Playing with Fire - Anchor Question

I think anchors should be sized by their holding power not their weight. After all, holding is what you want to buy, not mass. Yes there's some relationship between mass and holding, but it varies greatly from one design to another.
On shackles and swivels there a lot of variance in opinion of need and use, but one things there's no so much variation on, and that is that there's good and bad of both these appliances. Any shackle that doesn't state its WLL is suspect. Those that have been tested are generally better. There's many copies of shackles that are suspect and as Neeves and Blowingoldboots have said, why add a weakest link?

disclaimer: I sell anchors, swivels and shackles.
 
Shackles are not made specifically for use in the rode. If you look at shackle makers websites they commonly call bow shackles 'anchor' shackle - but that is a misnomer. Shackle have a multitude of uses, anchoring is minor. For CMP and Titan their shackle are focussed at the rode but their test procedure are dictated by 'the industry'. The WLL is determined from the Ultimate Tensile Strength, when the shackle breaks and is commonly 1/5th or 1/6th of UTS. The safety factor will have little to do with anchoring - but will be developed by usage in other industries.

Ideally you want the WLL of the shackle, in a worst case scenario (that 50% reduction), to be the same as or slightly higher than the WLL of the chain. The WLL of chain in Europe 1/4 of UTS.

The shackle used is commonly chosen to match the strength of chain (it has to also fit, by size, the anchor) - the chain is chosen to match the yacht. The clevis pin has to fit the chain, or the specific chain link altered to fit the clevis.

Galvanised shackles seem to be all based on an Imperial sizing system and a 3/8th" shackle (nominally 10mm) fits an Imperial 5/16" chain (nominally 8mm). But 8mm metric chain is a slightly smaller link than Imperial chain, so the 3/8th" shackle does not quite fit the slightly smaller 8mm metric chain - hence NormanS' drift or Vyv's vice, to enlarge the end link.

Most of this developed 'by accident' (which is why it lacks some logic) and the individual needs to make their own assessment of the various risks involved and the cost of minimising those risks.

Trying to develop a matching and compatible rode is not easy when using G30 or G40 chain - it is much worse (but not impossible) with G70 chain! Fortunately when you have matched your rode - the aggro is finished - and you can sleep soundly :)

Jonathan

Sorry a few crossed posts here - but unknown to each other we are in rough agreement :)

And underlining something that Geoff mentions - Crosby's excellence is recognised and if you look at Chinese shackle makers they, or some, have adopted '209' as some sort of standard. Buy shackles from a manufacturer who name is on the shackle. If the manufacturer doe not have that pride and confidence - buy elsewhere, unless it is to secure your dog. 'Made in China' is not yet a guarantee of reliable excellence.

You probably only use gal shackles for your anchor - don't mix up cheap ones with good ones - it is easy to make a mistake on a dark wet night!
 
Last edited:
Neeves said:
I have tested 3/8th" size 209a shackles and they meet Crosby's specification, slightly exceeding spec. I have tested a significant number of Titan Black Pin shackles, again 3/8th" size and they all failed to meet Titan's (then) specification. Titan (or specifically CMP who own Titan) quibbled with my test procedure (conducted by a reputable test facility on my behalf)
Click to expand...

Jonathan, reading this I would come away with the impression the Titan black pin is very poor compared to the Crosby, but I understand in the test when you arranged for the UTS to measured the results were:

3/8 Titan black pin = 19,036 lb
3/8 Crosby209A = 19,905 lb.

I am always a little wary of single tests such as this. There is no way to know the standard distribution, or even if on average the Crosby is really stronger than the Titan, but if we take the results at face value it hardly seems a startling difference especially given the slightly smaller pin of the Titan.

To put this into perspective the UTS of 8mm G4 chain is around 9300 lbs
 
Last edited:
noelex said:
The main thing to check is that the shackle is as strong as the chain. However, the shackle can be subject to some side loading which does not apply to the chain.

Most shackle manufacturers sugest with a 45° side loading the WLL is 70% of the straight pull and at 90° 50%.
Click to expand...

Might be sensible to point out the caveats - crosby have those figures for 3/8' to 3" (from memory) screw pin or bolt type only, not clevis pin shackles.
Don't know about other manufacturers datasheets so well.
 
So it's a good job I asked! I thought that the figure stamped on the shackle was the weight of the thing I was attaching to the other end of the chain...

It's probably fairly clear that I don't know the heritage of the chain on the locker on the boat (which incidentally I completed on in the last hour finally) and whilst I could rush out and purchase 50m of brand new chain, its not something I want to do right at this very moment.

Treating me like a generic MPL (see Scuttlebutt for that one!) and accepting that half of the posts above went above my head (I'm a designer/programmer not an engineer) - can one of you fine folks point me at what WL figure I should be looking at on the shackle? I understand completely that it has to fit the chain and anchor and bow roller. I also accept and acknowledge that I should be looking at Titan Black or Crosby - again I'm fine with that.
 
smaller Crosby shackle with the pin to go through the chain link and then a bigger one looped through the anchor and the bigger pin through the loop of the smaller one. that's the easy bit.
just gotta make sure the bigger shackle does not jam in the anchor, tricky bit, as pointed out previously.

i ordered my larger shackle for the anchor too big, catches in the bow roller.
have now had to order, and pay postage again for some more.

hindsight i should just have bitten the bullet and ordered a selection of bigger ones, they are not expensive :)
 
I've tested a number of Black Pin shackles (4 or 5 bought over a period of time at random), in addition to the one you quote, and not one met CMP's own specification. I'm sorry but the specifications are set voluntarily, they are not imposed by any outside organ, and if a manufacturer cannot meet their own specification I am 'disappointed'.

The anomaly was pointed out to CMP, they quibbled with the test technique. They did not offer any QC data nor did they offer any independent tests that verified their position. Within weeks they had amended their specification in line with the results I had produced - I am sure this was coincidental. Changing the spec is relatively easy - but they had to also change the embossing on the body of the shackle - suggesting the change might have been more than coincidence. From memory the WLL of the 3/8th" shackle went from 2t to 1.8t.

I was surprised not to see any independent data, I was surprised no QC data was available. In another life we bought product from China - every shipment came with a QC certificate. We randomly checked shipment with independent tests (we had no test facility ourselves). To take quality on the basis of 'hearsay', to me, looks questionable. Every shipment to Oz for shackles is tested - and if 2 shackles do not meet spec another batch of shackles is tested. if 2 of the 2nd test of shackles do not meet spec, again - the whole shipment is rejected.

Given that there is a reputable alternative with an international reputation and selling to a whole cross section of industries I recommend Crosby. If/when CMP are shown to be consistent I might recommend them - but currently I have no need. But it is not only the quality I test - I prefer to know that a supplier checks quality on a regular basis.

Random independent testing keeps suppliers on their toes (as this example might show) - another example was a supplier who tested tested, different product but still in the rode, but used a totally invalid procedure - that was also corrected quickly. Its nice to think differences might be being made.

If you can oversize the shackle, next size up (again) then CMP Titan would be acceptable - it would be unusual to be able to oversize.

I did not want to describe the whole sordid detail - but given Noelex' insistence they were suitable (another guess based on no data), against my judgement - based on quantitative data - I allow users to decide for themselves. I do note Noelex uses Crosby shackles, so does not put his money where his mouth is. My recommendations might be tough - don't blame me if a manufacturer cannot meet their own spec - but there is an alternative (Crosby - 209A, or Campbell - Orange Pin) - and it is a critical bit of kit. I only make recommendation based on testing and based on repetitive data - I don't guess.

Jonathan
 
Jonathan, maybe you and other advocates of small sized chain have brought all these "problems' with shackles down on your own heads. In the good old days when anchor chains were much more massive, and shackles invariably at least one size bigger than the chain, nobody worried about SWLs or WLLs, because the loads involved were well within limits. In those far off distant days, catenary still worked (as it still does for big ships), and people didn't have to have elastic rope rigged along their decks to try to achieve the equivalent effect.

Tongue not very firmly in cheek. :D
 
Neeves said:
My recommendations might be tough - don't blame me if a manufacturer cannot meet their own spec
Click to expand...

Jonathan, you continually point out in both your forum posts, such the one above, and the Practical Sailor article, that the Titan shackle failed to meet the manufacturer’s specifications in your test.

No where do you also point out the Crosby shackle also failed to meet the manufacturer’s specifications in your test.

I am not convinced a single test without any statistical analysis is significant. There is no information on how the test was conducted. The minor difference between the Titan and Crosby shackles, or the minor difference between the manufacturer’s specifications and the test results has no practical implication to anyone with G3 or G4 chain, such as the OP.

I realise CMP, the manufacturer of the Titan shackles, is not your favourite company, but in the interests of fairness it is wrong to question their quality and integrity for failing to meet specifications without also pointing out that your recommended alternative also failed to meet advertised specifications when subjected to the same test.

This is the analysis of the Crosby shackle:

Crosby 3/8 inch 209A is an imperial shackle. It has a working load of 2 short tons. This is 4000 lb. Crosby state the minimium ultimate strength is five times the working load.
Therefore the measured break load should be at least:

4000 x 5 = 20,000 lb

Jonathan’s test measured 3/8 Crosby209A = 19,905 lb.

The Crosby shackle, like the Titan shackle therefore (just) fails to meet the manufacturer’s specifications for this test.
 
Last edited:
NormanS said:
Jonathan, maybe you and other advocates of small sized chain have brought all these "problems' with shackles down on your own heads. In the good old days when anchor chains were much more massive, and shackles invariably at least one size bigger than the chain, nobody worried about SWLs or WLLs, because the loads involved were well within limits. In those far off distant days, catenary still worked (as it still does for big ships), and people didn't have to have elastic rope rigged along their decks to try to achieve the equivalent effect.

Tongue not very firmly in cheek. :D
Click to expand...

Norman,

Very valid comment - I for one would agree, no reservations.

In the good old days (which for me was just post war) - sailing was for the very, very few. Moving forward (and the, Suez, Pound in your Pocket, and more recent the 3 day week) things had not changed.

Its a bit different now.

Sadly most need to look at AWBs, the supply of heavier vessels is dwindling fast (or if new are simply beyond the pockets of many). I know there are older (gorgeous) yachts out there - but many need oodles of cash, they need time (that many cannot afford) - the reality is a Benny/Jenny/Bav/Hanse - with all the weight (call it cost) squeezed out of it. Now the base source of new yachts, and reasonable quality second hand yachts, are 'plastic fantastics' we need to be more sensitive to weight in the bow. We want our wives, children, grandchildren to come with us, we need modern comforts - or we sail alone.

Weight in the bow means we sail like old men and we are not, quite, ready to accept that, yet. Achieving an average of 10 knots, carrying the comfort of home, is part of reality

Yachts are a compromise, anchors (and chain + the shackles) are a compromise, juggling act.

We make our beds (or buy our yachts) and then contend with the implication of the choice we have made.

The new reality is lightweight yachts - or that's my view


I could buy 10mm chain, but I'd add 200kg to the bow - not an option.

Yachts for a given length have become lighter. The rode has not moved, apart from we few, with this change - in fact given the move to 'buy bigger' we are going backwards! Today we need to scratch around - or do what I did, start with a clean sheet of paper and make a bit of matching kit.

Maybe we will look back on this time of transition and smile.

The target, and it is possible, is an integrated rode bought from one 'shop' - all matching (size and strength), anchor, shackles, chain, windlass - sized for the yacht and cheaper than the current options. Its not a pipe dream - which is why I argue the toss.

Jonathan
 
I’ve been sailing , and anchoring, my Sigma 362 around the Scottish West Coast for the last 4 years.
I treated the boat to a 16kg Rocna, threw away the stainless swivel which is an unecessary complication, and kept the 50m of 8mm chain which came with the boat.
This gear has never let me down, and makes for sound sleep.
 
noelex said:
Jonathan, you continually point out in both your forum posts, such the one above, and the Practical Sailor article, that the Titan shackle failed to meet the manufacturer’s specifications in your test.

No where do you also point out the Crosby shackle also failed to meet the manufacturer’s specifications in your test.

I am not convinced a single test without any statistical analysis is significant. There is no information on how the test was conducted. The minor difference between the Titan and Crosby shackles, or the minor difference between the manufacturer’s specifications and the test results has no practical implication to anyone with G3 or G4 chain, such as the OP.

I realise CMP, the manufacturer of the Titan shackles, is not your favourite company, but in the interests of fairness it is wrong to question their quality and integrity for failing to meet specifications without also pointing out that your recommended alternative also failed to meet advertised specifications when subjected to the same test.

This is the analysis of the Crosby shackle:

Crosby 3/8 inch 209A is an imperial shackle. It has a working load of 2 short tons. This is 4000 lb. Crosby state the minimium ultimate strength is five times the working load.
Therefore the measured break load should be at least:

4000 x 5 = 20,000 lb

Jonathan’s test measured 3/8 Crosby209A = 19,905 lb.

The Crosby shackle, like the Titan shackle therefore (just) fails to meet the manufacturer’s specifications for this test.
Click to expand...



I've tested 5 or 6 of each shackle. The first shackle I tested of the Crosby and the Black pin both failed their own specifications. I also tested a Campbell Orange Pin shackle and a Peerless Peerlift Blue Pin shackle (their G80 grade) and both exceeded the manufacturer specifications. The fact the Black Pin and Crosby shackle did not meet specification downplayed - it wa left to the reader to analyse (we had only tested one shackle) Subsequent testing of Campbell shackles show them to be consistently over specification. Some cheap Peerlift shackles started to appear in the market place (in the US), mail order, and I sourced a new batch of Peerlift shackles - they failed their own specifications. Recommendation for Peerlift shackles was dropped. It appears Peerlift change their source, they apparently never made shackles but merchanted them. There was also a story that they had not registered Peerlift, the brand, in China and the cheap Peerlift shackles available mail order might have been Chinese made and had nothing to do with Peerless. A bit of a mystery, not solved - but recommendation removed and it has not been renewed. Peerless is America's largest chain maker, now owned by Kito. Campbell shackles are regularly recommended - but this is in an American magazine where Campbell shackles are easily sourced. I have continuously underlined Campbell shackles are good - but difficult, if not impossible, to source outside America.

The failure of both the Crosby and Black Pin shackles was a concern and further shackles were obtained, Black Pin was bought over a period of time from Whitworths (Australia's biggest chandlery chain) and over a period of time from Tecni (there is no standard for this specific grade of shackle in Australia, so they cannot be used in applications where standards are demanded as they are too good, and thus more expensive). All subsequent Crosby shackles met specification, none of the Black Pin shackles, ever, met specification.

The specifications are set voluntarily - they can be set to meet manufacturing ability. However if the specification is good enough they then meet a US requirement and can be classed as Grade B shackles There is no Grade B specification in Australia. This classification is not limited to strength but also 'rate' of deformation.

As the Black Pin shackles did not meet specification Practical Sailor (not me) enquired of CMP what the position was. CMP stated that my test procedure was flawed, apparently the standard is to test a string of 5 shackles, not one. it merits note 'we' pay for the shackles and testing - there are no freebies from suppliers

I had confidently expected that CMP would provide QC data, and their own random checks on batches arriving in, say N Am - but nothing. This was a concern, why was no data provided? That question was not asked - but also was never answered.

What was offered was a video of them testing one shackle, not the string of 5 - of a size much larger than the 3/8th" I tested - the one they teted did meet specification, surprise, surprise. So they took the time to make a video - but no QC data. Maybe this is normal for some companies, it is not normal for me and the industries I have worked in. it would be standard to test batches - and use that data to support or counter any queries.

What was damning was that the specification was changed, reduced, subsequently.

It merits note that CMP are a 'new' entrant to the shackle market. They have a reputation to build. Practical Sailor and I are not a QC facility - we found what we assessed was an issue, brought it to the attention of the manufacturer (or supplier) they changed the specification, coincidental or not. But we are not here to validate their practices - they have been found wanting, the absence of QC data I found 'unusual' - they will not be recommended until proved they are manufacturing to their own specification - and as there is a cost to testing and as their are alternatives, Crosby and Campbell, - I for one am not in a rush to test more CMP shackles. If CMP want to provide me with samples FOC I might then go and randomly source - but I am not anxious. Shoot yourself in the foot, mislead customers - you only have yourself to blame. I might be harsh - but that's part of life's rich pattern.

If you read the articles in PS on chain testing, standard leisure marine anchor chain and my HT chain, you will find images of the equipment used. This is standard and accepted equipment NATA approved and regularly checked. It is the same equipment used to check shackles imported to Australia and used in a variety of industries including mining and lifting. There is no question mark over the equipment.

If you, Noelex, wish to recommend CMP shackles - good luck to you (I would be interested in your basis for support)

Finally - up until your constant prodding I have resisted providing this detail, which I do not find particularly complimentary of CMP. However you have continuously questioned my judgement and in defending myself I have, obviously, had to define my position. I have only provided this background under provocation by yourself.

Jonathan

I will not recommend them until such time a they are proven reliable.

And to add to testing credibility.

All the testing has been conducted, on my behalf, by the Australian subsidiary (Bunzl Safety) of Bunzl plc. Bunzl Safety is only part of Bunzl's interest in the industry and are also major importers of chain, shackles, rope etc. Bunzl are possibly the biggest resource for testing, of chain and shackles etc, in Australia and have operations in most, maybe all, capital cities and in the major mining centres.

If you think Bunzl test techniques or equipment are at fault I am sure Bunzl would welcome your comment.
 
Last edited:
noelex said:
I realise CMP, the manufacturer of the Titan shackles, is not your favourite company,
Click to expand...

Finally, and having pondered.

I find this distasteful, insulting, unnecessary and without justification nor foundation. You are also suggesting that Practical Sailor would allow personal bias to go unchecked and become a foundation for recommendation.

You are suggesting that I dislike CMP and separately (were this to be true) that I would let this influence my decisions and recommendations. You are suggesting that PS are blind to my like and dislike - or don't care - and pander to human frailty.

I have clearly and with some effort defined exactly why I cannot recommend CMP Titan shackles. The reasons are objective NOT subjective - I think they stand scrutiny. I know on other forum a comment such as yours would be justification to ban, for life, a member/contributor.

I don't like or dislike CMP - they are just a player in the field. I do look for higher standards from those that supply critical products, anchor, chain, shackles, swivels, hooks for tethers, lifejackets etc etc - and testing over the last 15 years does appear to show the effort is worth it. Sometimes the work is. sadly, after the event - in this case, for whatever reason, CMP changed the specification and no losses incurred - other cases - we, those of us who actually test, were too late.

But be assured publication at Practical Sailor enjoys considerable scrutiny, nobody guesses, editors are knowledgeable and facts are double checked. If a manufacturer is being criticised - they are given all opportunity to reply (and I am sure if the author is found wanting, biased - their tenure at PS would be short).

If you think I'm getting near anger - you might be right.

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
The first shackle I tested of the Crosby and the Black pin both failed their own specifications..
Click to expand...
Thank you Jonathan for the real story.

This is very different from the position you have consistently expressed on this forum and in Practical Sailor:

Neeves said:
I have tested 3/8th" size 209a shackles and they meet Crosby's specification, slightly exceeding spec. I have tested a significant number of Titan Black Pin shackles, again 3/8th" size and they all failed to meet Titan's (then) specification.
Click to expand...

It is a shame that someone else had to point this out. The failure of the Crosby shackle as well as the Titan shackle to meet the manufacturer’s specifications in your test should have been made clear. I don’t understand why this was coved up.

Crosby manufacturer’s specifications refer to the minimium break load, not the average, so testing more samples cannot turn a failure into a pass.

I must point out that I think this has very little relevence to the owners of G3 or G4 chain. Both shackles are fine. As we don’t know how the tests were conducted I think it is wrong to say either shackle failed the manufacturer’s standard. It has been stated that the tests were conducted to Australian standards, but there is no comment how these differ from from the American Standards that presumably apply to the shackles in question. Differences in testing procedure can have a significant effect on the outcome, and both shackles only just failed.

Nevertheless, the readers of the forum now know the truth, that both the Crosby 209A and the Titan Black pin failed Jonathan’s test. The ultimate loads were:

3/8 Titan black pin = 19,036 lb
3/8 Crosby209A = 19,905 lb.

I think YBW members will find this helpful when choosing a shackle. It is a pity the readers of Practical Sailor will still be under the impression that the Crosby shackle passed Jonathan’s test. At least this illustrates the power of forums where views are questioned and errors pointed out.
 
Neeves said:
If you think I'm getting near anger - you might be right.
Click to expand...

Jonathan, apologies. I did not realise you would be so upset. That was not my intent.

In my defence, I would point out that that the antagonism between yourself and the owners of Rocna anchors is evident. There are more than a few posts on YBW to suggest you are not the best of friends.

CMP obviously as well as producing Titan shackles make Rocna anchors and presumably the owners receive some royalties. The Rocna knowledge base heavily features Titan shackles, as you might expect.

Perhaps you are more ambivalent to CMP, but you have mentioned on several occasions on the forum that you are “off their Xmas card list”.
J Neeves said:
I wanted to test more of CMP's Grade L, to confirm its consistency - but I'm off their Xmas card list
Click to expand...
So I assumed your relationship was also strained, hence my comment that this is not your favourite company. I thought this was a reasonbable comment in the circumstances, but once again appologies if you have taken offence.

You have mentioned Practical Sailor magazine that published the article. I think this is an excellent magazine, but like any publication the quality of the technical submissions does vary. I have no idea how magazines work, but I assume the technical editor is responsible for deciding what is published and deciding if it provides a balanced and fair viewpoint.

In this case personally I think there was some breakdown of that system. Crosby and Titan are direct rivals in the shackle business. Titan shackles are on the shelves of many chandleries in Australia and Europe. This is one of their main strengths. Sailors can buy rated high test shackles directly where they may otherwise be tempted to use a no-name unrated product, as I see on so many anchors.

So to announce that the Titan shackle failed without also pointing out that the Crosby shackle also failed was misleading and a mistake in my view, although to be fair the article is watered down compared to the impression from your forum posts. So perhaps the editor had some influence.

I think it would be fairer to CMP if Practical Sailor published a correction, or clarification in a future issue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top