Are Viking Anchors Any good?

[Neeves]

Thanks for the report. It is always valuable to hear how anchors are performing in the real world.

The Viking 10 is recomended for boats from 30-40 feet and displacements up to 27,000 lbs. I am pleased to see you very sensibly ignored the overly optimistic sizing tables published by the manufacturer .

One of the difficulties experienced with Viking anchors is that the designer has placed the shank fluke connection close to the head of the anchor, which gives the fluke a long overhang. I think this is part of the reason very small anchors are recommended. It is difficult on many boats to fit anchors of a sensible size.

Did you have any trouble fitting the 10 kg anchor on the bow of a 26 foot yacht?

As Noelex well knows the crown, the junction of the shank and fluke, is at or near the rear of the fluke of unballasted anchors as this is the best position to engender hold. This is why the crown of ships anchors and Danforths, Fortress, Bugel, Brittany, Knox, SARCA are all at the heel. Originally Viking anchors were in the incorrect position like a Mantus and moving the shank aft doubled hold. They could not have the shank 'right' aft as this compromised the strength of the fluke as the shank needs a slot. If you look at a Bruce anchor the crown is so far aft it extends behind the heel of the fluke.

This is not new - this knowledge has been known for decades and there are a number of research papers from Universities that specialise in anchor design defining the maths. The shank location forward, like a Mantus, on an unballasted anchor results in an anchor with low and shallow hold. Commonly anchors when in use have a fluke seabed angle of around 30 degrees (the angle chosen by Fortress for use of their anchor in sand). Spade, Bruce, Danforth, Excel etc etc illustrate this. Mantus has a fluke/seabed angle of 16 degrees which reduces its hold by 50% (I know I've tested one). if you drill some extra holes, in the right place, and move the shank back, like I did, you double hold (again, I know, I've done it). Simple stuff. Deep set anchors resist veering, shallow set anchors are prone to dragging when the wind is veering or you anchor subject to an oscillating wind.

Interestingly there was research conducted at Houston University by a PhD student who studied all the characteristics of anchor design, size and shape of fluke, size and shape of shank etc etc - he defined why the crown is at the heel (if looking at a Fortress, Danforth etc could not have raised a question). Mantus designed in Houston (the same Houston) thought they were copying a Rocna, and placed the crown further forward, like a Rocna, Spade, Excel (all ballasted anchors) with the result predicted by the research paper. It does make you wonder. I was sent a Mantus anchor to test - I told the owner of Mantus of my results, he did nothing to change the design. I published the results (freely available in Practical Sailor from the US) - I did not get a copy of the new, ballasted, anchor to test. Noelex, the same Noelex who posts here - had a long running thread on his choice of anchor, a Mantus. The thread was a photographic history of his anchor with many underwater images. Despite hundreds of images he never once identified the poor setting ability of his anchor nor describe the difference between his anchor and all the others. He felt free to criticise virtually every other design.

No wonder Noelex tries to niggle me. In this case he again has criticised an anchor maker - ignoring the poor performance of his own preferred design. I would not feel compelled to counter his comments - if he kept his fingers off the keyboard.

I would happily have used the Viking 10 as a primary on a 38' cat with the windage of a 45' AWB. I extensively tested and used the anchor. I could only deploy by hand, it would not fit on our bow roller. Now I would happily use a Odin 40 same size as a Viking 10, but a different design - it fits on the Lightwave bow roller and most cat's bow rollers. It seems undersized, the Viking 10 has the same fluke size as a 15kg steel Spade or a 15kg steel Excel - and has the same, or similar, hold. Its made from HT steel and, as far as I can ascertain, has the same strength as the steel Spade and Excel. I see no reason not to use it as a replacement for the Spade, nor Excel. But then I've used it.

I also tested the original Mantus chain hook, it bent and damaged the chain (it was eventually weihdrawn). I don't know why it was withdrawn - the owner of the business never mentioned why nor acknowledged my work. The swivel is too large and detracts from anchor performance - The swivel I was given was for imperial chain, though it must have been known that Australia uses metric chain (that does not fit an Imperial swivel) - fortunately I have a stock of Imperial and Metric chains to allow testing. I'm removed from the list of potential testers for Mantus (I'm not so flush I can buy everything Mantus produces). - the buying public is now at the hands of the sycophants. But don't think I don't like Mantus - I love them - they gave me a whole stack of product with which I could test - and consistently they failed, my expectations. As an editor said to me 'why don't they test their products before they come to market?' - bad news is news worthy, good news is ....boring.

It is common practice for anchors to be finished with a coat of aluminium spray paint, purely for cosmetic reasons. Many anchors, the classic was Rocna, are made from steels of different specifications. The shank is made from high tensile steel and the fluke from 'lower' (much) tensile steel, aka mild steel. These various steels accept galvanising differently and the galvanised product looks odd - all different shades of grey. To even out the colour the anchors are often painted. Rocna recognised this and one option tried was to change the steel being used to make the shank. The galvanised shank and the galvanised fluke then looked the same - with disastrous consequences. Viking anchors are made with steels of different quality and specification - these will look a bit piebald when galvanised - spray painting makes them look evenly galvanised.

Chipping of the galvanising is a common issue. Its not caused by poor galvanising but by leaving the cut edges of the steel 'sharp'. The answer is simple - round the edges. The edges do not then look 'crisp' but the galvanising develops correctly. Sadly rounding, or beveling, of the edges takes time and costs.

Viking know of the problem and I think, hope, have addressed it.


If you see a fault, like chipped galvanising - report it, and if you do not get satisfaction - report it here. Very often the manufacturer does not get sufficient feedback - so simply does not know the issues. Good news is not newsworthy - bad news travels like wild fire. Manufacturers know this - they will address issues quickly (though you may need to wait for satisfaction).

Don't believe everything you read (here), including what I post - but what I post has been vetted by peer review. I don't post on topics that have not been published. Not so others.

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

As Noelex well knows the crown, the junction of the shank and fluke, is at or near the rear of the fluke of unballasted anchors as this is the best position to engender hold.

Jonathan

No, this is not accurate. There was a long thread on this subject some time ago so I am sure you are aware that this is not something I agree with as you were an active percipient in this thread.

However, this thread was removed by the forum moderators (including all my detailed diagrams explaining why this hurts anchor performance on models with raised shanks such as the Viking ). I think it is better we do not rehash the same discussion.

Let’s simply acknowledge that Viking has elected to attach the fluke near the crown of the anchor and this, together with the long fluke, means that often only a relatively small anchor can typically fit before the tip of the fluke fouls the bow. This is simple geometry. Hence the silly anchor sizing recommended by Viking. For my 49 foot aluminium expedition yacht the recomended size is 12.5 kg .

We can agree to disagree whether the fluke position helps or hurts the anchor’s performance.

 

[Neeves]

No, this is not accurate. There was a long thread on this subject some time ago so I am sure you are aware that this is not something I agree with as you were an active percipient in this thread.

However, this thread was removed by the forum moderators (including all my detailed diagrams explaining why this hurts anchor performance on models with raised shanks such as the Viking ). I think it is better we do not rehash the same discussion.

Let’s simply acknowledge that Viking has elected to attach the fluke near the crown of the anchor and this, together with the long fluke, means that often only a relatively small anchor can typically fit before the tip of the fluke fouls the bow. This is simple geometry. Hence the silly anchor sizing recommended by Viking. For my 49 foot aluminium expedition yacht the recomended size is 12.5 kg .

We can agree to disagree whether the fluke position helps or hurts the anchor’s performance.

You say its not accurate - others would disagree with you. You are not, yet, or not on this Forum, the arbiter of right and wrong

Sorry Noelex - people are led to believe from your thread on Cruisers Forum that a Mantus anchor is the best thing since sliced bread. I, and Practical Sailor disagree. If Practical Sailor had rejected my findings as a load of drivel - I would accept their view - but sadly, for you, you are not Practical Sailor. The US Navy find that for 2 flukes of the same size the relation ship of hold is a function of the sine of the angle that the fluke makes with the seabed, sine 16 degrees is 0.2756 and sine of 30 degrees is 0.5 (as near as makes no difference 1:2). I accept that you do not agree with Practical Sailor nor simple trigonometry - which to me seems just a little bit arrogant. Its a pity Mr Pythagoras is not here to talk to you. I just wish, as you are so confident, you would add to your long thread on Mantus and post your argument why PS, the US Navy and trigonometry are all wrong (and you are right).

Just spend a fraction of the time you spend trying to denigrate my analysis of Mantus etc - and make mention of the opposing views to yours - on your thread and provide an analysis why I, Practical Sailor, the US Navy and trig are wrong. You need not worry about your thread being removed by Moderators - so you say what you like (as people with opposing views to yours, AFAIK, have all been banned).

Denial does not work for me. I also don't agree with burning books.

quote:

'the fluke near the crown of the anchor and this, together with the long fluke'.

The crown of the anchor IS the junction of fluke and shank.

Bruce, SARCA, Knox, Bugel all have their crown at the heel of the fluke - I see them on bow rollers frequently. The whole basis of an anchor is 'hold', to sacrifice hold by 50% to make it convenient to house the device seems, to me , to be contradictory. Viking in fact decided that having the crown 'right' at the heel, or behind the heel in the case of Bruce, was unnecessary as they thought the current position provided sufficient and adequate hold. Most owners if they want an anchor that does not fit their bow roller, commonly designed round the fit of a Delta, would modify their retrieval to accomodate the better anchor.

Maybe if you had bought the 12.5kg Viking you would have been surprised. Have you compared the fluke size of a 12.5kg Viking against a 33kg Rocna? I might remind you Josepheline has the windage of a 45' AWB and we used a 8kg aluminium anchor, either Spade or Excel, as our primary. The Viking 10 has, as near as makes no difference, the same fluke area as a 15kg Rocna or Spade. We never dragged with the 15kg steel Spade nor Excel and did not drag with the 8kg aluminium versions. We sometimes would deploy both anchors in a fork for an oscillating wind - but that was for comfort (and because we could) not because we doubted either the aluminium Spade nor the aluminium Excel.

To me a 12.5kg Viking for your yacht does not seem too different to our using a 8kg aluminium anchor on a 45' AWB.

I know you use a 50kg Mantus, that has the hold of a 50kg Delta (and maybe the same hold as a 33kg Rocna - which I think is the recommendation for your yacht). But your using the 50kg Mantus does not mean you need it nor need a 33kg Rocna.

As I say - maybe if you had used the 12.5 kg Viking you would have been, not surprised, but astonished.

Jonathan

 

[JRCO26]

I think I unintentionally reinvigorated the Noelex v Neeves boxing anchor wars

 

[Neeves]

I think I unintentionally reinvigorated the Noelex v Neeves boxing anchor wars

I'll try to go off line. I value YBW and will lower my profile.

Thanks for the warning.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

Never having even seen, far less used, a Viking anchor, I cannot comment on their performance. However, having seen the photos kindly provided by KK earlier in this thread, I can tell you that I would not even consider buying one. Any fabricator of steel items, who intends to have them galvanised, should surely know enough to avoid leaving sharp corners on their products. From KK's photos it's obvious that no attempt has been made to finish the steelwork to a standard which will accept reliable galvanising.

 

[jane444blue]

Had mine for 2 years, Viking 7, bought from place in EU cant remember where, made in Kyviv at the start of the war. Not used in winds yet over 30 knots. No issues, love it as don't have a winch and sail solo, much easier than old CQR.

 

[mauro.lesousa]

I am the new owner of the Contessa 26 with the Viking 10 anchor.
It holds very well, on a gusty day with 20kts winds and 30kts gusts it hold a my contessa, another similar yacht and a JetSki without problems.
I often anchor on depths of 10 to 15 meters with no problems.
Having plenty of chain helps with shifting winds and tides.
The only time I felt concerned I was anchored on a bad holding with strong gusts. The bottom was covered with algae, it drifted a few meters on two nights with +30 kts gusts.
I suspect the galvanised coating might not be the best, it’s disappearing slowly in some area, but could also be wear and tear.