Spade and Sword anchors

machurley22

machurley22

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Jan 2004
Messages
2,068
Location
Scotland
Visit site
While we're on the subject of anchors...

I am (nearly) convinced of the benefits of the newer anchor designs but find the sizing recommendations for these two a bit confusing. Silkie is 6.7m LOA and probably about 2T (or a shade over) in cruising trim.

In the < 7.5m and < 2T category the recommended galvanised Spade is the 10kg model while the 5kg Sword is considered adequate. The laysailor might be forgiven for thinking that this makes the Sword the superior anchor.

And another thing. Given that much is made of surface area as well as shape as the key to good holding with these anchors, why is it that this is not quoted for the Sword while the 10kg Spade is described as 600 sq.cm.

Would the 10kg Sword give me oodles more holding power at less than half the price of the 10kg Spade?
 
If you look at the Spade recommeded sizes versus almost any conventional anchor (eg Bruce, CQR etc) - and if you look at some of the pitifully small anchors fitted to alleged cruising yachts - you will see that the Spade is considerably over-specced. A case of CYA I think . . . why should a new high holding power anchor need to be oversized compared to a conventional anchor?Obviously there has been a rethink with the Sword.

We have a 10Kg Spade on Fairwinds, while technically we should have a 15Kg - however, the 10Kg is utterly adequate for our 4 tonnes in cruising trim.

Hylas himself allegedly uses an 'underweight' Spade as his main anchor.

- Nick
 
ISTR that the Sword is designed as a cheaper version of the Spade.

LIke any anchor question, I guess it comes down to where are you gonna use it and what else do you have on board?

<reads link> - nice blog - Ok in that kind of area you'll probably be carrying a BFO fisherman's as backup?

IMO the Spade surface area thing is a slightly gimicky indication of potential holding power in sand & mud.

I'm happy with a 10 kg Spade 60 bower on our 2T Hunter27 - on the South Coast - replacig a 7.5Kg Bruce-clone. A friend uses a Spade 100 on his 45' 11T MAB - he's sold the big CQR, but still has his Fishermans & Danforth & loadsa spare chain in the locker... His Spade alone has comfortably held both of of us rafted up in Chi for the night.
 
Well I believe I’m the one in the best position to answer these questions /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I have always considered that the holding of an anchor is related to its surface area (and shape)
Both the Sword and the Spade have the same concave shape. A 5 kg SWORD has a blade surface area of 594 cm² as a 10 kg Spade has a blade surface area of 600 sq cm.. and this is why both models are suggested for the same size of boats.

I will not consider the Sword anchor as superior as it will have the same holding, but only as a lighter design, /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif but yes.. it is a much cheaper anchor..

But you are right, the surface area of the Sword should be quoted on the web page..


[ QUOTE ]
“ <span style="color:blue">why should a new high holding power anchor need to be oversized compared to a conventional anchor? Obviously there has been a rethink with the Sword.” </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I consider that the “specifications” are only honest .. If you look at some Web pages of some manufacturers.. they wrote (in small letters) that the anchor is specified only for winds up to 30 knots.. both the Spade and the Sword are specified for winds up to 60 knots.. that’s the reason of the difference.. and the specifications of the Sword are not different.. they are identical for the same surface area (but yes the weight is only about half..)

I hope this will answer your questions

Alain
 
I know Alain may think I'm a loony but I have a A60 (4.5kg) Spade on my 32fter, 3000kg odd. I went Alloy as I do race and we all know extra weight is a bad thing /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I know it is a bit smaller than Alains chart (what was Alains anyway) but having hooked it up to my truck and a load cell I'm more than happy it will hold massive loads, surprisingly large actually.

Never had a bad feeling while anchored or moved a mm.

My crusing anchor is steel and while a similar design theory it is from another stable. It's called 'shareing the love' /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif and a bit of on the job testing.

Of course both are backed by very nice matching rodes. Not all chain either which will please Alain. Not a mm of nylon in the system either, Polyester all the way /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well I believe I’m the one in the best position to answer these questions



[/ QUOTE ]

maybe - maybe not - do you actually use a 10kg Sword everytime you anchor? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

here's a 10kg sword.............

sword.JPG



based on my experiences with it I would suggest you will be more than happy with one for your boat.

having used a 10kg bruce, then a 10kg delta followed by the 10kg Sword this season the latter has provided a more solid hold than either of the other 2 once set. It has also set better in weed over sand - but did fail to set once when it landed on a pile of loose weed that cloaked it and had to be removed by hand before trying again.

It can dig deep - but I have always found once a vertical pull is put on it it worksout fine givin a minute or two under load.

Only downsides I have experienced are - (1) it does have to be set firmly in; if you just nudge up against it it assumes the correct position and bites straight away but, if the load is removed it can 'fall over'. With any real load it's no problem but in light winds and no current it can 'walk' across the bottom on it side........this was a failure of technique I discovered one day. The conditions were so light that the traces in the sand remained clear along the whole metre it had walked! Wish I had taken a picture.
The other issue - everyone asks "What's that anchor?" /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
You might ask yourself, if the Sword (formerly known as the Oceane - refer to the recent Yachting Monthly testing) is as good as claimed, why then the continued need for the expensive Spade... or if the Spade is still the best, what compromises are being made by the lower valued alternative...

A similar rhetorical question: why do Lewmar sell the cheap Chinese built Bruce copy, when their own Delta (and even the CQR) is far superior?
 
VW market different brands for market share. They market different cars within those brands because there is demand for more than one type of car, since they all do different jobs.

The Spade and Sword are intended to do exactly the same job and they are both marketed under the Spade brand. One is simply a cheaper compromised version of the other.

Most anchors are designed to fit the same bow fittings as the most popular types.
 
duncan .. like his holiness, i too am thinking of changing from a cqr to something like what mchurley's thinking of but am wondering what else needs changing at the bow to get a sword, spade or delta to fit. most delta anchors i've seen have a much extended roller to push the anchor well clear of the bow but wonder if that's entirely necessary ... a spade appears to fit quite happily where once a cqr might have been.
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> You might ask yourself, if the Sword (formerly known as the Oceane - refer to the recent Yachting Monthly testing) is as good as claimed, why then the continued need for the expensive Spade... </span>

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have been quite surprised if Craig will not have jumped on the occasion to try to demolish a quite DANGEROUS COMPETITOR for the Rocna anchor!..

First the Oceane and the Sword are different anchors.. ( and I’m surprised to see that Craig seems not to be clever enough to have seen the difference ??)


Sword-Oceane.jpg


and I regret that SAIL did not contact the SPADE company before testing an anchor which is no longer manufactured.. ( Perhaps the tests results would have been quite different with the Rocna??)

The Rocna use the same design idea than the Sword, suppressing the ballast in order to increase the blade surface area and by consequence the holding.. but here stop the similarity between the two anchors ( except that the Rocna also copy the <span style="color:red"> PATENTED </span> concave shape )

In order to replace the removed lead ballast, the position of the shank is moved backward. And this is the weight of the shank which is used as a ballast.. ( also PATENTED Craig!) when to compensate the bad weight repartition of weight.. the Rocna must use a cumbersome ROLL BAR to put the anchor in the setting position..

Last comparative point.. the SWORD is already distributed in U.K. and is MUCH CHEAPER than the Rocna..

panoram-Reduct.jpg
 
it's difficult to be precise but as Craig says the Bruce,Delta, Sword and Rocna all handle similar bow roller fittings.

I have neither a cqr nor spade so can't comment on their similarities - however I am sure someone can as it's a common upgrade! The only spade I have seen in a bow fitting was a friends small Fairline in which he had a 2kg alloy spade that looked like a toy - he said it suited the mainly mud or sand around Poole perfectly and never failed him!
 
[ QUOTE ]
First the Oceane and the Sword are different anchors.. ( and I’m surprised to see that Craig seems not to be clever enough to have seen the difference ??) and I regret that SAIL did not contact the SPADE company before testing an anchor which is no longer manufactured.

[/ QUOTE ]Perhaps they couldn't see the difference either /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The Rocna use the same design idea than the Sword, suppressing the ballast in order to increase the blade surface area and by consequence the holding.. but here stop the similarity between the two anchors ( except that the Rocna also copy the <span style="color:red"> PATENTED </span> concave shape )

[/ QUOTE ]Of course it doesn't use the same design idea - or copy anything - what blatant disparagement - tsk tsk

[ QUOTE ]
In order to replace the removed lead ballast, the position of the shank is moved backward. And this is the weight of the shank which is used as a ballast.. ( also PATENTED Craig!) when to compensate the bad weight repartition of weight

[/ QUOTE ]Does the XYZ infringe the Sword patent?

XYZ.jpg


[ QUOTE ]
Last comparative point.. the SWORD is already distributed in U.K. and is MUCH CHEAPER than the Rocna..

[/ QUOTE ]Ah but not for long, and it isn't much cheaper... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Still I agree the Sword is much cheaper than the clearly superior Spade.
Yes? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Does the XYZ infringe the Sword patent?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES.. Absolutely.. but this is not YOUR problem.. your problem is the infringement of the concave surface patented by the SPADE..

It not surprising to observe that, each time that somebody has a new, improved idea.. there is always somebody who jump on the idea and copy it..

Perhaps it is only the proof that the idea is interesting enough?? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
It surprises me that you were able to patent a concave anything. Having had a few dealings with the intellectual property people, I found them very reluctant to agree to patenting something that already exists, e.g. a concave thing, as it is a concept that has been around for millenia.

Is there a link to the patent for the Spade? it would be interesting to read (even in French)
 
[ QUOTE ]
Well I believe I’m the one in the best position to answer these questions /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Good to know that the 10kg Spade is much the same area as the 5kg Sword but since the Spade is probably out for me on grounds of cost, would you suggest the 5kg or 10kg Sword?

Are there any plans to produce a template for a cardboard Sword (as there is for the Spade) so that I could check how it might fit?
 
[ QUOTE ]
It surprises me that you were able to patent a concave anything. Having had a few dealings with the intellectual property people, I found them very reluctant to agree to patenting something that already exists, e.g. a concave thing, as it is a concept that has been around for millenia.

[/ QUOTE ]/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Is there a link to the patent for the Spade? it would be interesting to read (even in French)

[/ QUOTE ]Spade: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US5934219&F=0&QPN=US5934219

Sword: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODO...bf7b57d35dcac53
 
[ QUOTE ]
It surprises me that you were able to patent a concave anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

United States Patent 5,934,219
Poiraud August 10, 1999


Abstract:

A marine anchor designed so that it positions itself automatically and penetrates instantly into all kinds of sea beds with maximum holding power. The geometry and ballasting of the anchor ensure automatic positioning of the anchor. The off-center position of the ballast counter-balancing the weight of the shank places the center of gravity of the anchor as close as possible to the anchor tip, so that the tip can bear practically half the total weight of the anchor, the pressure exerted by the top on the sea bed is increased, and its penetration into the sea bed is promoted. The sharp corners between the two sides of the tip aids penetration into all kind of sea beds, including sea beds covered with thick seaweed, and the <span style="color:red"> concave surface of the fluke </span> provides maximum holding power. Said anchor is suitable for mooring yachts and fishing boats, as well as for marine industrial use.


I claim:

1. A boat anchor comprising a shank having a trapezoidal cross section welded to a fluke, said fluke comprising lower and upper parts and being symmetrical with respect to a vertical and longitudinal plane of symmetry, the fluke lower part being folded along the plane of symmetry at an angle of about 100.degree., the fluke upper part being folded along the plane of symmetry at an angle of about 140.degree., said upper and lower parts being welded together to form a tip of the anchor, such that a vertical transverse cross section of the anchor through said upper and lower parts exhibits generally a chevron shape, said upper and lower parts meeting at an angle of about 20.degree., a back part of said fluke having a quasi-elliptical shape <span style="color:red"> with a concave surface</span> and two projecting ears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top