Improving a Delta Anchor

C

C08

Well-Known Member
Joined
8 Feb 2013
Messages
3,959
Visit site
Accepting that later generation anchors are better than my much loved and used Delta I am considering modifying a 15kg Delta. The Rocna and Manson anchors have about 25% more area size for size so it should be easy to weld some "wings" at the delta anchor edge to increase the surface area, also the Spade/Rocna/manson anchors have a flat or concave shaped area which quite reasonable resists dragging better as the Delta anchor has a pronounced reversed angled section that must tend to plough more rather than stop as do the better anchors so the wing areas would be more at right angles to the stock rather than the 110 degrees or whatever it is on the Delta. So more area and a better shape to resist dragging. The pointed end of the Delta is much more blunt and presumably less good at digging in but as this is lead filled and welding there might be distinctly hazardous so not much to be done about that but I wonder about going the whole hog and altering the stock so that the blade to stock angle is increased to be similar to the later generation anchors. As long as the add on material is the correct thickness and grade and the welder knows his stuff (it is welded anyway) it should be ok. A few coats of paint and I could have a new..ish generation anchor for a relatively small cost of a bit of welding.
Any thoughts - it's not rocket science is it?
 
There is a bit more to it than just welding a few bits on. I believe the stock has a strength of around 700 MPa, which for a manganese steel which I believe this is, means it has been hardened and tempered. Welding it would destroy its properties.

The shank is not lead filled, it is solid steel. I suspect the whole anchor may be heat treated as it would be difficult to make it otherwise. The steel should be weldable, Cliff can no doubt advise, but you may need pre-heat.

My own view is that the improvement you may gain from turning a Delta into a quasi-Rocna is just not worth the risk. I cannot say that my Rocna is anything like twice as good as my Delta, although its holding in soft mud probably is. But I could buy a Danforth for that situation (or a Fortress, which is what I did buy) with no risk whatsoever.
 
Good idea, have a go. Naturally, you need a professional welder who understands about metal behaviour change due to heat generated from welding; may have to heat treat the metal afterwards to regain the correct ductility as you don't want brittle anchor blades.

If you know people who can do the job as a favour it will worth it; however, if you had to pay for the welding/tempering/materials then it will end up costing perhaps as much as a new Manson Supreme, which if that is the case you will be better off buying a new Manson.
 
I can't help thinking that there is an element of "fashion" in all this.
Maybe if the Delta works for you, your best plan is to stick with it.
Lets those whose anchors regularly drag worry about modifications, or even buy new anchors. You don't need to. Surely there is some other aspect of your boat which might better repay your effort?
 
Why do you think welding some random bits of metal on will achieve better results than the engineers who designed it managed?


ahabdonal said:
Accepting that later generation anchors are better than my much loved and used Delta I am considering modifying a 15kg Delta. The Rocna and Manson anchors have about 25% more area size for size so it should be easy to weld some "wings" at the delta anchor edge to increase the surface area, also the Spade/Rocna/manson anchors have a flat or concave shaped area which quite reasonable resists dragging better as the Delta anchor has a pronounced reversed angled section that must tend to plough more rather than stop as do the better anchors so the wing areas would be more at right angles to the stock rather than the 110 degrees or whatever it is on the Delta. So more area and a better shape to resist dragging. The pointed end of the Delta is much more blunt and presumably less good at digging in but as this is lead filled and welding there might be distinctly hazardous so not much to be done about that but I wonder about going the whole hog and altering the stock so that the blade to stock angle is increased to be similar to the later generation anchors. As long as the add on material is the correct thickness and grade and the welder knows his stuff (it is welded anyway) it should be ok. A few coats of paint and I could have a new..ish generation anchor for a relatively small cost of a bit of welding.
Any thoughts - it's not rocket science is it?
Click to expand...
 
blackbeard said:
I can't help thinking that there is an element of "fashion" in all this.
Maybe if the Delta works for you, your best plan is to stick with it.
Lets those whose anchors regularly drag worry about modifications, or even buy new anchors. You don't need to. Surely there is some other aspect of your boat which might better repay your effort?
Click to expand...

I'd agree about the fashion element - more important by far is the bottom on which you are anchoring and the competence of the anchorer, than what he has on the end of his chain.
Far better to save money and ruining a perfectly good anchor by cack-handed modification, to save towards another palm-type anchor (of which the Fortress is, IMHO, the best). This gives the OP two anchors for two types of bottom.
I lay for 3 nights, last week, on a 7.5kg kilo Danforth kedge on 75m of mixed chain and 10mm octoplait, in F7 meltemi, with even higher gusts. Just around the corner I'd been dragging with even two anchors out.
 
EdBeynon said:
Why do you think welding some random bits of metal on will achieve better results than the engineers who designed it managed?
Click to expand...

Increased area has got to improve ultimate holding power unless it reduces digging in. If the "engineers" who designed the delta were so bloody good why did they make the blade with a distinct "roof shape" to the blade rather than flat or concave as are newer generation anchors. A bit insulting to refer to "random bits of metal" when I was describing carefully placed and angled extensions of defined area to the existing sides of the anchor. I would of course get the new parts of the same metalurgical composition as the original steel and then get it heat treated by fabricators who know what they are doing. Thanks to VCox for pointing out that there is no lead in the tip, do not know where I dreamed that up from.
 
So will this anchor with its 'carefully placed and angled extensions' still be recognised by LLoyds as high holding power anchor?

ahabdonal said:
Increased area has got to improve ultimate holding power unless it reduces digging in. If the "engineers" who designed the delta were so bloody good why did they make the blade with a distinct "roof shape" to the blade rather than flat or concave as are newer generation anchors. A bit insulting to refer to "random bits of metal" when I was describing carefully placed and angled extensions of defined area to the existing sides of the anchor. I would of course get the new parts of the same metalurgical composition as the original steel and then get it heat treated by fabricators who know what they are doing. Thanks to VCox for pointing out that there is no lead in the tip, do not know where I dreamed that up from.
Click to expand...
 
ahabdonal said:
Thanks to VCox for pointing out that there is no lead in the tip, do not know where I dreamed that up from.
Click to expand...

Perhaps confusion with the broadly similar Kobra2, which has a lead-weighted tip?

I can certainly see how the opposition to your plan arises (and 'random bits of metal' was a bit harsh), but I bet half of your respondents love nothing more than messing about with an interesting project. Good luck and let us know how you get on.
 
>Accepting that later generation anchors are better than my much loved and used Delta I am considering modifying a 15kg Delta

Having use a CQR successfully hundreds of times I don't accept that. If you don't have anchoring problems with your Delta why change it.
 
ahabdonal said:
Increased area has got to improve ultimate holding power unless it reduces digging in. If the "engineers" who designed the delta were so bloody good why did they make the blade with a distinct "roof shape" to the blade rather than flat or concave as are newer generation anchors. A bit insulting to refer to "random bits of metal" when I was describing carefully placed and angled extensions of defined area to the existing sides of the anchor. I would of course get the new parts of the same metalurgical composition as the original steel and then get it heat treated by fabricators who know what they are doing. Thanks to VCox for pointing out that there is no lead in the tip, do not know where I dreamed that up from.
Click to expand...

I think you'll do just fine - just need a few pull tests to investigate setting, burial and holding capacity in different sands and muds for different configurations. This should give you all the data you need to design the additional plates locations, angles and sizes. A proof load test on the finished object, re-galvanising and you're good to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

N
Viking AnchorsI
Replies
0
Views
123
Neeves
N
F
Keeping the salt dry.
Replies
11
Views
393
lustyd
lustyd

Share this page

Top