Pete7
Well-known member
Who said anything about using the windlass
I wouldn't be able to close the anchor locker lid if I did this.
Securing the anchor
- Thread starter geem
- Start date
Who said anything about using the windlass
I wouldn't be able to close the anchor locker lid if I did this.
Pete7
Well-known member
Duplicate deleted.
Poignard
Well-known member
You'll be thinking of the Blake bottle screw slip, perhaps?Who said anything about using the windlass
Neeves
Well-known member
Who said anything about using the windlass
Why do you think I was suggesting you would do such a silly thing. People might have misinterpreted what you said and assumed that holding the anchor under tension, which they might assume was developed by the windlass, was an acceptable practice. I was just clarifying what you posted.
Take care, stay safe.
johnalison
Well-known member
Sorry, no photo but the block is a rounded-off rectangle maybe three inches long. On the top there is a recess in the form of a groove that is open at the bow only. There is a transverse hole between the block and deck which is large enough to pass several strands of lanyard through. The end of the shank of our CQR sits in the groove and when tied down the bar on the anchor is secure enough to be used as a step when leaving the boat via the bow.
Pete7
Well-known member
Inherited a piece of thin rope with a dinghy pulley widget which locked. Did away with it in the end and just put the anchor in the locker.
Neeves
Well-known member
On Proof Testing for Classification Society approval.
Testing is conducted at the expense of the anchor maker. They make their own test rigs or they have an approved testing facility make the rigs. The CS simply attend the tests and certify that the tests were conducted correctly and that the anchor passed, or not.
These are three anchor tests by different manufacturers to achieve certification. They all follow the same theme - to test the integrity of the joint between fluke and shank and to test the integrity of the shank itself. The fluke and shank are retained and the shank, via the shackle hole, is tensioned, depends on the size of the anchor. Deformation is measured in millimeters.
The first 2 pictures show an Excel anchor. The wooden blocks are there to stop the strap that secures the fluke from slipping from the toe
The third picture is a Fortress. The wood on the flukes is to ensure there is no point loading
The final picture shows an Ultra. They have made a special bracket to tension the toe of the fluke
None of this is very cheap and I suspect the attendance by the Classification Society costs, a lot. But if you want to sell to commercial vessels you need to jump through the hoops and this is one of the hoops. Someone has to pay - and its the customer. However you do receive the assurance that the shank and shank fluke interface has been tested - but drilling a hole in the shank will negate any idea you might have that your anchor enjoys Classification Society approval.
Jonathan
Testing is conducted at the expense of the anchor maker. They make their own test rigs or they have an approved testing facility make the rigs. The CS simply attend the tests and certify that the tests were conducted correctly and that the anchor passed, or not.
These are three anchor tests by different manufacturers to achieve certification. They all follow the same theme - to test the integrity of the joint between fluke and shank and to test the integrity of the shank itself. The fluke and shank are retained and the shank, via the shackle hole, is tensioned, depends on the size of the anchor. Deformation is measured in millimeters.
The first 2 pictures show an Excel anchor. The wooden blocks are there to stop the strap that secures the fluke from slipping from the toe
The third picture is a Fortress. The wood on the flukes is to ensure there is no point loading
The final picture shows an Ultra. They have made a special bracket to tension the toe of the fluke
None of this is very cheap and I suspect the attendance by the Classification Society costs, a lot. But if you want to sell to commercial vessels you need to jump through the hoops and this is one of the hoops. Someone has to pay - and its the customer. However you do receive the assurance that the shank and shank fluke interface has been tested - but drilling a hole in the shank will negate any idea you might have that your anchor enjoys Classification Society approval.
Jonathan
pyrojames
Well-known member
I didn't have to drill a hole in my Delta, the elongated hole for the chain was plenty enough to get a bolt through.
pyrojames
Well-known member
Something like this?Attachments
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
Neeves, I would be interested to know at what loading the shank bends and at what loading the bend is such as to result in permanent deformation. My very crude calculations based on example for 12mm bar gives about 500kg. Probably not the critical factor which is shear of shank from blade but still in “get new anchor” territory
Neeves
Well-known member
If you can access this article it gives most of the answers.
Anchor Tests: Bending More Shanks - Practical Sailor
I did most of the work and the original articles, there were at least 2, have been re-edited and consolidated.
Your 500kgs is not far off the mark - but it depends on the steel and length of bar. Most old anchors would pop out at a veer resulting in 500kg loads - so the shank will not bend and the anchor will drag. Modern anchors will accept a 500kg load, they will not drag - some might bend - and a 500kg veer is not impossible (I've measured 650kg, short rode no snubber). If you use a decent snubber (why do I keep mentioning this - read the article and read the articles on snubbers) you will not develop such high loads.
In the article the aluminium Excel is totally destroyed. The original anchors was simply and grossly under engineered. The manufacturer took onboard the problem (thank goodness some reads the articles and do something) and produced the current model which we have now been using for years - without issue. The new model uses the 2205 alloy of aluminium for the shank and it also has a thicker profile than the steel model (made from Bis 80 steel). The steel shank is almost indestructible and the aluminium version is of a similar strength. The original work was prompted by the bendy shank saga and you can see images of where I bent one of the suspect anchors.
Unfortunately manufacturers are not keen on lending you an anchor - which you then destroy (it can give them a bad name) and as you are aware anchors are expensive. There are a number of new anchors since the work was done and most have not been tested - and I am sure many would fail (and do fail). However printed media is having a tough time and cannot sponsor anchor destruction (and private individuals are not going to spend stg500 for no return by providing free info on the internet. I'm not sure how this will pan out).
I'd like to test Mantus, M1 and M2; Viking; Epsilon; Vulcan; Knox (have I missed any?) - for a 15kg anchor that's maybe stg2,000 of scrap iron. The internet has removed an income stream for the magazines and the authors - and allowed under strength anchors to become today's heroes. - I know this because some of the new anchors have bent because of poor engineering and ignoring advise).
Other research is completely ignored - by both the manufacturers and market place.
An Inquiry into Anchor Angles - Practical Sailor
another article re-edited
and I'm then accused of harbouring grudges.
Whinge over
If you cannot access the article or need more info - let me know. Knowledge is of no value if it cannot be shared.
Take care, stay safe
Jonathan
Laminar Flow
Well-known member
I'll cross that bridge when we get there ... either way, we do have an angle grinder on board and a generator to drive it as well - plus two more anchors in case the bower were not accessible for some reason.
This is all part of my wicked plan to subvert and stall the concept of a planing cruiser of course.
Re dropping the pin overboard:
It would be a minor inconvenience at best, should it join all the other things I've lost overboard, but I doubt that it will ring in the apocalypse.
Re using a bolt and lock nut to secure the anchor:
Been there, done that. Also had the anchor self-launch approaching Selsey Bill in rough conditions when said nut disengaged.
Lessons learned: Do not use Nut&Bolt, stopping a surging chain requires more courage to suspend one's sense of self-preservation than I could or am willing to muster, use a substantial piece of line for a bitter end and finally: it is astonishing how fast a fellow can haul in 40m of 8mm and fully extended chain & anchor with his bare hands.
On a positive note, I was greatly impressed how aggressively our new anchor had sought to engage the sea bed, as evidenced by the bit of mud it brought up on it's tip, even though, and according to the depth sounder and chart, it barely had touched the bottom.
Neeves
Well-known member
It is a credit to the newer anchors, or most of them, that they will engage, or try to engage, so aggressively. Other forum members have, sheepishly, admitted both that they deployed and unwittingly relied on, a newer designed anchor (I recall including a Fortress) and it held through thick and thin and the inadvisable scope was only discovered when it was found to have been a 2.5:1 not (I forget) maybe what had been though to be 4:1 or 5:1.
An easy mistake when its raining, dark and you are tired (or just reaching that age of maturity when mental faculties want a decent whisky not an arithmetic lesson).
It is for this reason I'm not so keen that my bridle plate improves scope - its not the critical feature it was when deploying a vintage model anchor.
This is not to suggest scope (the ratio) should be ignored. We set at 3:1, check with a power set, and then deploy to 5:1 (bow roller to seabed). Very seldom do we go beyond 5:1 - but then we are fanatical about snubbers (which also makes 2.5: 1 acceptable).
I could expound on scope (the ratio) and how we are as incorrectly worshipping at the wrong temple with our obsession with scope (as some are with catenary) when the reality is we should be more focussed at the rode itself - not that holy ratio.
Jonathan
geem
Well-known member
There is no strop. The line in the picture is a mooring line tied to the pontoon. I went and had another look at the anchor clamp. It is restraining the anchor very effectively. I tried to move the anchor by pushing, pulling and twisting. It doesn't budge a mm?
Neeves
Well-known member
There is nothing wrong with the device - it looks substantial, it looks (and it is now confirmed) that it does the job. I suspect it cost a bit - and the same result could have been achieved by lashing the anchor with a decent bit of string.
To me a major advantage, not yet mentioned, is that it should be idiot proof (unlike a lashing) ask a neophyte, they having been shown the device prior) to go and secure the anchor then little further instruction is necessary. Asking someone to lash the anchor results with my having to check (and subsequently redo the knitting).
Jonathan
BabaYaga
Well-known member
It would be interesting to get some figures from that incident, size of anchor, diameter of pin and distance between cheeks.
I secure my 16kg Delta with a 15mm stainless steel pin, which goes through the factory made 17mm (or so) hole near the crown. Distance between cheeks is 50mm.
I cannot imagine that pin bending in any kind of weather I would go out in, but might be wrong of course.
geem
Well-known member
The boat is a Bowman 45. It's an old one from the 1970s. The topsides are low and the bow buries itself in rough weather. Since we were sailing in company I can confirm the conditions were pretty unpleasant. My friend wasn't happy with the design of the bow roller following this incident so was have a more robust one made.
I think there is a bit of an issue securing a Rocna on a lot of bow rollers. They seem to rock even when lashed down or secured with a pin. The issue may not be unique to Rocnas. Certainly they don't secure naturally on our bow roller since a friend's has the same boat and he has to do some fairly elaborate lashing to secure his Rocna for ocean passages. I confess I don't lash ours at all normally. The Spade sits in the bow roller with the fluke against the bow roller cheeks and doesn't move. We do add a dyneema lashing on ocean passages just in case but not normally.
Spirit (of Glenans)
Well-known member
An anchor thread that's not an anchor thread, what's not to like??
Boira
New member
Yes, old thread, sorry!
I have the same issue, the Vulcan swings too much at the bow roller. I haven't found a way of lashing it that really keeps it in place.
I would prefer to keep it in the anchor locker too, but mine is 20 KG which is not so easy to lift, and also it doesn't fit in the anchor locker!
Might have a look into the cost of building something like what @geem suggested in the original post.
Refueler
Well-known member
And provided it doesn't get bent
I seem to remember a post on here years ago where that had happened to someone.
Was that when someone mistakenly used it to secure the chain when anchored ??
Other threads that may be of interest
