Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 78
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    SoF
    Posts
    8,583

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Thank you gentlemen for your insight. I find a good anchor thread fascinating
    Neither a Leaver or Remainer be

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Deale, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,678

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoidberg View Post
    It's a while now since I last did some scrutineering - one of my students is now doing that at RORC Med events - and the process has become much more complex. Nevertheless, I'm aware that those worthies ( or 'jobsworths' as I've heard them called, twice ) who determine the Offshore Special Regs have given the question of 'Which Anchor' quite some thought....



    I have carried and used both of these......




    but find this one seems to have rather better 'holding power'.....


    The Mantus geometry seems to result in lower holding power....
    bottle-opener-cut-out-shiny.png

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,228

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoidberg View Post
    It's a while now since I last did some scrutineering - one of my students is now doing that at RORC Med events - and the process has become much more complex. Nevertheless, I'm aware that those worthies ( or 'jobsworths' as I've heard them called, twice ) who determine the Offshore Special Regs have given the question of 'Which Anchor' quite some thought....



    I have carried and used both of these......




    but find this one seems to have rather better 'holding power'.....


    Someone will be along soon to claim these anchors have the same holding power as their larger brothers .

    The fact that they also open beer is just a bonus

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    5,110

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Noelex - for someone who claims to study anchors and made a long term detailed study of his own anchor but was unable to identify that his anchor, uniquely, has a fluke seabed angle of 16 degrees vs the almost universal angle of 30 degrees - your comments on anchors lack much, or any, credibility.

    You were more than happy to be critical of other anchors, or anchor techniques - many of which you have never used - but totally ignored or missed this critical characteristic.

    The 16 degree fluke/seabed angle of a set Mantus is obvious from virtually every underwater you, or anyone else, posted - its not very difficult to make the analysis.

    Either most of your comments and conclusions are, very, questionable (and wrong), either because your powers of observation are lacking or because you had some ulterior motive for hiding this critical piece of information.

    One is ignorance the other at best a shill or spruiking.

    A 16 degree fluke angle will roughly halve the hold of an anchor compared to a 'similar' on of the same weight - its not rocket science - yet you missed it completely.

    You continue to make claims you simply cannot substantiate, like a big anchor can be set safely at short scope, or your Mantus is as good as s similarly weighted Rocna - yet you cannot provide any holding capacity data to substantiate your rash statements.

    You have a responsibility - even if you hide under anonymity - people foolishly buy anchors based on your incorrect comments - evidenced in your thread.

    Jonathan

    Edit

    I was wondering - will Noelex have the courage and integrity to resurrect his thread on CF and issue a simple note of caution. He can add the caveats he does not believe the suggestions made - and provide information supporting his view - or it can all be simply swept under the carpet (in typical marine industry fashion - thinks anchors, think tether hooks, think chain hooks, shackles etc etc.
    Last edited by Neeves; 15-06-19 at 05:51.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,383

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Quote Originally Posted by noelex View Post
    Someone will be along soon to claim these anchors have the same holding power as their larger brothers .

    The fact that they also open beer is just a bonus

    There speaks someone with cruising experience worth listening to.....


    Oh, and couldn't they be 'sisters'...? They are, in France.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    5,110

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    When I am critical I do so for sound technical reasons. I test exhaustively and I have a few successes.

    Here are a few of the successes.

    I tested some shackles over a period of time and found they did not meet the manufacturer's own specification. The manufacturer of the shackles complained about my testing protocol, the same used in Australia to test shackles. They quietly changed the specification, though you need to read the website carefully (as one should anyway) to realise the adjustment they made.

    I found that an anchor makers fluke was found to have inadequate strength. They immediately, no discussion, re-engineered the fluke.

    Under tests 2 anchor makers were found to have shanks of inadequate strength - the shanks were upgraded, immediately for one manufacturer only after failure for the other, using a high tensile steel. This does not include the investigation of the 'bendy shanks'.

    Testing of a chain hook demonstrated that the WLL and Min Break Strength of a chain hook was grossly overstated, because the test protocol used by the manufacturer was totally wrong. The manufacturer blamed those who had conducted the test, SGS (a pretty weak defense in my view) and changed the MBS and WLL to reflect the results I had produced.

    I have a few failures as well - where manufacturers have ignored the results of my tests.

    In general manufacturers do take notice - but they seldom acknowledge they were at fault and certainly never acknowledge, me, for pointing out the error of their ways. I also try not to rub salt in a wound if the manufacturer has 'fessed up' and made the change - its history. If they don't change and cannot prove me wrong - I am like a terrier. Many manufacturers (and others ) do not like me, what a surprise, and are very hesitant to provide me with samples (I cannot afford to buy big anchors and destroy them!).

    Interestingly those who I have found to be at fault - sadly tend to have a whole series of faults. They are amateurs pretending to be professionals - and don't learn. They then complain that I am picking on them. Odd sort of world in the marine 'industry'.

    When I test I do not expect to find faults - and many products are excellent. Chain for example is consistently over strength. Many shackles are more than adequate. These results are published but merit little mention - until such times they join a list of best buys. But when something is found consistently to be out of specification or a glaring failure - I do focus - as it does imply poor testing, inadequate testing. inapplicable (though this can be subjective) testing and in some cases poor or no quality control - and they wonder why I seem to pick on them. Some result are massaged to allow publication without a manufacturer being allowed the facility to sue - the results stand but legal proceedings - even when you win - can be expensive - articles sometimes need to be read with this in mind.

    And I do stand by my tests - my name, location, email etc are easily found - I do take responsibility. Every test is documented, photographed, samples stored. All break testing is conducted at as NATA approve facility. If requested I make repeat tests. I am happy if manufacturer want to sit in on tests.

    Sorry - self promotion and justification over.

    Jonathan
    Last edited by Neeves; 16-06-19 at 05:54.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Deale, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,678

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Just as you tend to be a terrier on product testing, I tend to be that way on word usage. Of course, being and American on a UK forum, I have to flex at times, but not when OED is definitive. In fact, US sailing publications use OED for nautical terms.

    From the OED:

    kedge (also kedge anchor)
    verb

    (with reference to a boat) move or be moved by hauling in a hawser attached at a distance to a small anchor.
    with object ‘I kedged the dinghy to the port’
    no object ‘most of the smaller boats had to kedge for a while’

    noun

    A small anchor used for kedging.


    There is no secondary definition that says "second anchor." If it is to be a back-up, spare, or secondary, then that is what it is called.

    I got this habit from being on several technical standards committees. ASTM and API. A person developing a new standard occasionally wanted to define a word to mean something specific in a standard. The firm policy was always that if Websters and Oxford agreed, and the definition was technically correct (which it always was), the word would not be further defined as that would only cause confusion and clutter within the English language. A word, therefore, means what it means. Let's not clutter it up with "push pit" as an alternate for stern rail and the like. In fact, this thread is an example of why that should not be done.

    Say what you mean.

    (On another thread we quibbled over what you call a kellet (chum, angel, sentinel). In that case, no major dictionary defined the word, so call it what you will. At least in that case the meaning among sailors was clear if the context was anchoring (assuming none of the chaps were actually attaching their chum to the chain and lowering away--seems cold hearted, even among forumites).
    Last edited by thinwater; 16-06-19 at 12:10.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    5,110

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Thinwater

    I wholeheartedly agree with your post and though you and the OED might and are correct - we must accept that people may use the terms incorrectly (and I for one am not going to go around trying to correct them)

    I had perceived, possibly erroneously, that members used the word 'kedge' for any anchor that was not the primary (even though that second anchor was never actually used for or even intended for 'kedging') - it was simply the other anchor they carried.

    I'd rather correct, what I see as, more glaring errors - that potentially may lead to 'failure'.

    We can but lead by example.

    Jonathan

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Posts
    5,110

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Again, Thinwater

    We don't have a kedge anchor, by anyone's definition. We carry 3 or 4 anchors (3 daily and another for long cruises). All our anchors are good a primaries (or as some say 'bower' anchor). Being aluminium they are not heavy. We similarly do not have a 'kedge' rode. We have a spare primary rode (and enough cordage to cobble together a third. We have also have enough cordage for decent shore lines. we also carry spare snubbers to use singly or as a bridle. Everything is sized to be a primary, should the existing primary not be available.

    I dislike single use items and if we were to kedge - any of our aluminium anchors would be easy to deploy. Having a dedicated kedge and kedge rode - implies generous use of cash and lots of extra weight.

    Jonathan

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Deale, MD, USA
    Posts
    1,678

    Default Re: Do we need another anchor design?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neeves View Post
    Again, Thinwater

    We don't have a kedge anchor, by anyone's definition. We carry 3 or 4 anchors (3 daily and another for long cruises). All our anchors are good a primaries (or as some say 'bower' anchor). Being aluminium they are not heavy. We similarly do not have a 'kedge' rode. We have a spare primary rode (and enough cordage to cobble together a third. We have also have enough cordage for decent shore lines. we also carry spare snubbers to use singly or as a bridle. Everything is sized to be a primary, should the existing primary not be available.

    I dislike single use items and if we were to kedge - any of our aluminium anchors would be easy to deploy. Having a dedicated kedge and kedge rode - implies generous use of cash and lots of extra weight.

    Jonathan
    Agreed. My kedge has always been my Fortress secondary. Even a good sized aluminum anchor is light., something that did not exist, back in the day.

    Another common distinction is that a kedge does not have chain, for ease of handling. But a secondary doesn't need much either, as a rule.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to