6 year guarantee against corrosion...well 3 years then renewed for 3 years if you ship the chain back to the factory for inspection.

This is a quote from the catalogue: ' Material with an increased PRE- value are in particular suitable for the usage in warmer regions.'
 
Last edited:
Star Lord.

I wondered at your choice of chain as you seemed critical of my choice of 6mm chain.

Let me explain.

My 6mm chain is stronger, actually tested, than the 8mm chain it replaced, actually tested. The 8mm chain it replaced was a G30 quality but with a strength near G40 (in common with most G30 chain currently - as tested). The new chain was specially galvanised, Armorgalv, and with use has polished and behaves in the same manner as stainless, no need to knock over a tower. I can directly compare the performance of our chain and Cromox as I had lunch with K&W, the CEO (owner?) and his Sales Director, and they generously sent me a length of 8mm chain for testing. We use 30m snubbers (a bridle). We only carry 75m but have 40m of 3ply nylon if needed.

You mention the speed of retrieval - that's the windlass, ours is the same as yours (RC8-6, 1,000watt) except we have the 6mm gypsy.

You appear to have down sized from 10mm to 8mm and I have down sized from 8mm to 6mm. You weigh in at 12.5t, we weight in at just under 7t with full tanks, 400l of water and 200l of fuel, 2 crew - enough food for 3 months (we effectively live aboard but travel places without shops, roads or mobile coverage - as you have done).

Exactly why are you critical of my downsizing from 8mm to 6mm?

We actually seem to have the same ideas and same conclusion - and if someone else is looking to save weight in the bow then considering downsizing of chain looks to be an option and one to be considered. I simple try to define our usage, no suggestion at recommending, the member can weight up the options.

I actually test anything I recommend, for chain, shackles and other connectors Ultimate Tensile Strength. I test anchors for holding capacity. User comment can be subjective. I measure the impact of using a large swivel on the performance of an anchor - its not gut feel. You would be surprised at the quality of test procedures used by the suppliers to leisure boating industry - I might highlight, anchors, shackles, chain hooks, tether hooks

You also seemed critical of the alloy Spade but suggested there were better kedge anchors - can you elaborate - on better kedge anchors.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
No, I have not downsized from 10mm I have always had 8mm chain.

I did NOT criticise your choice of chain.

I was trying to explain to you a reasonable person's thought process.

I include it once again for your attention. The reason I included my thoughts on 'a reasonable person's thought process' was because of your inability to accept you could be (are) wrong regarding a proven bit of kit and the reasons for using it.

Star-Lord said:
Let me give you an example of my thinking - so I could say, 'I would like to point out your aluminium spade is not recommended as a main anchor and therefore only suitable as a kedge. I would not recommend a aluminium spades under any circumstance because there are better kedges.... and better kedges that can double a main anchor in a storm...' This is something I believe - and still do - but would not say that (to you) because you have tested said anchor and used it safely for 15 years! Maybe in some circumstances the aluminium spade is a good choice...mmm interesting. And what kind of man would trust their yacht to 6mm chain when everyone else uses 8mm...mmmm interesting.....obviously I would never contemplate such a move but if using high test chain - one size down - on a racing boat - or for keeping weight down in a cat - it has merit. But recommending 6mm chain to be used on a liveabooard boat that plans to spend many nights at anchor..... can't get my head around that.... would def not recommend it - but it is obviously working for someone so maybe this could be recommended in the future....intersting mmmmm...i have learned something new.
Click to expand...

Please forgive me if you find my example of a reasonable person's thought process hard to understand. What it all means is - it is possible to learn something new.

For a kedge anchor... I would recommend a Fortress type anchor because it can be used as a kedge and also used when the sea bed does not suit the main anchor. But I was not critical of your kedge! You did not understand what I wrote, I think.

Always nice discussing stuff ??
 
Last edited:
Star-Lord said:
No, I have not downsized from 10mm I have always had 8mm chain.

I did NOT criticise your choice of chain.

I was trying to explain to you a reasonable person's thought process.

I include it once again for your attention. The reason I included my thoughts on 'a reasonable person's thought process' was because of your inability to accept you could be (are) wrong regarding a proven bit of kit and the reasons for using it.



Please forgive me if you find my example of a reasonable person's thought process hard to understand. What it all means is - it is possible to learn something new.

For a kedge anchor... I would recommend a Fortress type anchor because it can be used as a kedge and also used when the sea bed does not suit the main anchor. But I was not critical of your kedge! You did not understand what I wrote, I think.

Always nice discussing stuff ??
Click to expand...

I wonder why you have ignored the basic and proven fact that the Mantus swivel will detract from anchor performance.

To be clear our anchors are:

We used to use a steel Anchor Right Excel, No4 - 15kg

We acquired a A80 Spade soon after. (8kg)

We replaced the Steel Excel with an aluminium Excel, (8kg), which we have been using as our primary for 10-12 years.

The steel Excel, a steel S80 Spade and the Fortress FX 23, see below, sit in my workshop alongside other anchors I have tested, Mantus M1, Rocna, Supreme, Manson Ray (Bruce knock off), Manson Plough (CQR knock off), genuine CQR and another CQR copy. Also in the workshop I have small and medium sized Mantus swivels - which I have tested extensively - I would not touch it with a bargepole.

In addition to the wire holding the Mantus swivel (Kong make the best swivel - no compromises) - The tether hooks used by Clipper were proven bits of kit and widely accepted, including RKJ - until a man died and on testing (independently, Thinwater) were found wanting. The original Mantus chain hook was fully accepted and proven - until under, (independent, Neeves) tests it was found to have been inappropriately tested. CMP Black Pin shackles look a good replacement for Crosby shackles, except amongst other factors - they sell to an imperial specification - in metric markets. The Mantus anchor had rave reviews and was widely accepted - until the shank bent and until it was pointed out (Neeves) it has the same hold as a similar weighted Delta.

If you detect a pattern in the previous paragraph - you might be right

Public acceptance, Proven??? bits of kit - not in my book.

We did carry a Fortress FX23 (8kg) but on finding we could not set it sufficiently deeply to bury the stock we replaced it with a FX 16 and a FX 37.

We have used the A80 as a primary - without issue - so we have real life experience. We use the A80 along with the aluminium Excel when we anchor in a 'V'. Whether we actually need to anchor in a 'V' I don't know but when winds are forecast to be over 30knots (in the anchorage) it simply seems prudent.

The FX 16 makes an excellent kedge and is very good in sand and heavy mud. The FX37 is unbeatable in soupy mud but would be unnecessarily hard work to use as a kedge, especially from a dinghy.

Our anchors weigh a total of around 34kg. The Spade A80, the FX16 and the FX 37 would all be suitable to replace the Excel (should it become unavailable - choice depends on seabed)

Though we weight in at 7t (fully laden - so worst case scenario) we have the windage of a Bavaria 45

If/when you need to kedge you seldom choose the seabed and a Fortress will simply be unworkable, and well known to be unworkable, in weed or pebbly bottoms and a waste of time. - you need something else and an aluminium Spade is ideal (as would an aluminium Excel). The FX16 and FX23 are simply not big enough to offer security in soupy mud - hence the FX37. Of course if you do not anticipate soupy mud, weed, nor pebbly bottoms you would not need this arsenal. However to rely on Fortress as a kedge for all seabeds......?

Anchors are compromise - there is no perfect anchor

Some suppliers to 'our' market do not conduct appropriate testing nor take note of previous and well documented experiences. The public has little idea - and often buys based on repetitive internet chatter - or what his neighbour uses. Some suppliers rely on historic reputations and/or good customer relations - reputation and relationships do not necessarily make good (safety) products.


Interestingly YBW is almost 'self' moderating. It allows critical comment of 'tall poppies' who then retreat into the woodwork. Knuckles are wrapped - but there is no burning of books. There is room for alternate views - and we all learn.


Now - you did not clarify - why do you think my choice of 6mm chain is questionable and not to be recommended - 'the reasonable person's thought process'

Jonathan
 
LOL you do not answer questions or listen! I did not critisized your anchor! I will not tell you a third time. I did not critisise your chain... How many times have I said that? You are behaving like a 6year old continously asking the same question. I myself use a secondary main as a kedge. I did not say Mantus makes the best swivel!

I think it is reasonable to assume a heavy lump on the end of a shank would alter anchor performance if you had a light anchor. My 30kg spade is quite heavy and I accept the compromise. I look forward to a titanium model or an upgrade.

Mantus have an impressive array of 'ambassadors' they seem to have cornered the market in YouTube sailing channels. To the best of my knowledge we have yet to have one of them wash ashore because their Mantus swivel has failed. Or for that matter their new gen anchors.

I think your comments are well intentioned but lack rigour.
 
Last edited:
Mikko,

Just another thought for you. On my 34 footer (also 7 ton) I can move the chain from the chain locker to an under bunk position in the centre of the boat. This was an ingenious alteration made by a previous owner than involves a plastic pipe running from the chain locker to the under bunk position. It means that for me weight of chain is not an issue in the bow. Depending on how often and where you anchor weight of rode on the seabed is still important for me (I know others will disagree but this is my experience borne out of having done this for over 35 years in Scottish and Irish waters).

I also went for the 20kg spade which having used it extensively for the past 6 years I would say is perfectly fine. Spade provide a paper template which is a useful way of establishing if it will fit your bow roller. Before I bought I printed this off and stuck it onto cardboard which i then tested on the bow roller. I didn't have to make any alterations.
 
Stooriefit said:
Mikko,

Just another thought for you. On my 34 footer (also 7 ton) I can move the chain from the chain locker to an under bunk position in the centre of the boat. This was an ingenious alteration made by a previous owner than involves a plastic pipe running from the chain locker to the under bunk position. It means that for me weight of chain is not an issue in the bow. Depending on how often and where you anchor weight of rode on the seabed is still important for me (I know others will disagree but this is my experience borne out of having done this for over 35 years in Scottish and Irish waters).

I also went for the 20kg spade which having used it extensively for the past 6 years I would say is perfectly fine. Spade provide a paper template which is a useful way of establishing if it will fit your bow roller. Before I bought I printed this off and stuck it onto cardboard which i then tested on the bow roller. I didn't have to make any alterations.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a nice idea :) That under the bunk area would be in the forward cabin, right?

I might be able to arrange a pipe running from chain locker (below the forward bunks) at an shallow angle towards the bilge, just behind the mast step. So two pipes altogether, one directing the chain vertically from the windlass to the locker under the foc'sle bunks, and another from the aft end of that locker to the bilge. Basically i'd need to manually pull the rode from the locker to the bilge and vice versa, and be able to seal/close the pipe in case i need to - but for a singlehander that method of moving the chain inside the boat would still be much easier, cleaner, safer, faster and less destructive (for the boat and my spine) than for instance trying to carry the chain in several bags or dragging it across the deck or main cabin and through bulkheads. Might be worth some investigation, only thing that could go wrong could be that the chain would get stuck in that pipe - perhaps it should be at least 70-80 mm diameter inside and straight ?
 
Star Lord,


My abject apologies. I obviously misinterpreted your comments. Sorry you feel so aggrieved. But it is so easy to misintepret - as I say - my fault entirely.


I suspect the data you quote for Cromox (and Maggi Aqua 7) is a not quite right

you say

"The catalogue says, 'Tensile Force = 50% Breaking Force' I take that to mean the working load is 3365kg (half of the breaking load at 6730kg). G43 chain working load is one third of breaking load. If my sums are correct the working load is therefore considerably stronger than 10mm G43 Titan at 1800kg."

I think you might be quoting Proof Load, 2 x WLL or 50% of min break force and WLL 25% of minimum break strength. Most, all?, chain is Proof Tested and simply ensures that there is no permanent stretch. I thus assume Proof Test is 3,365kg and WLL 1,441kg for your 8mm Cromox. Min Break Force is a simple arithmetic calculation of theoretical chain strength and should always, obviously, be lower than actual chain strength.

I sincerely hope you did not buy the Cromox thinking it has a WLL of 3,365kg.

Of the Aqua 7 chain

you say

" The chain I had before was Italian Grade 70 (Aqua 7) with a working load of approx 300kg and a working load of about 700kg so my new chain is not quite as strong but seems to have a higher working load. (8mm Titan Grade 43 working load is 1100kg and breaking load of 4400kg.)"

I don't know what you mean by the chain having two WLL and the data is obviously also wrong (G30 8mm chain has a WLL of 750kg - higher than you quote for the A7) - though hardly relevant if it cannot easily be bought.

this is all not quite right and might be confusing - though I am sure better minds than mine will understand :)

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
Star Lord,


My abject apologies. I obviously misinterpreted your comments. Sorry you feel so aggrieved. But it is so easy to misintepret - as I say - my fault entirely.


I suspect the data you quote for Cromox (and Maggi Aqua 7) is a not quite right

you say

"The catalogue says, 'Tensile Force = 50% Breaking Force' I take that to mean the working load is 3365kg (half of the breaking load at 6730kg). G43 chain working load is one third of breaking load. If my sums are correct the working load is therefore considerably stronger than 10mm G43 Titan at 1800kg."

I think you might be quoting Proof Load, 2 x WLL or 50% of min break force and WLL 25% of minimum break strength. Most, all?, chain is Proof Tested and simply ensures that there is no permanent stretch. I thus assume Proof Test is 3,365kg and WLL 1,441kg for your 8mm Cromox. Min Break Force is a simple arithmetic calculation of theoretical chain strength and should always, obviously, be lower than actual chain strength.

I sincerely hope you did not buy the Cromox thinking it has a WLL of 3,365kg.

Of the Aqua 7 chain

you say

" The chain I had before was Italian Grade 70 (Aqua 7) with a working load of approx 300kg and a working load of about 700kg so my new chain is not quite as strong but seems to have a higher working load. (8mm Titan Grade 43 working load is 1100kg and breaking load of 4400kg.)"

I don't know what you mean by the chain having 2 WLL and the data is obviously also wrong (G30 8mm chain has a WLL of 750kg - higher than you quote for the A7) - though hardly relevant if it cannot easily be bought.

this is all not quite right and might be confusing - though I am sure better minds than mine will understand :)

Jonathan
Click to expand...

I did not think my sums were right. I got the Cromox as a compromise between G40 and Aqua 7 - as originally stated.
And the guarantee against corrosion was also a large part of the decision after the mess of the last lot of chain.

I only looked at breaking load to make my decision. You have to start somewhere!

This is my data on 8mm chain. It looks like a fair compromise between the two. My new sums (according to your data) say the Cromox is 31% stronger than the Titan. However I have found new data - at the foot of the page - to support my original working load claim of 3,365kg!


8mm AQUA7 DIN766 Specification 1Kn Force = 101.972Kg Break Load / 70Kn = approximately 7138kg
Maximum Pin Dia.Proof LoadBreak LoadWeight per metre
10mm30Kn70Kn1.4kg


8mm Titan Grade 43 DIN766 Specification
Maximum Pin Dia.Working Load LimitBreak LoadWeight per metre
8mm1100kg4400kg1.4kg


8mm CROMOX G6 PLUS Electro Polished stainless steel chain AISI 318LN
cromox G6PitchMBLBL (kg)Weight per metre
8mm DIN76624mm66KN6730kg1.35kg

CROMOX Duplex Edelstahl Ankerketten 6mm - 13mm - SAILTEC - technical equipment for yachts and boats This is more data on Cromox 8mm and states 33.00Kn is the safe working load which works out to be 3,362 kg which is almost the same as my original figure in previous post - and is about half of the breaking load.

I am quite sure, but not certain, the working load of Cromox is a different equation compared to galvanised chain and is half of the breaking load?
 
Last edited:
I can assure you the safety factor for Cromox is the same as metric galvanised chain (excluding Maggi A7) and some imperial chain and is 4:1. I'd be, very, careful of data on websites not those of the manufacturer. How do I know - I've just asked them.

I am not sure until I have checked and tested - in this case, Cromox, I have not tested - I have relied on asking the manufacturer.

A bit more rigour, some humour and less venom would go down a treat :)

Jonathan
 
The only known figure in chain specification is the UTS, which is usually downgraded a little, presumably based on many tensile tests, to give a conservative MBL. I do not have the relevant ISO specifications with me but I believe they state the proof load to be half the MBL and the WLL to be half that.

As has been pointed out, differences in this safety factor of 4:1 are applied for various reasons, e.g. a factor of 6:1 is common in lifting equipment and some non-ISO chain has selected 3:1. A factor of 2:1 seems unusual, to say the least.
 
Mikko,

The pipe I have means the chain can move from the chain locker all the way back to the main cabin (very near the centre line and low down, just beside the foot of the mast - mine is keel stepped). I don't have the exact diameter but it will be about 4 or 5cm, maybe slightly less. Anyway I've never had a problem pulling the 10mm chain back through to the cabin by hand (and certainly way easier than any other method!) When I drop the anchor gravity does the work and pulls it through from the cabin if I have moved it back there.

I don't have any seals on the pipe itself. The reason is that my chain comes down from the foredeck by way of a chain pipe mounted on the deck so there isn't any issue of water getting into the pipe other than dripping off the chain itself which ends up in the bilge anyway.
 
So 1,681kg is the WLL or over 50% stronger than G43. I Cant work out how much weaker it is than Aqua 7.
 
Anyone interested in chain specification could look at the American NACM specs, as there are a series of definitions of the terms.

Welded Chain Specifications

Noting of course these are American voluntary standards.

I was most surprised to find how few links were 'needed' to provide test data.

I was also surprised that G80 and G100 chain - supposedly brittle - is specified to be less brittle than G43 and G30 (at least in America and if elongation to break is a measure of brittleness ) putting a bit of a lid on the idea that High Tensile chain will snap like glass.

Star Lord

I would look at the Minimum Break Strength of chain, not the WLL - unless you know what the safety factor is.

And do not look at G70 chain in the NACM specs - this ungalvanised chain.

I can see no reason at all why a G43 anchor chain should enjoy a different safety factor to G40 chain (being 3:1 in the US for G43 and G40 4:1 in Europe). There may be a reason for any differences but I have never seen any justification as to why imperial G43 used in an anchor rode should have a safe factor of 3:1 and G30 or G40 for the same application should have a safety factor of 4:1. I asked a senior executive at Peerless, he was Sales Director, since retired, for the reasoning behind the 3;1 for G43 and he advised that he had also asked but the safety factor was set before his time and he could not answer the question. G43 was specifically used, historically, as a Transport chain, since replaced with G70.

I did ask Maggi, the then CEO why he chose a 5:1 safety factor - he was honest (I had no reason to think otherwise) and said he was cautious. The Maggi A7 was much stronger than Peerless galvanised G70 (and the only way to achieve that was to use a 'better' feedstock. Of course Maggi used their better strength to beguile customers,

However the decision of whether to use the 3;1 or 4;;1 (or 5:1) is upto the individual - 4:1 obviously gives a greater margin of safety over 3:1 and has proved problem free in Europe for a considerable time.

I might reiterate a pet grouse - of which you are well aware - chain is sold to a steel quality, those G numbers and a specification (seldom a test certificate) but no mention is made of galvanising. As chain do not fail, over the last decade, from actual failure but they do fail from poor (or eventually even good) galvanising.

If you are buying chain - conduct Vyv's test.

Interestingly when I tested Maggi A7 i did find that under UTS the gal flaked or peeled badly (and made mention) but at the time I had no idea how this would (if it did) impact gal life. The flaking and peeling was therefore not given much of a feature - maybe we got that one wrong. Flaking and peeling (I recall are 'technical' terms) can be due to poor cleaning and over overly thick gal coating. From reading forum posts on YBW the issue of Maggi';s galvanising was not due to the steel quality, those G numbers as people complained about the life of A7 and A4 - and I think the feed for the A7 was a G100 feedstock.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top