Anchors

[boomerangben]

IT'S DANGEROUS TO SUGGEST BOATERS SHOULD USE SMALLER CHAIN SIZES, smaller chain means smaller shackle pins, and the stainless ones they seem to think look pretty, (I never use stainless, just galvanised), are a major cause of failures.

Your own company web site has a broken chain picture. I should have posted a link to the study on chains, but will look that up later.

Whilst on the subject of chains and connectors of various types, (Never stainless unless it's fully certified and direct from Lewmar or Lofrans), I've got some more bad news for some NG owners about how a shackle fits:
Anchor Chain Attachment. Anchor Test Video #92 - YouTube

Obviously use the biggest and best shackle, (There is a Practical Sailor article on the different ones available), and the largest chain you can handle in locker space and combined weight terms, and don't forget it's good exercise to recover an anchor by hand or by using the winch handle for the emergency windlass drive socket. Obviously you don't want to finish up with the anchor and chain being too difficult to recover.

When I buy chain, I lay it out in the garden or on the pontoon and then use a dye marker to look for cracked welds, or if it's in the garden just mix up some salt solution and pour it along the chain every day for a week or so, and then check for rusty welds, as that probably means the weld has cracked, or you have purchased ungalvanised chain.

Joining chain links: The safest way to extend your anchor chain (pbo.co.uk)

Reliable Chain Connections - Practical Sailor (practical-sailor.com)

Yachting Monthly's anchor chain test - YouTube

I broke an anchor chain! - Cruisers & Sailing Forums (cruisersforum.com)
(Can't be true of course)

I’ve read a few of the Practical Sailor articles, all written by the same gentlemen. They were going well until this one where he recommends using two bow shackles for joining chain. D shackles are specifically designed for joining chains and in fact have few other applications.

 

[thinwater]

I’ve read a few of the Practical Sailor articles, all written by the same gentlemen. They were going well until this one where he recommends using two bow shackles for joining chain. D shackles are specifically designed for joining chains and in fact have few other applications.

These look like D-shackles (very heavy duty, of course).

 

[Neeves]

I’ve read a few of the Practical Sailor articles, all written by the same gentlemen. They were going well until this one where he recommends using two bow shackles for joining chain. D shackles are specifically designed for joining chains and in fact have few other applications.

'D' shackles may have been designed to join chain, and then enjoyed other applications, but for an anchor rode are really not very sensible, they cannot be used with a windlass, unless you take them off, rely on operator securement. 'C' link joiners really do have no other application than joining two chains of the same size together. Are totally reliable if you use the correct devices (limited to Crosby) and attach them correctly, which needs a bit of patience and something to use as an anvil (not your deck , a chunky bit of steel or a rock can be useful and a big lump hammer, with a short handle.

Interestingly the lifting industry commonly use Omega links to join chains or to add components to chains, which I featured with images earlier, and Omega links look much more similar to bow shackles than 'D' shackles.

Some anchors, Manson's Ray, a sort of Bruce copy, does not have a slot in the end of the shank but a circular hole. The shackle then needs to be attached with the clevis pin in the shank. The eyes of the shackle are far too big to fit through the end link in the chain - meaning you having to use 2 shackles (and using 2 shackles to me doubles the opportunity for shackle failure).

The common 'Omega' link is top left, below, and a variant, a pear link, to the right. I had them galvanised. These links and other components are made to fit metric chain 6mm - 12mm (and bigger) and are made in G80 and G100 strengths. These are 6mm G80 units, marked 6-8, and have a WLL of 1.12t (well above the WLL of G30 6mm chain or a galvanised G80 or G100 6mm chain. They are really used as permanent 'joiners' and are secured with a notched clevis pin and hammer in pins. It is difficult to hammer our the pins, especially after use (we carry a set of punches and I supply punches to anyone whom I help with their rode where the devices are incorporated). Its not clear but the pear link has an oval clevis pin.

You can source Omega links easily and cheaply - but they are supplied painted not galvanised.

If I am chopping and changing with items at the end of the rode I'll use Omega links but with the clevis pin secured with cotter pins, not the hammer in pins.



Here I have joined a custom made Boomerang to 6mm galvanised G80 chain using Omega links and joined the chain to the anchor using one omega link as an 'enlarged' end link joined to a Campbell G80 bow shackle.



I commonly use Omega links at the end of a chain as it is much easier to splice to an Omega link than a link of a 6mm HT chain.

Frankly I cannot commend use of a 'D' shackle ...... at all.

One problem is that the use of a 'D' shackle in the slot of a shank lengthens the shank (more lever action) and is very susceptible to failure through side loading (recalling that side loading at 90 degrees reduces shackle strength by 50% (that 1t shackle suddenly becomes a 500kg shackle) - a 1t snatch load is unlikely, 500kg quite possible. The issue is - in a hurry - "any shackle will do" much better if they are all bow shackles and Grade B or G80 shackles.

Interestingly shackles are tested in strings of multiple shackles (I suppose you could call them a 'chain' of shackles ) and 'D' shackles are no better than bow shackles when tested. (A chain of shackles is not to be confused with a shackle of chain ).

The other interesting facet of shackles, bow or 'D' you almost never see either in a lifting application but you do see hammerlocks, omega links (and both have many variants). Now wonder why shackles are not common.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

I keep coming back too, like a rubbernecker at a car crash

I too am constantly criticised for the verbosity of my posts. The same people make the same complaints. I reply with the comment and advise that reading posts is completely voluntary and if a post is from a renowned verbose poster (which is me as I don't see anyone else enjoying the umbrage) then don't read my posts.

Its simple stuff.

I am taking my own advise and simply don't read TNLIs posts. I suspect I do this in common with others. If he were to insert gems of data - or anything to justify and support his claims - I might read the posts. If he were to quote articles accurately and not out of context I might take notice. But where the posts look to be that of a religious bigot with no accomodation for realist, not an iota of knowledge and developments over the last 20 years - I might be interested.

He rejects the new anchors, with grudging accomodation for Spade (and I wonder why his change of heart - are we, maybe, getting through to him). He seems fixated with the first 90 decades of the last century so ignores smaller chain, ignores anchors development in the last 3 decades and never mentions snubbers.

So - I don't read his drivel. I know I'm not missing anything - because the 'rubberneckers' post retorts

My fear is he suggested he was to give a lecture on his accumulated knowledge (which anyone could glean by reading any article in YM or PBO in an issue dated in the 1980s, no need to got to lecture). Who in their right mind would have invited him to talk? I also fear someone might read his posts here and think they are useful.

To me he detracts from the quality of the forum and if the forum wants new members they might be discouraged.


But I do have faith in the forum. I now see people advising against buying anchors bigger than those recommended by the manufacturer. This is refreshing - you only need to visit CF and read 'Bigger is Better' to note the change. I see reputable members supporting the idea of smaller chain (though I detect this change of heart is not wholeheartedly supported, yet). I note an increased number of people discussing and advocating snubbers. I see subsequent to the publication of some articles that the proponents of some questionable anchors have retreated into the woodwork and no longer spruik their product.

I'm no longer the pariah of 'Bigger is Better'. Being a heretic has its price and you do need patience - and work in a medium that does accept alternative views. Whilst some moderators commend accepting alternative views they change their minds when it is they that are being criticised. Don't criticise mods, they too are human.

I do have faith in YBW (or am I being verbose, again.

Jonathan

 

[TNLI]

But where the posts look to be that of a religious bigot with no accomodation for realist, not an iota of knowledge and developments over the last 20 years - I might be interested.
So - I don't read his drivel. I know I'm not missing anything - because the 'rubberneckers' post retorts
To me he detracts from the quality of the forum and if the forum wants new members they might be discouraged.
I see reputable members supporting the idea of smaller chain (though I detect this change of heart is not wholeheartedly supported, yet).
I'm no longer the pariah of 'Bigger is Better'. Being a heretic has its price and you do need patience - and work in a medium that does accept alternative views. Whilst some moderators commend accepting alternative views they change their minds when it is they that are being criticised. Don't criticise mods, they too are human.
Jonathan

OK, so first of all using terms like religious bigot is not cool, so back on topic, as that entire rant was 99% off topic.

If you can afford German ultra high tech anchor chain that is around 50% better than normal anchor chain, and can afford to buy even more chain to help keep the anchors shank from lifting in a gust, then you can move down a size. Otherwise you are making a mistake. Take a look at the chain used for the main anchors of an offshore RNLI boat and their chains are real big for good reasons, as are commercial ships anchors chains, probably because they do know what they are doing. In the real world you need to allow for rust weakening the anchor chain, and the need to use larger shackles to reduce the chance of a failure.
In general terms I don't think there is a need to go big if you use 2 anchors when conditions are less than perfect, and if I was thinking of improving the strength of an anchoring system, I would look at moving up a chain size before considering increasing the size of the anchor.

Now for something important that really did suprise me, Steves test of a Danforth vs a Fortress of the same size, (If you are not concerned with weight, anchors should be compared by size, not weight):
Danforth vs Fortress Part 1. Anchor Test Video #101 - YouTube

Ooops, yet another NG anchors fails in good holding. Glad I purchased an OG steel Danforth, ratherthan a rust free Fortress. The Fortress is also a weak anchor, and their lifetime warranty is not valid for bent anything. The Bulwagga has a warranty valid for bends and will outperform the steel Danforth, so if I can find one in Blighty, I wiil be tempted to buy it, or swap my new Danforth for one.

Now for some less than good news from Steve about the Epsilon, bearing in mind that Steves tables are in weight vs holding, and not size vs holding, so lighter anchors normally do better than heavier anchors like the CQR or Bruce :
Lewmar Epsilon 44lb Anchor Test/Review. Anchor Video # 109 - YouTube

Another big suprise for NG lovers, was the les than usefull reset failure of the Excel, I thought the Excel might be OK until I watched the clip:
San Juan Islands Part 1. Anchor Test Video # 138 - YouTube

Now one thing I do not like about any type of anchor is if it sets correctly, then trips and fails to reset. The CQR for example was not designed to work in cobblestones or rocks and slides across them. That is not an unsafe characteristic, as it lets you know you are either in a bad part of the anchorage, or need to use a different anchor.
I was also surprised by his comments about different size anchor not scaling up in performance terms, and that the anchors that were best in sand were often the worst in mud. Nearly all the NG anchors are modifyed copies produced by fairly small companies, and trying to modify an existing design to get a better result is very difficult and should take many years. I doubt if that development work was done both in performance and structural terms. Steve did comment that some of the shanks had bent in normal tests, but he failed to remove those anchors from the tables.

Of course all the usual regulars will now say that none of the links are of value, are out of date or biased, and I should not be posting any links etc. So back to which anchors provide reliable performance and are incredibly tough:
1/ Genuine unworn or new LewmarCQR, but not for stones or rocks.
2/ Genuine Bruce or new Lewmar Claw, but not for weeds.
3/ Herreshoff, no real reservations apart from one third from bottom of Steve's tables.

For normal shallow anchorages: 1 and 2, for deep water, 1 and 3.

 

[john_morris_uk]

TNLI said “…
Now for something important that really did suprise me, Steves test of a Danforth vs a Fortress of the same size, (If you are not concerned with weight, anchors should be compared by size, not weight):
Danforth vs Fortress Part 1. Anchor Test Video #101 - YouTube

Ooops, yet another NG anchors fails in good holding. Glad I purchased an OG steel Danforth, ratherthan a rust free Fortress. The Fortress is also a weak anchor, and their lifetime warranty is not valid for bent anything. The Bulwagga has a warranty valid for bends and will outperform the steel Danforth, so if I can find one in Blighty, I wiil be tempted to buy it, or swap my new Danforth for one.”

But that’s not what he actually says. Stop making things up.

 

[TNLI]

TNLI said “…
Now for something important that really did suprise me, Steves test of a Danforth vs a Fortress of the same size, (If you are not concerned with weight, anchors should be compared by size, not weight):
Danforth vs Fortress Part 1. Anchor Test Video #101 - YouTube

Ooops, yet another NG anchors fails in good holding. Glad I purchased an OG steel Danforth, ratherthan a rust free Fortress. The Fortress is also a weak anchor, and their lifetime warranty is not valid for bent anything. The Bulwagga has a warranty valid for bends and will outperform the steel Danforth, so if I can find one in Blighty, I wiil be tempted to buy it, or swap my new Danforth for one.”

But that’s not what he actually says. Stop making things up.

It's a comment, what he says is in the video, and anyone that looks at the link will make up their own mind up. In the end the owner and skipper of any boat has to do their own research. I have done mine and the only real changes have been to think twice before using a Danforth in a storm and to carry a copy of a Herreshoff on deck, and like some offshore RNLI lifeboats I will clamp it to a stanchion like they do with their Admiralty fishermans.
The other big change is to sell my red folding grapnel that was intended for my canoe and replace it with a 2Kg Bruce, (No sharp points as my canoe is an inflatable). Steves test of different anchors for use in a rubber duck did demonstrate the folding grapnel is worse than useless.

Even if I just posted links, it appears NG anchor lovers will not be happy.

 

[TNLI]

These look like D-shackles (very heavy duty, of course).

Excellent post and pictures of my favourite main anchor, and if I had a much bigger boat, a real classic ships anchor. A good main anchor will have a D shackle with a welded pin. Alas many anchors do not, and I hope you realise that you might be accused of trolling by the NG anchor fan club. I'm the only OG anchor fan who is willing to suffer all the abusive comments to search for the odd gem of information like the Bulwagga and Herreshoff.
Welcome to Bulwagga Marine Anchors (azuremarine.com)

 

[Neeves]

Ooops, yet another NG anchors fails in good holding. Glad I purchased an OG steel Danforth, ratherthan a rust free Fortress. The Fortress is also a weak anchor, and their lifetime warranty is not valid for bent anything. The Bulwagga has a warranty valid for bends and will outperform the steel Danforth, so if I can find one in Blighty, I wiil be tempted to buy it, or swap my new Danforth for one.

I was also surprised by his comments about different size anchor not scaling up in performance terms, and that the anchors that were best in sand were often the worst in mud.

There is always an exception to rules. I hate people who troll and have no evidence to support their contentions.

I tested a Fortress and bent the shank - no questions asked, they sent a replacement shank by return. I have this suspicion that if Fortress were seriously wanting we would not see them on US Coastguard vessels. The buyer can make his choice on what the USCG does (they buy Fortress' anchors) or rely on someone who acts like a religious bigot and says they are useless and he possibly has never used a Fortress.

No anchor performs in all seabeds, anyone who expects an anchor to work as well in soupy mud, sand, weed and pebbly/shelly seabeds is an idiot. Sadly we are seeing some, or at least one person suggesting (without evidence) the impossible is within our grasp.

Anchors are a comprise. get used to it, accept it and plan accordingly.

So an anchor that performs well in one seabed may not perform well in another.

On scaling up - there is minimal data on 'scaling up' of any leisure anchor. The only anchor of which I am aware that has been tested for the full range, in terms of size or weight, is the Fortress. Many small anchors (which may have a fluke as small as a Fishermans or, say, a Herreshoff) of any, or many, designs, may perform well in ribbon grass - this is not say their bigger brothers will be of any value at all in the same seabed.

Jonathan

 

[thinwater]

Excellent post and pictures of my favourite main anchor, and if I had a much bigger boat, a real classic ships anchor. A good main anchor will have a D shackle with a welded pin. Alas many anchors do not, and I hope you realise that you might be accused of trolling by the NG anchor fan club. I'm the only OG anchor fan who is willing to suffer all the abusive comments to search for the odd gem of information like the Bulwagga and Herreshoff.
Welcome to Bulwagga Marine Anchors (azuremarine.com)

Actually, if you are going to guess what I was thinking, I think the traditional design is inefficient and obsolete in this age. Often promoted as a rock pick and weed weapon, in truth these are seldom dependable bottoms and you probably need to move. Moreover, the limited testing I have seen suggests that admiralyty and Bulwaga anchors are not as good in those conditions than a NG anchor of the same size; proponents invariably brag that a double-size Luke saved the day. Of course, many double-size anchors would have held, and probably better.

I was only presenting both traditional and modern use of D-shackles. Nothing else. A stretch, also, because the illustrated shackles and anchors were designed from the ground up for this. The images were intended to provoke thought about shackle use, not as a troll.

Yes, I've tested a good many anchors, and the field and in test programs using a load cell. I hate "rating" anchors, for it is like herding cats (the data is messy), but I do understand many behaviors.

 

[Neeves]

Actually, if you are going to guess what I was thinking

I don't think he guesses what you were thinking, that demands a level of understanding, knowledge and an inkling of your ideas and publications.

He does not read any published data and reiterate with any accuracy (no - that's generous - he makes up a totally new and bizarre conclusions from prose a 12 year old would understand), he has no understanding - he illustrates that with every post

As suggested he is just here to a annoy us - from which he derives immense pleasure.

Now that I have finger to keyboard:

(I must remember) Don't feed the trolls

Jonathan

 

[SimonKNZ]

I've discovered the delight of the "Ignore" button, the first time I've used it on this or any forum. The signal to noise ratio on this thread has increased exponentially as a result of ignoring just one user. No names mentioned

 

[RunAgroundHard]

... The Fortress is also a weak anchor, and their lifetime warranty is not valid for bent anything.

I have Fortress, the shank was bent in a bending test, which I found out after I bought it, second hand. Fortress sent me a new shank FOC from the USA to the UK. They were not aware of the amateurs attempt to bend test. They just honoured their commitment.

Once again you are wrong. You really should check your facts.

 

[alex23299]

oil rigs anchor in serious currents therefore… more drivel. More nonsense.
What’s a ‘kit built’ Fortress anchor? More made up disinformation. The ones the USCG use are standard off the shelf ones.


You didn’t really read that article did you…
The author put the second anchor out to try and stop his boat swinging over rubble before it took the ground. He was amazed/surprised it held.
Here’s an interesting quote from the article:
“Elsewhere, at least one of the yachts that dragged in deep water had her CQR on about 100 metres of chain but that did her no good.’

Kellets or chums or anchor angels used to be thought of as really helpful. I used to believe it myself. In fact they’re useless (worse perhaps as they take up storage space and add weight to your boat for no purpose. ) Anchor rodes that have been dived on in heavy weather have been shown to have no useful catenary. The chum makes no difference as far as catenary or snatching in a gale.
The same research applies to heavy chain vs light chain. For small craft it makes no difference regarding catenary or snatching in storm conditions. (We’re not talking about ships here as their anchoring systems work in very different ways). So your statement about the book not changing regarding heavy chain is also false. What was once thought to be obvious and common sense about chain rodes simply isn’t true.

The serious cruising boats I see and know use a NG anchor (NOT a CQR!) and only deploy two anchors if a storm is forecast. It’s what I do.

And if you’re interested we use a Spade on 100 metres of chain with a Kong stainless (shock horror) swivel and our second anchor is a large Fortress on a chain/rope rode of about 60 metres, but we’ve another 100 metres or more of nylon line to add to either ride if necessary.

Link to an 'NG anchor' please? Google not helping....

 

[SaltIre]

Link to an 'NG anchor' please? Google not helping....

I'm not familiar with the term NG either, can't fathom it, but I think it might be an abbreviation for "new generation".
Best anchors: 8 new generation designs suitable for every boat - Yachting Monthly

 

[TNLI]

I have Fortress, the shank was bent in a bending test, which I found out after I bought it, second hand. Fortress sent me a new shank FOC from the USA to the UK. They were not aware of the amateurs attempt to bend test. They just honoured their commitment.

Once again you are wrong. You really should check your facts.

Yes it does appear that Fortress are willing to send new parts when one is bent, so it does seem odd that if they are willing to do that, that they do not change their warranty to match that of a Bulwagga. I've checked my facts over the Fortress warranty, which is the same as Lewmar's and the only thought I have is that if the failure is in the first year of the sale, then they are obliged to replace it under the terms of a gaurantee that varies from country to country, but I think is one year for most, except for Germany where it's 2 years. If the anchor is imported through Fleabay and fails after the 14 or 30 day returns period, bad luck. With a gaurantee you do not have to prove the part is faulty, but with a warranty you might need to do that. Keep the receipts as a lot of companies ask about when it was purchased.

I was the chappie who pointed out that the USCG RIB's use a Fortress, probably because they need to keep the weight as low as possible, and their RIB's operate mostly in harbours and estuaries where the bottom is mostly mud or sand.
I thought the Fortress out performed all the NG anchors in weight vs performance terms, but we are talking or looking at the results for one type only, and alas having seen a Fortress in a USCG RIB some years ago, it did notice it was not a kit built anchor. The USCG and RNLI can afford to order a better version from a manufacturer, in either basic construction terms or material use.

Now for a link that everyone says is rubbish cos it's a mature one, but is of interest because it compares the Spade, Bulwagga, CQR, Danforth, Bronze Herreshoff and Fortress and others by what I call deck area vs performance, my favourite link follows, but if you want to save time, the results were in the order I've just listed. For those like myself who like to see an anchor with a welded D ring, only the CQR and Herreshoff have such shackles fitted. Oddly enough they are often missing from copies. Those shackles can effect the tip weight if cut off, as appears to be the case in one CQR Steve tested that is a genuine one. So the offensive, out of date, irrelevant link that has only 2 NG anchors in it, so is not worth reading, boom, boom, boom & trumpet sounds, here is it is:
Anchor Reset Tests - Practical Sailor (practical-sailor.com)

Edited extract that I have etched into my brain cell:
The Herreshoff Bronze was a surprise. This very handsome new version of a very traditional anchor set quickly, in 2′, and broke out and reset itself in 3′. In sand, its weak point is holding. It dragged at 300 lbs., 100 lbs. short of the 400-lb. requirement.
The best lightweight anchor was the Fortress, which simply swiveled in a horizontal plane around the shank and took up its new alignment. In the setting and holding tests, the Fortress ranked near the middle.

That is at odds slightly to Steve's results, although that might be due to a mixed mud and sand bottom or the way the 180 veer test was done. I do like replies that list anchor pairs, (Seperate rodes), and links, rather than all the common insults and rants, or demands that any post I send is removed just because I question modern designs. We are still using the wheel which has been around for a very long time, and even the basic wooden version is still popular and in current production in many different countries.

 

[vyv_cox]

Excellent post and pictures of my favourite main anchor, and if I had a much bigger boat, a real classic ships anchor. A good main anchor will have a D shackle with a welded pin. Alas many anchors do not, and I hope you realise that you might be accused of trolling by the NG anchor fan club. I'm the only OG anchor fan who is willing to suffer all the abusive comments to search for the odd gem of information like the Bulwagga and Herreshoff.
Welcome to Bulwagga Marine Anchors (azuremarine.com)

Now I finally know you are just winding us all up and taking the p---. Nobody in their right mind could recommend a Bulwagga for serious anchoring.
Bulwagga Anchor - When you really need to be sure!

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Yes it does appear that Fortress are willing to send new parts when one is bent, …

Fortress warranty is lifetime for the original purchaser if registered. In my case they went further as I bought it second hand and didn’t register. As far as I am concerned they are a customer orientated company who offer a great anchor. What any other company offers in terms of warranty is irrelevant as my point was about Fortress's warranty.

You were wrong and now you are obfuscating, again. I suppose to try and hide your failure.

 

[TNLI]

I'm not familiar with the term NG either, can't fathom it, but I think it might be an abbreviation for "new generation".
Best anchors: 8 new generation designs suitable for every boat - Yachting Monthly

Umm, now you don't suppose that article is an advertisment of any kind do you ?? After all it does have links as to where to buy the list of NG anchors.

Off topic
The first thing to learn about buying anchors is to ignore the advertising claims and look for more independent data, although they are useful for current cost assesment.
Amazinzone are better than Fleabay in that they seem to pay for return postage, and they do use faster better delivery methods. Fleabay is often cheaper and it's more obvious who the seller is. I buy marine gear from both, but tend to prefer Fleabay due to a better range of junk items. Even purchased a slightly dirty very fire resistant top of the range survival suit made in Finland for oil rig and oil tanker crews. 80 quid was a real steal of a deal, (Bad pictures made it look like it was no good), as it's still in current production and is the most expensive survial suit around, and the most expensive at 1400 Euros plus VAT and shipping. A few weeks later I got an almost new, (Dirty feet), standard Noddy suit with built in manual life jacket for 80 quid, (About 200 new).

I might need to test my beloved lifeboat during the winter in the Portland race during an RNLI training day, and I don't like the idea of freezing to death or having an Oceanic White Tip chew on me, (No smell or electric field so rather shark attack resistant). Never seen an OWT, probably because they are very rare, but if one turns up and starts circling it's far worse than having a Great White or Tiger turn up, as they always attack, so the modern thinking is to never turn your back on a shark, and think about attacking it before it attacks you. Trying to hit one on the nose has gone out of favour, as it can result in the loss of an arm, so try prodding it in the gills which are nearly as sensitive as the nose. I will be carrying a standard billy stick down a trouser leg when I can find a good used one, as starting a puch up with a shark at very close range is not my idea of a fair fight !!!

 

[john_morris_uk]

Link to an 'NG anchor' please? Google not helping....

I used NG as a shorthand for New Generation. Our main anchor (and the one we’re lying to as I type this) is a Spade.