Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

So given the choice of a brand new model that had perhaps sat on shelf- Rocna only.

Would you take a NZ unapproved model, or a Chinese approved model ?

I know neither would fit your bow roller, but this is hypothetical question indicating the importance (to you) of certification.

NZ or Chinese?

Noelex,

I think you asked the wrong question and/or the wrong person!

They would not fit my bow roller but to answer the question as if they did.

A NZ one every time, its made to the original Spec of Bis 80 shank and it does not have the cast fluke. They have stood the test of time in terms of longevity.

But maybe you want to re-phrase the question

But to make it clear - I have nothing against items being made in China, but if RINA will not pass the Rocna casting facility and given the original shank - its a no brainer (which is why I think you asked the wrong question)

Answering, maybe, the question you asked - would I buy a certified Delta or an unbranded identical copy, or even a branded (say by a big chandlery chain) copy with no certification - I'd buy the original Delta.

Jonathan

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well, that's not how the manufacturer describes it, perhaps because it has a convex underside and a concave upper side. I'm afraid you clarification de-clarifies.

Delfin

So are you saying the Ultra anchor is a convex anchor? Maybe your looking at the bottom of anchors when you Classify them?

Just for clarification, an Ultra anchor is a Concave anchor. The shank goes into a concave fluke.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Delfin

So are you saying the Ultra anchor is a convex anchor? Maybe your looking at the bottom of anchors when you Classify them?

Just for clarification, an Ultra anchor is a Concave anchor. The shank goes into a concave fluke.

No, I'm saying just what Ultra says. It has a designed convex underside and a designed concave upside fluke. This is confirmed by looking at the thing, and is about as controversial as observing that a baseball is round.

Which I guess means it has a problem bend underneath, but so far, that doesn't appear to be an impediment to its holding capacity.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Delfin

No, I'm saying just what Ultra says. It has a designed convex underside and a designed concave upside fluke. This is confirmed by looking at the thing, and is about as controversial as observing that a baseball is round.

Which I guess means it has a problem bend underneath, but so far, that doesn't appear to be an impediment to its holding capacity.

Wow. no no no. stop the clock.
When we talk about a concave anchors, we are talking about where the shank is welded or attached to the fluke. No one here is talking about the bottom of any anchors.

The Problem Bend refers to the where the shank is welded or attached to the fluke of a convex anchor and cuts the seabed into two pieces so the seabed slides off the side of the anchor.

We always look at the top of an anchor to judge convex or concave and the Problem Bend

Just like when you tell me the Convave anchor looks like the Tern anchor.
A Convave W profile does not look like a Tern /\ profile.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Wow. no no no. stop the clock.
When we talk about a concave anchors, we are talking about where the shank is welded or attached to the fluke. No one here is talking about the bottom of any anchors.

Really? Says who?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Really? Says who?

The concave/convex anchor expert Cotemar

[JonJo]

Cotemar,

A Bruce is a concave anchor and and to classify an Ultra or Spade as the same as a Bruce has as much logic and usefulness as using the word headsail to cover a Code Zero, storm jib or spinnaker. A Bruce (and Rocna come to that) works entirely differently to an Ultra or Spade but I will grant they are all called anchors - but then so is a CQR (an anchor).

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

A NZ one every time,

You would use your judgment (rather than the classification) to pick the better anchor exactly as I would.

A NZ and Chinese Rocna are as close as two anchors are every likely to get (one certified, one not). The certification is supposed to reassure us of the quality of the holding and construction, but we know the holding is identical and the construction (pressed and welded fluke of the NZ model verses the cast fluke of the Chinese model + shank differences) is slightly superior in NZ version.

If you had any significant faith in assurance of the SHHP certification you should be picking the certified version, especially as the certified Chinese version has better galvanising.

I suspect we are not far apart in our thinking about the value (or lack of it) that the SHHP certification carries.

Originally Posted by JonJo

Answering, maybe, the question you asked - would I buy a certified Delta or an unbranded identical copy, or even a branded (say by a big chandlery chain) copy with no certification - I'd buy the original Delta.

Unbranded (or a worthless made up brand) copies tend to poor. I agree, I would avoid this sort of product if possible. This is not related to certification but to the presence of respected company behind the product which does provide some reassurance.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Cotemar,

A Bruce is a concave anchor and and to classify an Ultra or Spade as the same as a Bruce has as much logic and usefulness as using the word headsail to cover a Code Zero, storm jib or spinnaker. A Bruce (and Rocna come to that) works entirely differently to an Ultra or Spade but I will grant they are all called anchors - but then so is a CQR (an anchor).

Jonathan

I think it is useful to classify anchors into different types. The shape of the fluke concave or convex is one of the important characteristics and is one of the more useful classifications we can use. (Flat fluke anchors tend to be such a diverse lot that grouping them together is not helpful) There are plenty of other classifications (like roll bar and non roll bar, new generation and old generation ) that can also be useful at times.

There will be exceptions that defy classification. The Bruce style of anchor is a very different anchor to any other. Much of its fluke is almost at right angles to that of most anchors. So although technically speaking it has a concave fluke the characteristics are rather unique.

We could really do with some collective nouns that separate the anchors further.
For example with concave designs there are:

Roll Bar Anchors (Rocna, MS, Mantus, Knox etc)

Non roll bar with a lead tip (Spade, Ultra)

Non roll bar without a lead tip (Boss, Raya Oceane etc)

This does not mean that all anchors in the one classification will have the same performance, but they do tend to share a lot of similar characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. With limitations I think such classifications have some value. If nothing else it makes taking about anchors easier.

I think it is important not to avoid confusing classifications by for example taking about the shape of the underside of the fluke. This makes virtually all anchors that we describe as concave become convex and vice versa

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I think it is useful to classify anchors into different types. The shape of the fluke concave or convex is one of the important characteristics and is one of the more useful classifications we can use. (Flat fluke anchors tend to be such a diverse lot that grouping them together is not helpful) There are plenty of other classifications (like roll bar and non roll bar, new generation and old generation ) that can also be useful at times.

There will be exceptions that defy classification. The Bruce style of anchor is a very different anchor to any other. Much of its fluke is almost at right angles to that of most anchors. So although technically speaking it has a concave fluke the characteristics are rather unique.

We could really do with some collective nouns that separate the anchors further.
For example with concave designs there are:

Roll Bar Anchors (Rocna, MS, Mantus, Knox etc)

Non roll bar with a lead tip (Spade, Ultra)

Non roll bar without a lead tip (Boss, Raya Oceane etc)

This does not mean that all anchors in the one classification will have the same performance, but they do tend to share a lot of similar characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. With limitations I think such classifications have some value. If nothing else it makes taking about anchors easier.

I think it is important not to avoid confusing classifications by for example taking about the shape of the underside of the fluke. This makes virtually all anchors that we describe as concave become convex and vice versa

As you would expect, I beg to differ

I think the Ultra, Spade, Excel and Kobra are wedge diving anchors that perform (with compression ahead of the wedge) and completely differently to old fashioned plough anchors (which do not dive) and are different yet again to concave, roll bar anchors (that develop compression at the rear to the fluke) and fluke anchors that continue to dive long after other anchors have bottomed out. I have not studied the Boss nor Bruce to know where they might fit - but possibly another subdivision.

Whether the wedge is on top, or underneath or both - does not effect the compression ahead of the anchor.

New opportunity for debate, new opportunity to agree

Terms like convex and concave are too simplistic and insult the designers

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

As you would expect, I beg to differ

I think the Ultra, Spade, Excel and Kobra are wedge diving anchors that perform (with compression ahead of the wedge)

I think this a strange mixture of anchors to group together.

A system that arranges anchors of such disparate characteristics and performances into one group suggests to me that the classification is not very valid.

Of course everyone is free to group anchors together as they see fit, I would just not like see the same anchor revered to as concave by some people and convex by others. I think that is unnecessarily confusing when we have a well established convention of referring to to shape of the upper surface, (which is the important leading edge) of the fluke when describing the shape.

[JonJo]

Its how they work, not what they look like. On this basis its valid.

But if you think a Spade and a Mantus look the same and therefore should be classed the same, QED they work the same, who am I to differ.

Jonathan

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

You would use your judgment (rather than the classification) to pick the better anchor exactly as I would.

A NZ and Chinese Rocna are as close as two anchors are every likely to get (one certified, one not). The certification is supposed to reassure us of the quality of the holding and construction, but we know the holding is identical and the construction (pressed and welded fluke of the NZ model verses the cast fluke of the Chinese model + shank differences) is slightly superior in NZ version.

If you had any significant faith in assurance of the SHHP certification you should be picking the certified version, especially as the certified Chinese version has better galvanising.

I suspect we are not far apart in our thinking about the value (or lack of it) that the SHHP certification carries.



Unbranded (or a worthless made up brand) copies tend to poor. I agree, I would avoid this sort of product if possible. This is not related to certification but to the presence of respected company behind the product which does provide some reassurance.

It must be comforting that an anchor that was designed around 2002? has not enjoyed any development.

I'm not sure that:

A NZ and Chinese Rocna are as close as two anchors are every likely to get (one certified, one not).

Is an endorsement.

Since the Rocna we have had, Supreme, Boss, Mantus, Excel, XYZ, Tern, Ultra (any more?) some of which have firm adherents which suggests they have positive attributes. Design does not, should not, stand still.

And ignoring the temptation to argue about 'close' As a Mod you should choose your words much more carefully.

Jonathan

[congo]

Noelex Wrote:



construction (pressed and welded fluke of the NZ model verses the cast fluke of the Chinese model + shank differences) is slightly superior in NZ version.

If you had any significant faith in assurance of the SHHP certification you should be picking the certified version, especially as the certified Chinese version has better galvanising.

I suspect we are not far apart in our thinking about the value (or lack of it) that the SHHP certification carries.


Rex Wrote:


Due to Noelexs post, I think this is something that should be explored as it is very much on topic, and given the recent relentless discussions on Anchor Rights’ certification, bigger is better, I think it is only fair for discussion on your anchor maker Noelex that states their anchors are certified as S/H/H/Power, when I look on their web site as an innocent buyer or read your post I could easily be persuaded with a mindset that their whole range of anchors are certified.

Upon revisiting their web site neither is there anything to say they aren’t, confusing as I can only find evidence of certification from 55 K.G. and up, it appears only these large anchors are certified, fabricated anchors,( not cast flukes.)


From what I can tell all of their anchors below 55K.G.are cast flukes with the shanks welded to the surface, as there is no information on these anchors under 55 K.G. are we indeed to believe they are also certified? Welding steel to cast? Our engineers would never allow it; I have been informed by our engineers that if we were presenting drawings for DNV type approval, steel to cast weld would not get a look in?


Regardless of the above query on the welding process the very reason anchors over 55K.G. are fabricated raise some interesting questions, these large anchors would be far cheaper to cast rather than fabricate, (so why do they do it), one would have to conclude steel shank to fabricated steel fluke when welding is what is needed to qualify, receive S/H/H/Power certification, is the cast to steel welding unacceptable for reasons unexplained, maybe the casting is poor? Or maybe our engineers take on it has some merit.


From this conclusion one would think the classification society will not accept steel to cast welding, if this turns out to be so, then why is it good enough for motor yacht live on board cruisers? To be assured as one can be of (reliability and safety) a certified, proven safer process for boats under survey.

If you agree with Knoelexs opinion you are fine, but if you don’t, how would you feel if these smaller anchors are indeed not certified, when you may have thought they were like I did at first glance, I cannot find the evidence stating the anchors under fifty five Kilo are certified, more importantly do you know of any retailer stating this anchor brands full range are indeed certified, the small anchors may never have a problem if they are not certified, difference being the (bigger is better) believers will have to rely on the shank to fluke weld more so than the smaller units if caught in a storm.


So if anybody that owns one of these anchors is concerned, or not concerned, for clarification call the manufacture so they have a clear understanding of their certification and kindly inform those that don’t, I would certainly be relieved if I am wrong? just asking. If I could find it on their web site the question would not be raised,


I truly believe, any society regardless of how flawed one may think there methods are when it comes to certifying whatever, is at least something , and something is better than nothing when it comes to safety.

Regards Rex.
Sorry about the print , dont no how to fix it.

[congo]

Certification is passed onto the end user some say and not worth it, difference being many purchase our anchors because they are actually tested certified anchors and don’t mind paying the price, but after purchasing they found out in fact had no certification?

Noelex Wrote:

Unbranded (or a worthless made up brand) copies tend to poor. I agree, I would avoid this sort of product if possible. This is not related to certification but to the presence of respected company behind the product which does provide some Unbranded (or a worthless made up brand) copies tend to poor. I agree, I would avoid this sort of product if possible. This is not related to certification but to the presence of respected company behind the product which does provide some reassurance.

Really, I can remember a company the spruced all sorts’ reassurance, bendy shanks was a result of that trust, if truly certified they would have been hung out to dry.

Regards Rex.