Viking Anchors

[vas]

oops, didn't realise it was last year's thread, so deleted, no point in continuing this debate...

 

[Bouba]

oops, didn't realise it was last year's thread, so deleted, no point in continuing this debate...

I’ve never asked such a personal question before but what is your anchor?

 

[vas]

I’ve never asked such a personal question before but what is your anchor?

mr Bouba don't expect an answer on this sensitive issue unless you post in the relevant MB thread a pic of the placement of your passerele
you can of course go through the rebuilt thread (I'd guess last 10pages will do) and see what I'm using. Believe it or not it is holding my boat still...

V.

 

[Neeves]

I had a thread on Panope Videos.

This video simply underlines some of my concerns.

Mention is made that this anchor has a shank thickness greater than some of the other anchors in the same weight category.

On shank thickness, so what? - shank thickness does impact the ability, slightly, of the anchor to bury but the important characteristic is - will the shank bend. Unless some indication is given of what steel the shank is made from - you simply don't know. If you ask Viking they will tell you what the steel is - but they cannot tell you what other anchor makers use.

The second factor, again a comment on 'engineering'. Comment is made that this is a bigger anchor, in the weight range being looked at. The conclusion is you are getting more anchor for your kg of weight. Again this is an easy design technique - make the fluke thinner - then for the same weight you get a bigger fluke. What is omitted is the fact that is exactly what has been done, the fluke plate is thinner (and will penetrate the seabed more easily) but strength is not sacrificed - because Viking use a higher tensile steel in the fluke (most anchors are made from a mild steel with a tensile strength of 350 MPa). Again ask Viking - they will tell you what strength of steel they use.

A reason I like Viking is they have taken anchor design a step forward (or in my biased view I think so) as they use HT steel in the fluke allowing them to make a lighter anchor for a given surface area. Its not as light as an aluminium anchor - but it is a significant improvement, unless you believe gravity is a significant factor in anchor performance).

If you are in the 'bigger is better' league - this is just the anchor for you, you get a bigger anchor for the same weight and don't appear to sacrifice, anything.

Stay safe, take care

Jonathan

 

[Sandy]

I had a thread on Panope Videos.

This video simply underlines some of my concerns.

Jonathan, you know my worries about the methodology of Panope Videos. This is another great example of him switching things about.

 

[Neeves]

Unfortunately to understand where my comments originate you need to look through the complete video.

Its worth looking through this particular video as he expands on his idea of a 'set' anchor. He suggests that an anchor that is 'inching' forward is as good as set. I'd beg to differ - if its not locked up - its not set. Note that the tensions he is using are not very onerous and if an anchor is not locked up at 300kg of tension (not impossible for a 10kg anchor) then in a squall with a bit of veering the anchor is not much use. Some of the tests are at unhealthily short rodes - so I'm not surprised the anchor, inches forward - but they are still not set. He also mentions the disadvantage of rope in the rode - so the vid is worth watching for those comments.

The trouble is comparing inching of one anchor and inching, or not of another - its all bundled together and called 'set'

If you take the trouble and have the patience you will find that in every vid of the Mantus M1 the anchor actually takes a long time to reach the definition of Panope's of 'set', longer than any other anchor. This not a unique characteristic of the Panope Videos - when Mantus had promotional videos of their anchor under water you could see the same long 'set' through the seabed and in one specific video - the vid was terminated with the anchor noticeably moving (so more than 'inching'). None of this merits mention in the vids.

Now to show I am, very, biased:

An Inquiry into Anchor Angles - Practical Sailor

It may be that you think a long drag through the seabed -2-3 shank lengths rather than one of its peers (Rocna, Spade et al) is acceptable.

If you want to take my comments as honest and accurate. , don't want to look through a 22 minute vid but want to see the conclusions then Steve aka Panope has his updated spread sheet at the end of the vid. He says in the vid, toward the end, that he will add updated spread sheets for each vid he produces and that each spread sheet will be dated. So again if you don't have the patience to watch through the whole vid, as you know what the protocols are, the summary is available.

Steve also makes the comment at the end of the vid that he is not funded by an anchor maker nor a magazine but is simply interested in anchors and has a mechanism to allow you to contribute financially to his work. I can confirm that anchor testing is onerous, not cheap and pretty thankless - it does not matter what you do - someone will complain (I know I'm in the queue ).

I think Steve has taken anchor testing a step forward with his veering tests. They might enjoy some polishing but with the limited resource with which he is working (singlehanded) they are the best we have. I believe he detracts, for me, from this amazing investment in time by including comments that he does not measure or have no meaning , engineering, tip weight, galvanising (and price).

I mention prices as the cost of many anchors varies considerably dependent on where they are made vs where they are sold. An Anchor Right Excel is good value in Australia, I'm not sure what it might cost on USA's east coast or in Athens. It happens to be imported to America through Vancouver and I believe Panope is 'next door' in Seattle.

If you strip out the columns for engineering, galvanising, tip weight, price - you end up with a skinny spreadsheet - but maybe you could add back surface area to weight and then Fortress might not languish at the bottom . I mention this specifically as people accept that a Fortress is not perfect but they buy it specifically because it is excellent in specific seabeds, like common sand, but critically it is demountable and very light - and people buy a Fortress because it is light (over and above other considerations). So lightness is worth 'extra' for many - the fact it is awful when veered is accepted, without question.

As Steve says - strip out any columns from his spread sheet you do not like and make your own assessment. My fear is - most will not bother (and would thus never buy a Rocna).

Everyone will know Rocna is not my favourite anchor but I accept that it is very popular, worldwide. It does have a fluke clogging issue but most people accept this, or simply ignore it, and the frequency of the issue is obviously low. There is a contradiction that such a popular anchor can be rated so poorly, so consistently - and without question or remark.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Pete7 - you were critical of Practical Sailor rating CQR as good. You will note that in the spreadsheet for Vid No 100 (I think that is the relevant vid) that in its weight group the CQR is rated much higher than Rocna (in fact Rocna has almost been sunk). I assume you will have queried this with Steve/Panope , especially if you were to use a Rocna, (as you queried the 'Good' rating with me). It would be interesting to know what the answer might be, accepting you might be reluctant to publicly release a private conversation.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Viking Anchors are really hammered by the idea that an anchor needs to be heavy - yet there is no evidence that weight is a factor in anchor performance. Size matters, not weight - so a bigger anchor (of the same design) has more 'potential' hold than a smaller one. As most anchors of the same design are made from steel a bigger anchor (with that extra hold) is also heavier - weight is an easy characteristic to measure - which leads to the conclusion that heavier anchors are better than lighter ones. But all the research suggests, almost, the opposite. Other evidence is to compare the performance of a Fortress and a Danforth (whose designs are not identical) but in tests a Fortress is invariably better than a Danforth. Another factor allowing improved performance of Fortress over Danforth is the thinner fluke of the Fortress which allows better, or easier, penetration. We use an aluminium Excel and a aluminium Spade and have used the similarly sized equivalents in steel (which roughly weight twice as much as the aluminium versions) and in terms of speed of setting and hold - we cannot tell the difference.

Viking are using Hardox450 from SSAB which has a tensile strength of about 1490 Mpa, almost twice the strength of Bisplate 80 used in the shank of the original , NZ made Rocna. Original Rocna had their HT shank and a fluke fabricated from Q235, approximately a 425 Mpa. Viking are using a steel in the fluke with 3 times the strength - allowing significant potential for weight savings.

As we use aluminium anchors we are obviously weight conscious and would use a Viking anchor - if it fitted on our bow roller. Having tested the 10kg Viking - its as good as the 15kg Excel and Spade.

Sadly this advantage of the Viking falls on deaf ears, many experts don't appreciate the advantages (or don't want to) and the religion of weight is a difficult one to overcome.

To me extending Peter Smith's use of high tensile steels from the shank to the rest of the anchor looks to be a positive move - it is strange it has taken so long. Now whether the market will accept the idea - of a lighter anchor having the same performance of a heavier version - time will tell.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

Viking Anchors are really hammered by the idea that an anchor needs to be heavy - yet there is no evidence that weight is a factor in anchor performance. Size matters, not weight - so a bigger anchor (of the same design) has more 'potential' hold than a smaller one. As most anchors of the same design are made from steel a bigger anchor (with that extra hold) is also heavier - weight is an easy characteristic to measure - which leads to the conclusion that heavier anchors are better than lighter ones. But all the research suggests, almost, the opposite. Other evidence is to compare the performance of a Fortress and a Danforth (whose designs are not identical) but in tests a Fortress is invariably better than a Danforth. Another factor allowing improved performance of Fortress over Danforth is the thinner fluke of the Fortress which allows better, or easier, penetration. We use an aluminium Excel and a aluminium Spade and have used the similarly sized equivalents in steel (which roughly weight twice as much as the aluminium versions) and in terms of speed of setting and hold - we cannot tell the difference.

Viking are using Hardox450 from SSAB which has a tensile strength of about 1490 Mpa, almost twice the strength of Bisplate 80 used in the shank of the original , NZ made Rocna. Original Rocna had their HT shank and a fluke fabricated from Q235, approximately a 425 Mpa. Viking are using a steel in the fluke with 3 times the strength - allowing significant potential for weight savings.

As we use aluminium anchors we are obviously weight conscious and would use a Viking anchor - if it fitted on our bow roller. Having tested the 10kg Viking - its as good as the 15kg Excel and Spade.

Sadly this advantage of the Viking falls on deaf ears, many experts don't appreciate the advantages (or don't want to) and the religion of weight is a difficult one to overcome.

To me extending Peter Smith's use of high tensile steels from the shank to the rest of the anchor looks to be a positive move - it is strange it has taken so long. Now whether the market will accept the idea - of a lighter anchor having the same performance of a heavier version - time will tell.

Jonathan

That material is remarkably strong, 90 ton steel in old money and yet still very ductile, Charpy figure 27 joules. These boron steels had not been heard of when I studied, amazing stuff. My only reservation for anchor duties is the 0.27 carbon, I understood there were rules about not exceeding 0.21 for anchoring gear?

 

[Neeves]

Is the carbon content related to most anchors being cast? Given that Hardox is used in mining applications and might also be welded and used under water (or at least in a wet environment) I cannot imagine it would be deemed safe and offer longevity if the carbon content would cause issues.

SSAB make some really interesting steels. They appear to specialise at the extremes and make some really high tensile steels in very thin sheet. Bisalloy were much mentioned by Peter Smith, at the time, and are a big supplier of high tensile steels - but they make nothing as thin as SSAB. Perfect if you worry a lot and need an armour plated car . They supply some of their steels ready galvanised (and have other coatings) - though the galvanising I have seen is very thin (they gave me samples to play with)

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

I recall some months, maybe now a couple of years, ago when Viking released their anchor some bright spark on another forum suggested that making in Ukraine was a dumb move - I think the reasoning was the likelihood of Russian (I nearly used the word Soviet ) intervention disrupting supplies. I'm amused, well not really amused, that the disruption to anchor supply has come from a totally different direction (the Suez fiasco) and the Ukrainian fabricator appears to have access to some of the most sophisticated steels available. I also understand that Viking hold stock in Belgium and are all geared up for mail order, our anchor, supplied free of charge, actually came from Ukraine, via the Baltic States, San Francisco and Hawaii - an itinerary I'd quite like to follow

I don't know why Viking chose Hardox but suspect it was as Mallory might have said 'Because its there'.

I'm obviously supportive, unashamedly, of Viking as they appear to be trying to move anchor development forward (with use of some sophisticated steel). Time will tell if they have it right - but I give them credit for trying (and I find it a good anchor).


On the subject of free anchors:

I did a review of an anchor I had had for free and I was not complimentary, I thought I was being honest. I wrote up the review and sent it to a magazine, the article was edited and as was common practice the review was sent to the manufacturer. The manufacturer lacked any enthusiasm for the review and their telling comment was 'but we sent him the anchor for free'. The implication I took was that I should feel gratitude for their largesse (Its not cheap sending anchors round the world) and that my gratitude should be reflected in my comments. The review I wrote was published with the basis of my comments unchanged - and I have not received another free sample to review since. For small items this does not matter, shackles are not that expensive neither are chain hooks - but anchors (of a 15kg size) are expensive and printed media is having enough problems competing with 'the internet' (the Panope videos) and this forum without buying and sending me any new anchor that comes on the market. I try to overcome this by borrowing - but borrowing new anchors from neighbours is not very successful.

Steve aka Panope has followed a different route and is looking to be supported (as I have been) by supply of anchors from the manufacturers but also from people who watch his videos (and I do get paid for my articles). He has chosen video to report his findings and his results are now available on his spreadsheets in the videos, what you see yourself and with what he says on video. The visual impact of the testing is obvious and convincing - but the words carry equal weight.

I took particular note of the Panope video 100

in which, right at the end of the video (the last couple of minutes, its 39.44 long and the quote is at about 38 mins or just previous), he mentioned he had had 2 generous donations via PayPal for his work. I have no idea what other contributions he might have had but these donations merited comment - maybe to encourage others to do the same. I took note as I wondered who might be so generous as altruism and sailing are not often used in the same sentence. I concluded that possibly I have been unkind and maybe there are some altruistic yachtsmen who are interested in anchor testing - I just wish they would take out multiple subscriptions to Yachting Monthly, Practical Sailor etc - its too late for Cruising Helmsman in Oz - it closed a couple of months ago.

A problem I see with encouraging support from the public is that you need to repay that support with a continuing stream of new information. There is in fact a finite amount of testing you can do for anchors, holding capacity, veering, strength (aka engineering) come to mind - after that you either need new models, your testing needs to be either contrived or very imaginative and use of different seabeds.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Slight drift

I understand, from a mole in N Am, that Steve aka Panope has been testing the Epsilon and has made some initial comments on a recent video (that I have not seen) and the full vid will, may, be available in a couple of weeks. So look out for the vid. I have not yet seen an Epsilon and am not aware that it is on shelves in Oz.

Jonathan

 

[Mr Cassandra]

I have seen it on a couple of large brand new Charter cats in Lavrio Greece

 

[Neeves]

I posted this on another thread, this is more appropriate.

I retain my reservations on the score board system, though in this case comments on galvanising do need to be addressed. I found the assessment 'surprising' and commendable (after factoring in my reservations on the tests protocol.

The comment has been made by Steve (aka Panope) that the seabeds he uses are simply not those in which a Rocna performs well and it is for this reason that CQR can be rated higher than Rocna. This begs the question - if the seabeds are not 'typical' how many other anchors are rated highly or poorly because of the restricted seabeds being used.

Until the seabeds are 'more representative' the conclusions should be viewed with caution. For this reason - when he releases his Epsilon review consider how the seabeds you might use may differ from those being used for testing. I still believe the measure of 'ultimate holding capacity' is important and possibly more so than multiple, 'unrepresentative high speed' yaw tests - which form the basis of Panope's underwater assessment. I continue to believe that an anchor that is still moving is not set (and I note that the tensions being quoted are all within tensions that a 35' yacht might develop) - and if an anchor moves at these tensions - it is questionable.

Rocna, and its like, ARE susceptible to clogging in tenacious, clogging mud, seabed. and sea beds with weed and roots. Many, or most seabeds in which people anchor are clear sand and a Rocna will outperform many anchors, including a CQR (hands down). If you are aware of the specific weakness of your anchor and factor that into your choice of anchorage - a Rocna is a good choice.

I reiterate I defend Rocna but I think there are better (of which, maybe, Epsilon may be one).

I watched the 'cobble stone' sequence more carefully. If you look at some of the other videos in sandy mud you will find, as I have frequently said, that when a modern anchor sets the toe and the shackle end of the shank engage together. As the toe (followed by the fluke) buries the shackle end of the shank also buries, with some chain. Commonly when your anchor is set you might see the heel, the roll bar and about 1m of chain can be buried. In cobblestones this does not occur - not through a fault of a design imperfection - but because the cobblestones hamper the burial of the shank and chain. The shank and chain with a few stones directly underneath simply cannot bury and this impacts the ability of the fluke to bury. If you use a small anchor with a small chain this will be less of a problem as the thinner shank can worry its way between the stones. The lesson is - don't anchor in cobblestones (I'd be interested in how many anchorages have such a seabed) and (a less likely solution) use smaller chain etc etc.

On the Australian east coast we hav e sailed almost its complete length, as far south as the southern tip of Tasmania. Don't quote me, its about 3,000nm, and we know of one anchorage with cobblestones (on an island in Bass Strait). I don't find an assessment of an anchor in cobblestones a very convincing measure of anchor performance.

I appreciate my constant critical comments on the Panope vid are not going to make me too many friends. Steve has put in a lot of effort, he is pushing forward anchor testing - but he needs to broaden his approach and offer more balance. All credit to him - he IS pushing boundaries. Just be cautious how you view results.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan

 

[Bajansailor]

I have a little 2 lb Viking aluminium anchor made in the USA in the late 70's - it looks just like a smaller version of a typical Fortress anchor (even with the way it is bolted together). I am wondering if these Viking folk were the forerunners of Fortress?
And it has impressive holding power - it held a 38' 10 tonne sailing yacht on a rope rode (no chain, but lots of scope) in average sand in about 10- 12 knots of wind quite happily. Yes, just 2 lbs.

 

[Neeves]

I have a little 2 lb Viking aluminium anchor made in the USA in the late 70's - it looks just like a smaller version of a typical Fortress anchor (even with the way it is bolted together). I am wondering if these Viking folk were the forerunners of Fortress?
And it has impressive holding power - it held a 38' 10 tonne sailing yacht on a rope rode (no chain, but lots of scope) in average sand in about 10- 12 knots of wind quite happily. Yes, just 2 lbs.

As far as I know - no. Fortress came on the market, I think, in the 80s and from what I was told was designed from scratch - but the fact that you bought yours in the 70s suggests the background I have might be economical with the truth . It looks as if Fortress might be a copy and maybe with stronger financial support they squeezed 'your' Viking out.

Jonathan

 

[deep denial]

One of the main problems with the Viking 20 is the difficulty of getting it to sit in a bow roller. This, combined with the apparent fact (Panope) that roll bars don't appear to help anchor performance suggests to me that it would be worth trying the viking without the roll bar.

 

[Homer Simpson's Lovechild]

I can’t find anyone stocking Viking Anchors in the UK . Have tried the “contact us” link on their website to no avail.
Any ideas about how to actually source one in the UK ?

 

[Neeves]

See one of the Z shank tests on a Viking 20 (3 tons pull on the toe)

I know that Spade, Ultra, Anchor Right, Lewmar, Fortress, Manson Supreme (I think Manson have tested all of their anchors but maybe not the Racer?) have completed a similar test on their anchors and historically is was completed on Rocna (and I assume the test might still be valid for Rocna). I don't recall ever seeing any claims made for Kobra nor the Mantus M1 nor M2 nor Vulcan. I have to wonder why all anchor makers do not do something similar. The test is designed to evaluate the integrity of the shank but if arranged carefully will also test the strength of the toe.

Jonathan

 

[Roberto]

deleted - wrong forum