At risk of starting an anchor thread... a windlass and chain question...

Neeves said:
Tell me briefly about kellets, if you don't mind. I'd welcome being educated.
Click to expand...

That is a surprising question Jonathan for a marine journalist who has studied and taken part in numerous anchoring threads across the internet forums for years. I would have thought that you would know all about kellets and be able to advise us on there effectiveness.

Pete
 
Neeves said:
and stainless steel, unrated, shackles.

The only notched bow rollers I have seen, where the vertical link fits in a slot, are ancient - so hardly new technology (but simple technology that is ignored).
Click to expand...

Tell me briefly about notched bow rollers, if you don't mind. I'd welcome being educated.

Peter
 
Pete7 said:
Tell me briefly about notched bow rollers, if you don't mind. I'd welcome being educated.

Peter
Click to expand...


Anchors are not perfectly fabricated devises. resulting in some anchors hydro rotate as result of the speed of retrieval of modern windlass. That rotation can result in twists in chain coming over some bow rollers - having a slot for every other link will stop that effect.

I notice that as our anchor is deployed the chain 'rolls' before it reaches the bow roller, so between windlass and roller - and for the life of me I don't know why - simplistically it twists. This may be because the anchor hydro rotates on deployment, it might be the design of the roller itself - simply don't know - but it twists. Having a slot, might. stop this - as those twists might remain there until the anchor is retrieved.

We actually don't mind as we stop the windlass on retrieval just before the anchor reaches the bow roller, (the chain is marked as warning) most twists fall out, torque, and our Boomerang rights the anchor if necessary.

Peter - If I'd known I would not have posted, Paul sums it up nicely.
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
The only notched bow rollers I have seen, where the vertical link fits in a slot, are ancient - so hardly new technology (but simple technology that is ignored).
Click to expand...

I recently designed a new roller for my boat, where the roller has a slot for the vertical links and a deeper slot for the shank of the anchor. Had a local company make it from Delrin. Works nicely, stops the chain clattering and twisting and stops the anchor laying over.
 
Like these. The port side one is hollow and was gradually collapsing. The starboard one was a little narrow. I have now had two new ones made to my design that fit the cheeks better, in solid Acetal.

2e3c7dba53c001e30119dac1837bccde_zps949e9e7e.jpg
 
Minn said:
Yes, it's all a system.

I sang the praises of the modern bow roller a couple of pages back. But you very seldom see them. People spend silly money on clever anchors and watch chain and don't think about where most of the friction is located. And then they weaken the whole thing by adding an unnecessary swivel...
Click to expand...

Can I point out that in conjunction with his kellet Mr. Worth is using an Admiralty pattern anchor. This might have some value in penetrating weed but its surface area is so small as to be nearly useless in a mud or sand bottom unless it is extremely heavy. This is where the kellet is contributing some value. With modern anchors whose surface area is greater and having optimised shape, there is far less need for weight, viz aluminium anchors that hold perfectly well.

Similarly with a CQR, which having witnessed hundreds under water in Greece, always set like this
CQR%20%20chain_zpsbjrjdtkc.jpg
This particular anchor had survived a force 7 somehow, despite its active area being only half the design value, in itself small by modern standards. My Rocna and our neighbour's Manson Supreme were totally buried, where their superior surface area could have maximum effect. Again, a kellet might help to improve the questionable setting of a CQR by adding weight but this is totally unnecessary with a well-designed anchor.
 
Well now that we have two Experts, I await the explanation of how the weight of a chain slider and weights under the bow of a boat affects the way in which the anchor, at the far end of the chain, sets.

Is is perhaps quantum mechanics?

It cannot have anything to do with either the angle at which the pull comes on the anchor, or with any possibility of absorbing shock loads due to catenary effects, since these have been Scientifically Proven to be irrelevant and non-existent, respectively.

In the parallel universe that I sail in, the one in which AWBs with scientific anchors and techniques continue to add to the gaitety of nations in sundry crowded anchorages, the effect of a kellet is to stop snatch loads on from reaching the anchor and to ensure that the load reaching the anchor does so along the bottom.
 
Last edited:
It all comes down to the anchor you are using. As vyv's photo shows the CQR is a lousy anchor and does not hold well in anything other than softish mud. It needs the weight to keep the pull horizontal, hence the old fashioned preference for using heavy chain and an angel - to make up for the deficiency of the anchor. So it is, as you claim a system.

However, if you have a good modern anchor that digs in well in a variety of substrates and resists pull from a wide range of angles without breaking out you no longer need the weight of heavy chain nor an angel. You now have a new system that works differently and will give you far better holding with a significant reduction in weight in the bows of the boat. As to snatch loads, a properly set anchor is not affected in the same way as a CQR and the catenary of the chain plus either a part rope rode or snubber will dealt with that.

This is nothing to do with AWBs as you will find this system is increasingly the norm, particularly for those who liveaboard and cruise in areas where anchoring is normal.

There is nothing unusual about what you describe as your normal anchoring and no logical reason to continue using a system that dates back to the 1920s.
 
My irritation with the assembly of Experts on this thread is entirely down to my having asked for advice and been trolled for a laugh, and patronised into the bargain.

I hope you all had a wonderful time.

I got the answer I wanted in the first two posts.

If I were made of money I would undoubtedly have followed the excellent advice given, bought a new anchor, bought Schedule 70 chain and bought a nice new electric windlass. But if I were made of money I would not be fixing up a forty-year old boat. As it is I can rebuild an old 555 and buy a lifetime supply of CQRs and pigs of ballast.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
...... I am stuck in my ways - ..
Click to expand...

Tranona said:
.... no logical reason to continue using a system that dates back to the 1920s.
Click to expand...

The logical reason is that Minn prefers older ways, the same logic that applies when an enthusiast buys a classic bike / car / wooden boat. I guess that what he is asking is pretty clear, Option 1 or 2. I would advise option 1 but carefully check the chain he is going to purchase. Simpson Lawrence manufactured a 10mm chain and supplied a gypsy for it that does not match any of the now common 10mm sizes, as I have found out with my SL400 and 10 mm chain. Hence, my recommendation would be to measure the chain links accurately and take the gypsy into the chain supplier to check if any new chain does fit, otherwise he might actually be forced into a modern windlass just for a gypsy that fits modern chain.

I agree that upgrading to a modern anchor is a far better idea and maybe even replacing the windlass with a modern unit and chain to match. I am in the middle of overhauling my windlass and research suggests that a rewind can produce a better, slightly more powerful motor; all bearings are easily available as well.

At the end of the day, if a sailor wants to use old methods and old techniques, then like braking hard on a BSA A7 from 70 mph, one has to be aware of the limitations. If Minn is aware and manages his boat accordingly, then it's logical.
 
RichardS said:
Maybe I've been misled but I thought Neeves was being serious. :confused:

Richard
Click to expand...

I was being entirely serious.

Minn you are being overly sensitive, I am not laughing. As I have stated I see
no point in a kellet. You copied how to use one but this did not define the why, you made some subjective comments on the why later, much later. But a 10m length of correctly sized nylon will replace the catenary advantage of a kellet, easily, and with elasticity to spare. Its easier to apply and you do not need to lug heavy weights up and down the deck. If you go to your local rock climbing wall you should be able to get them for free, one is too small?, use 2, The ropes are usually more than 18m long, use 10m normally - if the wind gets up a bit extend to full length.

Because the yawing of your yacht (yawing and snatch loading result in dragging) is part tamed by the elasticity of your snubber your chain stays on the seabed for longer. The more elastic your snubber, which is why you use climbing rope, the longer your chain will stay on the seabed. You have finite limit to your Kellet, dictated by what you can physically lift up the chain (which I would not want to do in the dark, in the rain in a hurry).

As long as your chain is off the seabed it acts like a steel rod - any movement of the yacht is in part transmitted to the anchor. Touch your set anchor and you will find, when the chain is off the seabed, even if 'almost' horizontal, that it twitches. That twitching reduces the shear strength of the seabed in immediate proximity to the fluke - use a snubber, acts like a shock absorber, reduces the twitching.

Don't mock new ideas, especially when they are not always new, maybe go to your climbing wall get the free rope (they legally must retire the ropes, they cannot be used for tree lopping or climbing, here they cannot actually sell them - 'we' are offering a disposal service and keeping them from landfill) - and try it.

Think of the climbing rope as a bungy cord, as in bungy jump, for your yacht. When a jumper reaches the bottom of their fall, they feel nothing, or not much - like a yacht with a snubber.


I've tried a kellet - waste of time and effort. You try a snubber, then you can report back and tell me I'm arrogant and don't know what I, and others, are talking about.
 
Minn said:
My irritation with the assembly of Experts on this thread is entirely down to my having asked for advice and been trolled for a laugh, and patronised into the bargain.

I hope you all had a wonderful time.

I got the answer I wanted in the first two posts.

If I were made of money I would undoubtedly have followed the excellent advice given, bought a new anchor, bought Schedule 70 chain and bought a nice new electric windlass. But if I were made of money I would not be fixing up a forty-year old boat. As it is I can rebuild an old 555 and buy a lifetime supply of CQRs and pigs of ballast.
Click to expand...

Don't know what gives you the impression you are being laughed at or patronised.

One of your concerns was the weight of you anchoring gear in the bows of your boat, and this is a direct consequence of using out of date and inefficient gear. Not unreasonable therefore to suggest that you consider solving that problem and getting much more effective anchoring (including electric windlass that you will appreciate if you had it) by using better gear than you have.

If you intend doing a lot of anchoring, surely it makes sense to have the best gear? Appreciate money is invariably an issue, but that does not change the value of the advice, nor does it mean it is given in a patronising way. Most comes from people who have been through exactly the same process as you including seeing at one time in their sailing lives the CQR as the best (because it was at the time) and a manual windlass as desirable (because it was better than no windlass at all). There is also a case for some of the "old" to be as good as, or better than, the new - but not sure that anchoring gear is one of them.
 
People will know I'm not Peter Smith's most ardent fan but some of what he says is very sensible, though some is plain wrong. For example his comment on HT chain snapping without any extension is incorrect and I think his comments on tandem anchors raises some question marks, with someone who has actually conducted some tests. He is also trying to sell an anchor - so the arguments do have that focus.

But this might be an interesting read

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/catenary.php

At the end of the article is a discussion specifically about kellets - which might also be interesting.
 
Neeves said:
People will know I'm not Peter Smith's most ardent fan but some of what he says is very sensible, though some is plain wrong. For example his comment on HT chain snapping without any extension is incorrect and I think his comments on tandem anchors raises some question marks, with someone who has actually conducted some tests. He is also trying to sell an anchor - so the arguments do have that focus.

But this might be an interesting read

http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-anchors/catenary.php

At the end of the article is a discussion specifically about kellets - which might also be interesting.
Click to expand...

I read it. It talks about using a kellet with a weight of 35lbs. I suspect special pleading by an anchor salesman. Such a trivial weight is pointless. You want at least double that. The point being that you are using ballast anyway. The Ohlson 38 that I asked the original question about has a fine collection of kellet weights in her (very deep) bilge dump.

Have you ever actually used one?
 
Why do I think I have been used as a laughing stock?

This is why:

Pete7 said:
That is a surprising question Jonathan for a marine journalist who has studied and taken part in numerous anchoring threads across the internet forums for years. I would have thought that you would know all about kellets and be able to advise us on there effectiveness.

Pete
Click to expand...

Yeah, bloody funny, chaps. Like I said, Simple Sucker here walked right into it. Wasted an hour pulling the book with the original description of a kellet off the shelf and photographing pages. Hilarious.

Incidentally I too am a "marine journalist", dealing in rather larger vessels but I don't go in for that sort of trick.
 
Last edited:
Minn said:
I read it. It talks about using a kellet with a weight of 35lbs. I suspect special pleading by an anchor salesman. Such a trivial weight is pointless. You want at least double that. The point being that you are using ballast anyway. The Ohlson 38 that I asked the original question about has a fine collection of kellet weights in her (very deep) bilge dump.

Have you ever actually used one?
Click to expand...

A long long time ago we used to use a kellet. It was a pain to attach to the chain and even more of a pain to recover. It didnt seem to do much other than reduce our swinging in light winds. As the wind picked up it did nothing positive other than make it harder to recover. We soon dispensed with it and tried a snubber of various types of rope until we found a type and thickness that was right for the boat. Changing to a long stretchy snubber made the boat more comfortable to live on when the wind was gusty. Previously we would feel the chain come up tight with a jerk in a gust. With the snubber the gusts would be a lot less noticable with a softer pull as the chain went taught.
We have never gone back to a kellet but our snubber has grown longer as we have realised the benefit from elasticity over weight. We anchor for about 8 months of the year in the Caribbean in predominantly windy conditions. I can honestly say I have never seen anybody deploy a kellet but we have converted a few people to longer snubbers than the normal 2 meters many people think is adequate. Ours is currently 9 metres plus an oversized rubber snubber. This set up transforms comfort onboard on a windy, gusty night. Try it you might like it. Its cheap and very effective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top