spidy
Active Member
try on ebay boat and water craft, item No 1400569256925048 its called a split connecting ling. Ebay shop boat chandlery stainless marine. i think its what you are looking for. good luck in your search.
Joining anchor chain
- Thread starter Kurrawong_Kid
- Start date
GMac
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
What is wrong with a connecting link like this one
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the type of link we are talking about.
[ QUOTE ]
The UTS of 8 mm chain was around 4.5 tonnes.
[/ QUOTE ]
A number that should never have been published. Now people will think it is fine to exceed the manufacturers published loads. The published loads are the same thing as the 'UTS will be a minimum of' so work to that. Sometimes it will be above but not always.
Some '8mm short link' chain will break at 1/2 that number.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the real breaking strength is totally unknown. I have also bought several from USA that claim to be of the same strength as the chain but I have some difficulty in believing these claims. The design of the links, even in a forged high-tensile steel, is inevitably weaker than a welded, closed link of chain. In the case you quote the products are stated to be cast. I find it difficult to reconcile the quoted strength with this manufacturing method.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence why I specifically said use Crosby. A very reputable manufacturer with real quality control systems and believable numbers. If the links did not perform as said, you would have expected someone to pick up on that long ago.
[ QUOTE ]
do you know what the SWL or WLL of your galvanised one is?
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't unless the manufacturer is standing behind it and marks it well. Crosby for example.
[ QUOTE ]
This was their selling point! , ie "you won't find chain as good as this anywhere cheaper".
[/ QUOTE ] and
[ QUOTE ]
We tested two links of the type you show, although I will accept that the ones we looked at were possibly not of the same quality as yours. They failed at between 1.75 and 1.95 tonnes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again sadly that is the phrase most shoppers look for. The BIG question is 'this good' in relation to ??? The 2 links you tested would probably 'be equal in strength to the chain'. The same cheap wack it out made chain, not a reputable one though. A Crosby will match or exceed the chain it is designed for. By the way I'm nothing to do with Crosby just know and use their gear.
[ QUOTE ]
I may well be wrong but I suspect that very little chain is being made in Europe. China seems to produce virtually all of it, although I don't subscribe to the generally held view that it is therefore poorly made. All calibrated chain intended for boating use is to DIN 766A and ours certainly exceeded its nominal UTS by a good margin.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a lot still made in the EU. We get 90% of ours from Italy, it's real good stuff. Over a million metres without drama. We sell a lot to replace cheaper chinese made chains which break or fade away fast.
EU, US, Australian chains are far superior to 99% of asian made chains in many regards. 2 very important ones when talking anchor chain is strength and calibration, asian made usualy lacks both.
You mention above how you don't subscribe to the poorer quality agruement regarding asian made how would you explain such poor numbers with the 2 links you tested. Non-asian would exceed those numbers by a lot, a big lot.
Most chain used is DIN766/A or if out of asia 'called' DIN but isn't. The DIN would probably be the most common but far from the only standard used.
The problem as we see it is that you just don't know if 'that cheaper' chain is fully up to what it says it is. We regularly see inspection certs (not Test Certificates which are quite a differing animal) that show proof loads (the loads applied at the factory during manufacturer, a QA thing), on say an 8mm, of 750-800kg. The DIN Spec calls for break loads of 3200kg which means a proof load of 1600kg.
[ QUOTE ]
try on ebay boat and water craft, item No 1400569256925048 its called a split connecting ling.
[/ QUOTE ]
'A massive 4600kg on a 10mm.' Just a shame all good 10mm chains break well above that.
I'm not anti-asia but they do have quality issues which most don't seem to be aware of in some areas. Chain and associated gear I know well and they still have big issues there. I subscribe to the theory most would actually like to know if they sleep on dodgy anchoring gear or not.
There is a few other links we would use but Crosby is the most easy to find generally.
And just to add a bit more fuel /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif from another site sort of along the same lines as this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Our swivels have a WLL of 1250kg on one of them and that is at a 6:1 margin i.e break over 7000kg (15400lb). The WLL of a G4 chain is 1625kg unless it's a US one where its a lot higher but with a big reduction in safety margin. All G4 chains will break around 6500kg, US made or not, chinese excluded.
On equivalent sized chain, 10mm or 3/8" for those who still use old measurments, you would generally find a shackle between 10 and 14mm. Most of those shackles are what is called 'commercial' grade. These are the galvanised one you find in 97% of places worldwide.
The loads of those commercial shackles many would rather have over swivels 'for safety reasons'. 10mm (3/8") - WLL 320kg, break 1300kg odd 12mm (1/2") - WLL 520kg, break 2100kg odd 14mm (9/16") - WLL 690kg, break 2750kg odd
Lets look at stainless shackles and go Wichard being a flash name, 10mm - WLL 1900kg, break 4300kg 12mm - WLL 2600kg, break 6000kg 14mm - WLL 3000kg, break 8000kg Note smaller safety margin.
Again but from a prolific asian manufacturer 10mm - WLL 1025kg, break 4100kg 12mm - WLL 1350kg, break 5400kg 14mm - WLL 1625kg, break 6500kg
Happy with your choice of shackles now? Still need that anchor that will hold 3000kg? Just spent all those extra bucks for the G4 chain? The 10mm is the 40ft boat range where some say 50knots will put over 1200kg load on your anchoring system and all of a sudden your 4:1 saftey margin is suddenly less than 2 when using the most common 12mm galv shackle.
Spooky don't you think
[/ QUOTE ]
makes the 1900kg links look not bad really /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
What is wrong with a connecting link like this one
[/ QUOTE ]
That's the type of link we are talking about.
[ QUOTE ]
The UTS of 8 mm chain was around 4.5 tonnes.
[/ QUOTE ]
A number that should never have been published. Now people will think it is fine to exceed the manufacturers published loads. The published loads are the same thing as the 'UTS will be a minimum of' so work to that. Sometimes it will be above but not always.
Some '8mm short link' chain will break at 1/2 that number.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the real breaking strength is totally unknown. I have also bought several from USA that claim to be of the same strength as the chain but I have some difficulty in believing these claims. The design of the links, even in a forged high-tensile steel, is inevitably weaker than a welded, closed link of chain. In the case you quote the products are stated to be cast. I find it difficult to reconcile the quoted strength with this manufacturing method.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hence why I specifically said use Crosby. A very reputable manufacturer with real quality control systems and believable numbers. If the links did not perform as said, you would have expected someone to pick up on that long ago.
[ QUOTE ]
do you know what the SWL or WLL of your galvanised one is?
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't unless the manufacturer is standing behind it and marks it well. Crosby for example.
[ QUOTE ]
This was their selling point! , ie "you won't find chain as good as this anywhere cheaper".
[/ QUOTE ] and
[ QUOTE ]
We tested two links of the type you show, although I will accept that the ones we looked at were possibly not of the same quality as yours. They failed at between 1.75 and 1.95 tonnes.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again sadly that is the phrase most shoppers look for. The BIG question is 'this good' in relation to ??? The 2 links you tested would probably 'be equal in strength to the chain'. The same cheap wack it out made chain, not a reputable one though. A Crosby will match or exceed the chain it is designed for. By the way I'm nothing to do with Crosby just know and use their gear.
[ QUOTE ]
I may well be wrong but I suspect that very little chain is being made in Europe. China seems to produce virtually all of it, although I don't subscribe to the generally held view that it is therefore poorly made. All calibrated chain intended for boating use is to DIN 766A and ours certainly exceeded its nominal UTS by a good margin.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a lot still made in the EU. We get 90% of ours from Italy, it's real good stuff. Over a million metres without drama. We sell a lot to replace cheaper chinese made chains which break or fade away fast.
EU, US, Australian chains are far superior to 99% of asian made chains in many regards. 2 very important ones when talking anchor chain is strength and calibration, asian made usualy lacks both.
You mention above how you don't subscribe to the poorer quality agruement regarding asian made how would you explain such poor numbers with the 2 links you tested. Non-asian would exceed those numbers by a lot, a big lot.
Most chain used is DIN766/A or if out of asia 'called' DIN but isn't. The DIN would probably be the most common but far from the only standard used.
The problem as we see it is that you just don't know if 'that cheaper' chain is fully up to what it says it is. We regularly see inspection certs (not Test Certificates which are quite a differing animal) that show proof loads (the loads applied at the factory during manufacturer, a QA thing), on say an 8mm, of 750-800kg. The DIN Spec calls for break loads of 3200kg which means a proof load of 1600kg.
[ QUOTE ]
try on ebay boat and water craft, item No 1400569256925048 its called a split connecting ling.
[/ QUOTE ]
'A massive 4600kg on a 10mm.' Just a shame all good 10mm chains break well above that.
I'm not anti-asia but they do have quality issues which most don't seem to be aware of in some areas. Chain and associated gear I know well and they still have big issues there. I subscribe to the theory most would actually like to know if they sleep on dodgy anchoring gear or not.
There is a few other links we would use but Crosby is the most easy to find generally.
And just to add a bit more fuel /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif from another site sort of along the same lines as this thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Our swivels have a WLL of 1250kg on one of them and that is at a 6:1 margin i.e break over 7000kg (15400lb). The WLL of a G4 chain is 1625kg unless it's a US one where its a lot higher but with a big reduction in safety margin. All G4 chains will break around 6500kg, US made or not, chinese excluded.
On equivalent sized chain, 10mm or 3/8" for those who still use old measurments, you would generally find a shackle between 10 and 14mm. Most of those shackles are what is called 'commercial' grade. These are the galvanised one you find in 97% of places worldwide.
The loads of those commercial shackles many would rather have over swivels 'for safety reasons'. 10mm (3/8") - WLL 320kg, break 1300kg odd 12mm (1/2") - WLL 520kg, break 2100kg odd 14mm (9/16") - WLL 690kg, break 2750kg odd
Lets look at stainless shackles and go Wichard being a flash name, 10mm - WLL 1900kg, break 4300kg 12mm - WLL 2600kg, break 6000kg 14mm - WLL 3000kg, break 8000kg Note smaller safety margin.
Again but from a prolific asian manufacturer 10mm - WLL 1025kg, break 4100kg 12mm - WLL 1350kg, break 5400kg 14mm - WLL 1625kg, break 6500kg
Happy with your choice of shackles now? Still need that anchor that will hold 3000kg? Just spent all those extra bucks for the G4 chain? The 10mm is the 40ft boat range where some say 50knots will put over 1200kg load on your anchoring system and all of a sudden your 4:1 saftey margin is suddenly less than 2 when using the most common 12mm galv shackle.
Spooky don't you think
[/ QUOTE ]
makes the 1900kg links look not bad really /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
DeeGee
Well-Known Member
In a nutshell, nicely and succinctly put. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
(Well, you have sold your argument to ME).
What would be really good, and almost a moral imperative, would be for <span style="color:red"> Vyv Cox to get hold of a couple of each of the Crosby links </span> (cast and forged) and put them to the test. YM would, I am sure, be interested in the results (Headline: Chinese invade British chandlers!). I'll pay for one, surely we can find 3 other sponsors??
(Well, you have sold your argument to ME).
What would be really good, and almost a moral imperative, would be for <span style="color:red"> Vyv Cox to get hold of a couple of each of the Crosby links </span> (cast and forged) and put them to the test. YM would, I am sure, be interested in the results (Headline: Chinese invade British chandlers!). I'll pay for one, surely we can find 3 other sponsors??
DeeGee
Well-Known Member
Whilst on the subject, I stumbled across this:
[ QUOTE ]
“Obviously it pays to invest in high-quality stainless and to make it plenty heavy, to delay the onset of fatigue. Bronze is nearly impervious to fatigue, which is why it is so often used in toggles, turn-buckles, tangs, and chainplates. Galvanized steel is likewise just about fatigue-proof, so if you can keep it from rusting, it will outlast stainless. If your survey reveals broken yarns in a halyard wire, and the sheave is adequate-sized and the wire is fairly new, consider using a galvanized wire halyard. It will require only period oiling (Marvel Mystery Oil is great), is stronger than stainless and stretches less.
[/ QUOTE ] I would be interested in the comments of our metallurgical experts (so many on this board)?? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
[ QUOTE ]
“Obviously it pays to invest in high-quality stainless and to make it plenty heavy, to delay the onset of fatigue. Bronze is nearly impervious to fatigue, which is why it is so often used in toggles, turn-buckles, tangs, and chainplates. Galvanized steel is likewise just about fatigue-proof, so if you can keep it from rusting, it will outlast stainless. If your survey reveals broken yarns in a halyard wire, and the sheave is adequate-sized and the wire is fairly new, consider using a galvanized wire halyard. It will require only period oiling (Marvel Mystery Oil is great), is stronger than stainless and stretches less.
[/ QUOTE ] I would be interested in the comments of our metallurgical experts (so many on this board)?? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
If only!
Neither bronze nor any sort of carbon steel, galvanised or not, is impervious to fatigue. I see dozens of fatigue failures of carbon and alloy steels every year. I can't say I see similar numbers of failures in bronzes, simply as a reflection of the amount that is used in equipment. However, I have certainly seen a few and the data that is freely available quotes fatigue strengths of around 50 - 60% of UTS.
Neither bronze nor any sort of carbon steel, galvanised or not, is impervious to fatigue. I see dozens of fatigue failures of carbon and alloy steels every year. I can't say I see similar numbers of failures in bronzes, simply as a reflection of the amount that is used in equipment. However, I have certainly seen a few and the data that is freely available quotes fatigue strengths of around 50 - 60% of UTS.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
I don't think I am going to reply to all of that, but points made specific to the YM article are:
At least one of the chains tested was made in China to DIN 766A. The source of the other was not known and may have been Chinese. Both failed at a UTS that is perfectly respectable.
I see absolutely no harm in publishing UTS figures for the chain, indeed the opposite as it proves my point above. No boat owner has the capability of measuring the force applied to his anchor rode, he only needs to know that he can rely upon its strength. This is amply demonstrated by the UTS figure.
I would be happy to use a Crosby split link, if available, and if it will pass through a windlass, which I don't know. I have asked them by e-mail but, as is so common with UK suppliers, they have not replied. However, the scope of the YM article, as said, was to test equipment available to the average boat owner. I have no idea where the links tested were made, they were marketed by Plastimo.
In following up some of the points made in this thread I have received this email in answer to a query. Note that this is from USA, received almost as soon as they opened for business on Monday.
Thank you for your inquiry.
You are correct, the Forged Connecting Links are not on our website.
We only show the Cast Connecting Links (if interested, see: http://www.bosunsupplies.com/products2.cfm?product=S0460)
For S0660-0008 which is 5/16" diameter w/ inner dimentions 1" x 1/2" - price is $12.79/pc and Working Load Limit (WLL) is 2,000 lbs - which is double the Cast version.
See link for manufacturer details: http://www.suncorstainless.com/rigging/660.pdf
Since you are in the UK, if you are interested, pls advise quantity needed so we can quote you freight.
At least one of the chains tested was made in China to DIN 766A. The source of the other was not known and may have been Chinese. Both failed at a UTS that is perfectly respectable.
I see absolutely no harm in publishing UTS figures for the chain, indeed the opposite as it proves my point above. No boat owner has the capability of measuring the force applied to his anchor rode, he only needs to know that he can rely upon its strength. This is amply demonstrated by the UTS figure.
I would be happy to use a Crosby split link, if available, and if it will pass through a windlass, which I don't know. I have asked them by e-mail but, as is so common with UK suppliers, they have not replied. However, the scope of the YM article, as said, was to test equipment available to the average boat owner. I have no idea where the links tested were made, they were marketed by Plastimo.
In following up some of the points made in this thread I have received this email in answer to a query. Note that this is from USA, received almost as soon as they opened for business on Monday.
Thank you for your inquiry.
You are correct, the Forged Connecting Links are not on our website.
We only show the Cast Connecting Links (if interested, see: http://www.bosunsupplies.com/products2.cfm?product=S0460)
For S0660-0008 which is 5/16" diameter w/ inner dimentions 1" x 1/2" - price is $12.79/pc and Working Load Limit (WLL) is 2,000 lbs - which is double the Cast version.
See link for manufacturer details: http://www.suncorstainless.com/rigging/660.pdf
Since you are in the UK, if you are interested, pls advise quantity needed so we can quote you freight.
GMac
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
At least one of the chains tested was made in China to DIN 766A. The source of the other was not known and may have been Chinese. Both failed at a UTS that is perfectly respectable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good to see at least ones comes up to speed. Busted many over the years and the best we have ever gotten is 2600kg. Some started to stretch as low as 400kg against our Italian which is more like 2000kg. Maybe you got a freak piece /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would be even more suprised if it did meet DIN specs. +2.5/-0.5mm per 11 links is something none have ever come close to. +/-1mm per link is very very common.
[ QUOTE ]
I see absolutely no harm in publishing UTS figures for the chain, indeed the opposite as it proves my point above. No boat owner has the capability of measuring the force applied to his anchor rode, he only needs to know that he can rely upon its strength. This is amply demonstrated by the UTS figure.
[/ QUOTE ]
So telling people it is OK to exceed the manufacturers specifications is fine then. The numbers are there for a good reason. Personally I think that publishing numbers which are usually not the norm is a very brave call and stupid. We regularly see people who see a break load of XX and think it is fine to load it ot 90% of that load. Sure they don't know what they are doing but even more reason not to give them more string which to hang themselves with.
Yes 4500kg is a number that can be got sometimes. Most of the time it will be less and if using all the chinese chain I have ever busted a huge pile less.
Some of the things we have seen done has freaked us that much we have just reprinted our entire catalouge in which we have removed all break loads and left the WLL only.
[ QUOTE ]
I would be happy to use a Crosby split link, if available, and if it will pass through a windlass, which I don't know.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeap no problem on winches. They are a short link configeration.
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea where the links tested were made, they were marketed by Plastimo.
[/ QUOTE ]
A large chinese made suppier but they may not have been. All good ones are usually marked well.
[ QUOTE ]
For S0660-0008 which is 5/16" diameter w/ inner dimentions 1" x 1/2" - price is $12.79/pc and Working Load Limit (WLL) is 2,000 lbs - which is double the Cast version.
[/ QUOTE ]
The load is fine assuming they are not relying on 'inspection reports'.
The is the real issue we also see is retailers believing anything the manufacturer tells them. We could tell 80% of our any old rubbish and most would believe it. We also get told good numbers on stuff out of asia but when we put it on the test bed they rearly live upto the numbers we were told. A classic example is the 8mm short link. They are told WLL of 800kg but the factory only proof loads to 800kgs. The proof load is supposed to be twice the WLL as prescribed by the standards.
Want some cheap chinese G80? There is 40 tonnes odd sitting in Aussie. Breaks around the G50 mark though even though the inspection certs says otherwise. One (of many) examples of the asian made 'Random lemon factor' which is alive and well.
As mentioned above most would not know what loads they get while anchored. All the more reason to know you have a chain or fitting that has been truely tested well and ask questions to see if the retailer is just reciting possibly dodgy numbers or in fact do know what they are selling.
I know of 2 winch makers who specically say 'use chaines made chain and you void warranties". Why? the poor calibration has been blowing their winches apart.
Not having a go at anyone just trying to inform the users, they maybe anchored upwind of me one day. Nor trying to sell anyone anything as you will have noticed. I might exclude the 4500kg load publishing bit though, I still think that was silly.
At least one of the chains tested was made in China to DIN 766A. The source of the other was not known and may have been Chinese. Both failed at a UTS that is perfectly respectable.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good to see at least ones comes up to speed. Busted many over the years and the best we have ever gotten is 2600kg. Some started to stretch as low as 400kg against our Italian which is more like 2000kg. Maybe you got a freak piece /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would be even more suprised if it did meet DIN specs. +2.5/-0.5mm per 11 links is something none have ever come close to. +/-1mm per link is very very common.
[ QUOTE ]
I see absolutely no harm in publishing UTS figures for the chain, indeed the opposite as it proves my point above. No boat owner has the capability of measuring the force applied to his anchor rode, he only needs to know that he can rely upon its strength. This is amply demonstrated by the UTS figure.
[/ QUOTE ]
So telling people it is OK to exceed the manufacturers specifications is fine then. The numbers are there for a good reason. Personally I think that publishing numbers which are usually not the norm is a very brave call and stupid. We regularly see people who see a break load of XX and think it is fine to load it ot 90% of that load. Sure they don't know what they are doing but even more reason not to give them more string which to hang themselves with.
Yes 4500kg is a number that can be got sometimes. Most of the time it will be less and if using all the chinese chain I have ever busted a huge pile less.
Some of the things we have seen done has freaked us that much we have just reprinted our entire catalouge in which we have removed all break loads and left the WLL only.
[ QUOTE ]
I would be happy to use a Crosby split link, if available, and if it will pass through a windlass, which I don't know.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeap no problem on winches. They are a short link configeration.
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea where the links tested were made, they were marketed by Plastimo.
[/ QUOTE ]
A large chinese made suppier but they may not have been. All good ones are usually marked well.
[ QUOTE ]
For S0660-0008 which is 5/16" diameter w/ inner dimentions 1" x 1/2" - price is $12.79/pc and Working Load Limit (WLL) is 2,000 lbs - which is double the Cast version.
[/ QUOTE ]
The load is fine assuming they are not relying on 'inspection reports'.
The is the real issue we also see is retailers believing anything the manufacturer tells them. We could tell 80% of our any old rubbish and most would believe it. We also get told good numbers on stuff out of asia but when we put it on the test bed they rearly live upto the numbers we were told. A classic example is the 8mm short link. They are told WLL of 800kg but the factory only proof loads to 800kgs. The proof load is supposed to be twice the WLL as prescribed by the standards.
Want some cheap chinese G80? There is 40 tonnes odd sitting in Aussie. Breaks around the G50 mark though even though the inspection certs says otherwise. One (of many) examples of the asian made 'Random lemon factor' which is alive and well.
As mentioned above most would not know what loads they get while anchored. All the more reason to know you have a chain or fitting that has been truely tested well and ask questions to see if the retailer is just reciting possibly dodgy numbers or in fact do know what they are selling.
I know of 2 winch makers who specically say 'use chaines made chain and you void warranties". Why? the poor calibration has been blowing their winches apart.
Not having a go at anyone just trying to inform the users, they maybe anchored upwind of me one day. Nor trying to sell anyone anything as you will have noticed. I might exclude the 4500kg load publishing bit though, I still think that was silly.
Shanty
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
.... Personally I think that publishing numbers which are usually not the norm is a very brave call and stupid......
[/ QUOTE ]
Disagree with you on this. It smacks of nannyism. Don't tell the little dears, they won't be able to cope.
WLL is a compound of the UTS and a factor of safety. The factor of safety depends on the application. 4:1 and 6:1 both seem to be common. I have also seen 2:1 used. Unless I know that the factor of safety used is appropriate for my application, how does the WLL have any meaning?
The article in question would, IMHO have been far less meaningful f the author had hidden his results.
.... Personally I think that publishing numbers which are usually not the norm is a very brave call and stupid......
[/ QUOTE ]
Disagree with you on this. It smacks of nannyism. Don't tell the little dears, they won't be able to cope.
WLL is a compound of the UTS and a factor of safety. The factor of safety depends on the application. 4:1 and 6:1 both seem to be common. I have also seen 2:1 used. Unless I know that the factor of safety used is appropriate for my application, how does the WLL have any meaning?
The article in question would, IMHO have been far less meaningful f the author had hidden his results.
GMac
Well-Known Member
That is true for the people who know about how it all works and what chain they actually have. 95% of people don't.
But what about Joe Dumbarse who has just purchased a nice bit of chinese made chain. Reads artical and thinks "Cool, my chain will break at 4500kg" when in fact the chances are very very high it won't get to 3000kg probably less.
I've been in the chain game a long time and use top end gear, as mentioned a lot out of Italy. We have broken that 8mm many times (we do like our test bed /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) and none has broken below 3700kg, some as high as 4800kg. The man who makes it says the break load is 3200kg or in other words will guarantee it will get to 'at least' 3200kg but no more.
Why do you think they just don't say 4500kg? Sure some has but a lot hasn't. It's not called 'safety margin' or 'standards' just to use up words.
If you think people will read that and understand that 4500kg is achievable but far from the norm and exceeding all the manufacturers recommendations, you're kidding yourself. We see it all the time.
The standard WLL used around the world in this application is 4:1, US G4 excepted which is less. The same chain used in other applications can have differing margins.
[ QUOTE ]
It smacks of nannyism. Don't tell the little dears, they won't be able to cope.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you choose to go by magazine articals and disregard standards, manufacturers recommendations and so on it is your choice. Personally me and most people I know care about their boat and the lives of the people on them.
[ QUOTE ]
WLL is a compound of the UTS and a factor of safety.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure is but what is the UTS? 4500kg as the magazine said or less as the majority actually are in real life.
As I'm sure your aware a lot of people believe what is written. Actually some of your military countrymen/women have sadly died recently because of it. I'm sure their parents wished more had not believed what was written.
I'm only trying to make boating a bit safer for those who don't know what is actually happening out there.
But what about Joe Dumbarse who has just purchased a nice bit of chinese made chain. Reads artical and thinks "Cool, my chain will break at 4500kg" when in fact the chances are very very high it won't get to 3000kg probably less.
I've been in the chain game a long time and use top end gear, as mentioned a lot out of Italy. We have broken that 8mm many times (we do like our test bed /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif ) and none has broken below 3700kg, some as high as 4800kg. The man who makes it says the break load is 3200kg or in other words will guarantee it will get to 'at least' 3200kg but no more.
Why do you think they just don't say 4500kg? Sure some has but a lot hasn't. It's not called 'safety margin' or 'standards' just to use up words.
If you think people will read that and understand that 4500kg is achievable but far from the norm and exceeding all the manufacturers recommendations, you're kidding yourself. We see it all the time.
The standard WLL used around the world in this application is 4:1, US G4 excepted which is less. The same chain used in other applications can have differing margins.
[ QUOTE ]
It smacks of nannyism. Don't tell the little dears, they won't be able to cope.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you choose to go by magazine articals and disregard standards, manufacturers recommendations and so on it is your choice. Personally me and most people I know care about their boat and the lives of the people on them.
[ QUOTE ]
WLL is a compound of the UTS and a factor of safety.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure is but what is the UTS? 4500kg as the magazine said or less as the majority actually are in real life.
As I'm sure your aware a lot of people believe what is written. Actually some of your military countrymen/women have sadly died recently because of it. I'm sure their parents wished more had not believed what was written.
I'm only trying to make boating a bit safer for those who don't know what is actually happening out there.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I disagree with your point of view over airing UTS figures. I have carried out and referred to UTS values throughout my working career. We always use UTS as the reference point, applying factors of safety as required. Every metals standard handbook quotes UTS first, then other values such as Yield Point, fatigue limit, etc., second.
Ultimately I don't believe that any boat ownere buys chain on the basis of its UTS, Yield Point, Working Load or any other such figure. They walk into the chandler and buy the chain that is available in the size they want and that will fit their windlass. The purpose of the YM article was to find out whether they were buying a reasonable product or not. I respect the fact that you may have a lot of adverse experience with Chinese made products but the stuff we bought over the counter was clearly perfectly satisfactory for general use.
Ultimately I don't believe that any boat ownere buys chain on the basis of its UTS, Yield Point, Working Load or any other such figure. They walk into the chandler and buy the chain that is available in the size they want and that will fit their windlass. The purpose of the YM article was to find out whether they were buying a reasonable product or not. I respect the fact that you may have a lot of adverse experience with Chinese made products but the stuff we bought over the counter was clearly perfectly satisfactory for general use.
