Is there a Quality Anchor Swivel?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

Wasi Power Ball swivel is the only swivel that we know of certified by German Lloyd's. Manufactured under Germany's strict guidelines. It is also the only swivel ( again that we know of ) that has public test results for its breaking strength ( see chart).

I do not like the WASI Powerball at all. It has only 28 degrees of articulation -- what's the point? This will not relieve the narrow neck from side loads. The Lloyd's testing only tests a straight pull, which is not what breaks swivels. Furthermore, it has loadbearing bolts. Vyv Cox did an extensive destructive test of swivels a few years ago, and found loadbearing bolts to be a constant weak point.

I'm in good company; a number of experts like John at Morgan's Cloud have pointed out the same flaws.

Nor do I like the Turkish copy of the Powerball, the Silverline or Ultra. For the same reasons. I do like the clever little lever which helps break the anchor out, but I would not trust my boat to a swivel of this design. The edge of the "socket" could have been especially designed to provide a fulcrum to break the narrow neck, which hits the edge of the socket with only 28 degrees of deflection. It is an ugly engineering solution.


The best swivel, of course, is no swivel, but if you have to have one, the only one which looks to me to be decently engineered to resist the real life forces which can break a swivel, is the Kong. The bolts are not load bearing, and the whole, massive body of the swivel takes any side loads, rather than a narrow neck like the Ultra or Powerball.

When Vyv Cox did his destructive tests, the Kong was the only one which provided really decent performance. The other swivel which was not too bad, from memory, although not nearly as strong as the Kong, was the Osculati Twist, which is also a pretty clever device.


Here's what's on Morgan's Cloud about the PowerBall swivel:

"Since the WASI PowerBall and its copy by Ultra was mentioned: in addition to my response below, my opinion on these “ball-and-socket” designs is that they’re pointless.

"The objective is ostensibly to alleviate the lateral loading on the swivel joint. However the more important issue is not this but rather the lateral leverage on the jaw sides when attached directly to the anchor, which both these ball designs still do!

"Furthermore, the ball-and-socket allows an articulation of only 30 degrees. Hardly the 90 you might think is required. What is the point? It is a gimmick.

As to the Quickline specifically, it is produced in Turkey by the same outfit that make the “Ultra” copy of the Spade anchor (from only weak 316 stainless). . ."

I completely agree with this analysis.

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I do not like the WASI Powerball at all. It has only 28 degrees of articulation -- what's the point?
.

Your incorrect. The Swivel head does articulate 30 degrees but that head also rotates 360 degrees. The 30 Degree rotation helps eliminate torque on the forks during retrieval. The picture depicts the 30 degree rotation, that head also rotates 360 degrees.
The Wasi Powerball is stronger than any shackle on the market. So to recommend a shackle over the Powerball based on the theory that the powerball is weaker than a shackle is incorrect. With a Wasi Powerball the weakest point on your rode is the chain.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

Your incorrect. The Swivel head does articulate 30 degrees but that head also rotates 360 degrees. The 30 Degree rotation helps eliminate torque on the forks during retrieval. The picture depicts the 30 degree rotation, that head also rotates 360 degrees.

That rotation doesn't help you at all with a 90 degree pull -- which is the common way to break a shackle or spread the jaws of the anchor attachment -- anchor fouled in rocks. Look at the fulcrum formed by the edge of the socket, and look at the thin neck by which the ball is attached.

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

The Wasi Powerball is stronger than any shackle on the market. So to recommend a shackle over the Powerball based on the theory that the powerball is weaker than a shackle is incorrect. With a Wasi Powerball the weakest point on your rode is the chain.

Sounds like great advertising copy! I am guessing you sell them.

Have you seen any side loading test data? Kong, for example, publish this for their swivels. If not, then how do you know it's stronger than any given other swivel, or shackle? The inherent advantage of a normal non-swiveling shackle is that it is almost impossible to side load it. But any swivel which is attached with jaws, creates a lever arm which can exert forces to spread open those jaws.

Here's a failed Kong swivel:



Which failed despite the much stronger construction (for side loads) than the PowerBall. This should illustrate how difficult it is to engineer a swivel which is adequately strong.

The PowerBall has one other weakness, which I didn't mention -- the loadbearing bolts are not fixed in anyway expcept by "potting" them in silicone. A J42 was lost a few years ago when the bolt fell out of the PowerBall swivel.

That is generally a bad way to do it, a weakness of the PowerBall design not only with respect to the risk of the bolt falling out, but also the strength of the link between the jaws:



Cox's commentary:

"The design shown on the left [as used in PowerBall, Ultra, etc.] relies on concentric screws to carry chain loads. This is the weakest link in the component: always the failure point. The design on the right [Kong] uses forged lugs to carry chain load. The screw only clamps the components together. This design was found to be stronger."

Here's the diagram illustrating the point:



From Cox's useful article on his destructive testing of swivels and shackles:

https://coxengineering.sharepoint.co...onnectors.aspx



One simple way to solve this problem, is to not attach the swivel to the anchor at all. Put a couple of shackles and a short length of chain between the anchor and the jaws designed to take the anchor. In the fine print, this is what is actually recommended by WASI for the PowerBall, which begs the question why they made jaws for anchor attachment, and always show the swivel attached directly to the anchor in all their literature. Also in this case, the whole ball is superfluous.

Don't believe it, when someone tells you that any given swivel is "stronger than the chain". In side load, even the strongest swivel on the market, the Kong, is weaker than the chain. If you don't believe me, just ask yourself -- in how many cases of ground tackle failure you know, did the chain break when the swivel remain intact? The answer for most everyone is going to be zero point zero percent. In something approaching 100% of cases of ground tackle failure, it's a broken swivel, or a pin falling out of a shackle, which causes it. If you use a swivel, be sure to know that this is the weak point in your ground tackle, no matter how well you choose and implement the swivel, at least if you attach it directly to the anchor.

[a64pilot]

Dockhead,
Have you looked at the Mantus swivel? If so what is your opinion?

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That rotation doesn't help you at all with a 90 degree pull -- which is the common way to break a shackle or spread the jaws of the anchor attachment -- anchor fouled in rocks. Look at the fulcrum formed by the edge of the socket, and look at the thin neck by which the ball is attached.

The 30 degree rotation does help in a 90 degree pull. It eliminates the torque that would normally be placed on that connection point. The fulcrom has a higher breaking strength than any chain on the market. Again making the chain a weak point.
This is a fairly newer product and was designed with the up-most safety in mind. All aspects of the Powerball have been designed around making this swivel stronger and safer than any shackle or swivel available.
New products meet with resistance, its OK because we had the same issue when the concave anchor design was placed on the market.
There has yet to be any documented or undocumented ( that I know of ) cases in which the fulcom , forks or any part of the Wasi Powerball swivel that has failed. That is part of the reason it is certified by Lyods of Germany.

[Panope]

I do not use any swivel, but what I like about the Mantus is that it uses a shackle rather than "jaws" to attach to the shank. Thus eliminating the "spreading of jaws" problem entirely.

Steve

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Dockhead,
Have you looked at the Mantus swivel? If so what is your opinion?

How could I forget to mention the Mantus swivel!

Maybe because I haven't seen one in person and don't understand all of its construction details. BUT -- it is the first swivel which totally solves the side loading issue -- it looks absolutely brilliant. The massively oversized lug, and shackle with oversized pin look great. The old fashioned wire mousing is great, much better than the Loctite system otherwise used. I love the way the other casing of the swivel part slides down over the chain attachment jaws to prevent them from spreading -- brilliant.

I'd like to see how the swivel works and is secured to feel that I understand it, but at first glance -- a real breakthrough. If the insides of it are designed as well as the outsides are, then far better than Kong or any of the other ones.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

The 30 degree rotation does help in a 90 degree pull. It eliminates the torque that would normally be placed on that connection point.

Torque is not the problem. It's the lever arm which magnifies the force of the chain.

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

The fulcrom has a higher breaking strength than any chain on the market. Again making the chain a weak point.

Do you have test data showing the strength in side loading, or on what basis do you make this assertion? As far as I can see, WASI don't publish anything, contrary to Kong who do. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that that swivel, made out of rather soft 316 stainless is no more than 1/3 the strength of the chain, when loaded at 90 degrees, and maybe much less than that.

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

This is a fairly newer product and was designed with the up-most safety in mind. All aspects of the Powerball have been designed around making this swivel stronger and safer than any shackle or swivel available.
New products meet with resistance, its OK because we had the same issue when the concave anchor design was placed on the market.
There has yet to be any documented or undocumented ( that I know of ) cases in which the fulcom , forks or any part of the Wasi Powerball swivel that has failed. That is part of the reason it is certified by Lyods of Germany.

These assertions are not supported by any facts which you've presented.

The Spade anchor (I was an early adopter, buying one in the '90's already) is the best anchor on the market, unsurpassed all these decades, which is quite remarkable. Other than the galvanizing issue, I don't think the Spade has any significant drawbacks of any kind.

But the PowerBall swivel is, in my opinion, a design with at least three significant design flaws, and is far less well designed than the Kong, not to speak of the Mantus, which may just be a whole quantum leap forward. And I have laid out the facts upon which this opinion is based.

[Spade Anchor]

Have not seen any Kong data if you have some please send it to me or post it. I posted this picture earlier. As far as I know this is the only published data regarding braking strength for Wasi Powerball Swivel.

It's worth pointing out that the Wasi Powerball swivel has been on the market for over 6 years. I have seen many pictures of failed Kongs (one on this thread) and not one of a Wasi Powerball swivel. 0 returns or complaints in the past 4 years that we have been selling them. That is an awesome track record.

[a64pilot]

On the Mantus, the outer casing actually screws down, so the wire is just having to keep it from unscrewing, so there should never be any significant force on the wire.
Thing is as big as my fist though, it might have an issue on some rollers?

[a64pilot]

Mantus claims the S2 which I have break point to be just under 20,000 lbs, where my chain 5/16 G43 will break at about 12,000 lbs.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

On the Mantus, the outer casing actually screws down, so the wire is just having to keep it from unscrewing, so there should never be any significant force on the wire.
Thing is as big as my fist though, it might have an issue on some rollers?

That would be fatal for me. I had the largest Kong swivel on my 121 pound Rocna, but it fouled my headstay toggle and was a total PITA. One of the reasons I got rid of the whole lot and went back to Spade.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

Have not seen any Kong data if you have some please send it to me or post it. I posted this picture earlier. As far as I know this is the only published data regarding braking strength for Wasi Powerball Swivel.

It's worth pointing out that the Wasi Powerball swivel has been on the market for over 6 years. I have seen many pictures of failed Kongs (one on this thread) and not one of a Wasi Powerball swivel. 0 returns or complaints in the past 4 years that we have been selling them. That is an awesome track record.

Here you are:



http://www.kong.it/media/Component/C..._CONNECTOR.pdf

The Kong has been out for 25 years and there are 1000's of them in use for every one of the rather rare Powerball, so naturally the number of failures reported is different. I know one J42 lost because of the pin coming out of a PowerBall, and I've heard of a case where the neck snapped. The PowerBall is clearly much weaker in side loading than the much more massive Kong, which I'm sure is why WASI don't publish the strength figures.





Kong is a serious company which is a large manufacturer of life safety critical mountaineering equipment. They have considerable engineering resources, and it shows.

Nevertheless, the whole idea of a swivel which can be side loaded like this is flawed, in my opinion. If the Mantus is as good as it looks from the outside, I think it will obsolete Kong, PowerBall, and all the rest of them.

By the way, A64, does the Mantus have any bearings in it? Or is it just metal to metal?

It would increase cost, but some decent greased bearings would be a nice thing to have in a swivel. Make it a lot easier to turn the anchor around. I always found the friction fighting rotation to be considerable.

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Note that the Kong swivels are vastly stronger than PowerBall even in a straight pull.

The PowerBall for 1/2" chain is rated with breaking strength of only 10 tons, whereas the Kong equivalent, the one I used to have, has SAFE WORKING LOAD of 20 tons. That means the Kong is at least four times stronger than the PowerBall, depending on how SWL is calculated.

The Kong is probably stronger (5 tons Safe Working Load) in side load than the PowerBall is in a straight pull (breaking strength 10 tons).

The chart shows that the 1/2 (13mm) Power ball in direct pull failure is at 24279 lbs that is just over 12 tons. The Kong chart shows the breaking strength as 9500kgf that converts to 20943lbs just over 10 tons. So the Kong is weaker in a direct pull.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

The chart shows that the 1/2 (13mm) Power ball in direct pull failure is at 24279 lbs that is just over 12 tons. The Kong chart shows the breaking strength as 9500kgf that converts to 20943lbs just over 10 tons. So the Kong is weaker in a direct pull.

Correct; my mistake. I'm editing my post.