LFX LFF, and Epsilon Anchors

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by double u

can anybody tell me the thinking behind all those curved (Spade) or polygon shanks?only the relative position of fluke to attachment point count...

The round, high design of shanks that is seen in some anchors is primarily present to help the anchor adopt the correct setting position. This type of shank functions a little like a roll bar, making the anchor unstable in anthing other than the correct setting position.

If an anchor model has a roll bar, a high round shank design is not needed, but without a rollbar a lot of ballast must be incorporated for the anchor to be stable in the correct setting position. The ballast is bulky, reducing penetration in difficult substrates such as hard sand and weed. The ballast also reduces the available fluke area for a given weight. Because of these limitations, the trend is to reduce the ballast as much as possible.

The Epsilon appears to have some ballast, but in order to minimise this, and still make the anchor work if the optional roll bar cannot be used, Lewmar have incorporated a relatively high, rounded shank.

The ultimate expression of this type of shank design is in anchors such as the Oceane. This anchor has no roll bar or ballast. Unfortunately, it is tough for the shank alone to ensure the anchor always adopts the correct setting position, hence the reports of slightly erratic performance with the Oceane. The photo below, illustrates the high rounded shank on the Oceane. While not as extreme, the Epsilon appears to have adopted a similar principle in its shank design.

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The round, high design of shanks that is seen in some anchors is primarily present to help the anchor adopt the correct setting position. This type of shank functions a little like a roll bar, making the anchor unstable in anthing other than the correct setting position.

If an anchor model has a roll bar, a high round shank design is not needed, but without a rollbar a lot of ballast must be incorporated for the anchor to be stable in the correct setting position. The ballast is bulky, reducing penetration in difficult substrates such as hard sand and weed. The ballast also reduces the available fluke area for a given weight. Because of these limitations, the trend is to reduce the ballast as much as possible.

The Epsilon appears to have some ballast, but in order to minimise this, and still make the anchor work if the optional roll bar cannot be used, Lewmar have incorporated a relatively high, rounded shank.

The ultimate expression of this type of shank design is in anchors such as the Oceane. This anchor has no roll bar or ballast. Unfortunately, it is tough for the shank alone to ensure the anchor always adopts the correct setting position, hence the reports of slightly erratic performance with the Oceane. The photo below, illustrates the high rounded shank on the Oceane. While not as extreme, the Epsilon appears to have adopted a similar principle in its shank design.

You need extremely dense ballast. That can not be achieved with using just
steel as the ballast.

[double u]

excellent explanation Noelex, excellent! obviously you are among the few who have spent even more time than I looking at anchors underwater...

[groundtackle]

Noelex, good shank explanation and an anchor debate.. I'd like to contribute;

Toe weighted or ballast in anchors aid in penetrating hard substrates. Once a roll bar anchor is has properly oriented itself and served its purpose it can have a negative effect. Streamlined anchors have less soil resistance and therefore penetrate deeper, appendages become more of an issue with harder substrates. In my experience non ballasted can sail sideways in very thin mud and heavy weed can inhibit the anchors proper upright orientation.
The surface area of the fluke is limited by the overall required structural strength of the anchor. While soft substrates equally distribute the fluke loads , hard bottoms point load. Ballasted toe anchors by design tend be incredibly strong in those areas vs overall anchor weight.


Spade, agree steel ballast has less density than lead but "can not be achieved" is a bit strong. Many successful designs using steel and design is the key word as improperly distributed weight of any kind can effect performance.
Even though you wouldn't consider a Rocna, Manson Supreme or Mantus to be ballasted, they rely on toe weight for setting performance and comprised of only steel.
One advantage of steel ballast like with the Excel is in the galvanizing or re galvanizing process. No need to melt out lead or add after galvanizing. Less lead in the water is also a factor worth consideration.

We can all learn from these Vryhof's, they do maths. Sharp, strong, Convex/ concave, ballasted.

Chris


Video: VRYHOF Successfully Installs Stevshark®REX in Australian Calcarenite Rock

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by groundtackle

Spade,
One advantage of steel ballast like with the Excel is in the galvanizing or re galvanizing process. No need to melt out lead or add after galvanizing.

Chris


Video: VRYHOF Successfully Installs Stevshark®REX in Australian Calcarenite Rock

Hello,

It is a hassle/inconvenience to re-galvanize anchors like the Excel and other galvanized anchors.

Luckily with the Spade Anchor you will NEVER have to go though that hassle of re galvanization. When its ready to be re galvanized you get a NEW anchor for FREE, (Lifetime Warranty).

[noelex 77]

Here is a video of the LFX.

I am very skeptical about the value of manufacturers videos, but the link is below if you want to watch. It shows the assembly and a brief look at the anchor setting in sand.

https://www.lewmar.com/node/20373

Lewmar have also released the handbook. I found the advice about scope a little confusing, but the handbook shows the assembly and adjustment of the fluke angle. This looks a little easier on paper than the very similar Fortress anchor, but I have not put this to a practical test.

https://www.lewmar.com/sites/default...de%20iss.1.pdf

The warranty is only for 3 years and no mention of deformation so presumably this is not covered (unless it is a manufacturing defect in the first three years). This is much worse than the excellent Fortress warranty which covers bending, or damage to the anchor from any cause.

This is an important consideration especially with these aluminium anchors.

[brianc]

Has the Epsilon anchor disappeared (or never appeared) in the US? I can't seem to find any info on it other than a couple dealers selling it in the UK. It looks like it'd be an interesting alternative if it's available anywhere.

[benmroth]

Originally Posted by brianc

Has the Epsilon anchor disappeared (or never appeared) in the US? I can't seem to find any info on it other than a couple dealers selling it in the UK. It looks like it'd be an interesting alternative if it's available anywhere.

it is in the uk here and i found they have a chart which is useful for sizing. not sure about the US, but its been very delayed everywhere

[bclaude]

This looks like another copy of the Spade concept and in theory it should work well. I assume that this anchor will replace the Delta and become standard on many boats. Production volume may be such that the price point could be better than specialty anchor manufacturers, time will tell. What's surprising is that according to Lewmar, say a 58ft yacht would require a 32 to 40 Kg Epsilon as opposed to the 45 to 60kg for a Spade or an Ultra. Looking at the dimension, the recommended Epsilon is much smaller than the recommended Spade or Ultra. That does not make ANY sense to me.

Dimensions are available here:
https://www.promarinestore.co.uk/lew...chor#gallery-2