Photos of Anchors Setting

[downunder]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

There's a pic on one of the FB sailing sites of a severely bent Mantus shaft. I can't find it now for some reason. Poster said Mantus stepped right up and sent them a new one. But would like to know how it bent in the first place.

That's also why some anchor makers use bis-alloy in their shanks and if you go back to past threads ROCNA actually made a big deal of it whilst they were manufacturing in NZ.

Its part of the reason some anchors will not meet the specifications and proof testing for strength that Marine Boards and authorities such as Lloyds require for high power and super high power holding test ratings.

They are torchered by hydraulics to failure. Invariably some anchors would not meet those tests.

Be warned some are happy with anchors that will not meet the standards of the testing authorities. I would bet you only see those anchors on privately owned cruising vessels not on working vessels and trawlers that have to meet the standards of the various marine boards for survey. This is acceptable to many.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

If you look back in this thread you will see lots of photos of my bent Mantus shank.

This was the original mild steel shank. Mantus have changed the specifications to a stronger high test steel shank shortly after I purchased the anchor.

I have not managed to bend the new high steel shank and the anchor has not been treated gently, although it is also oversized, which I think helps strength. However, while the risk is very small, any anchor can be bent with the right provocation. Off the top of head I cannot think of a single reasonably popular anchor where there has not been at least one reliable user report where the anchor has bent. Perhaps the only exception (I can think of) is the original Bruce which is no longer made.

Unfortunately, there is a trade off with most anchor designs between shank weight and performance. It is easy to build a very strong anchor, but the performance will drop. Personally I want an anchor design where high performance is a priority. It should also be very unlikely, but not impossible to bend. Even better if the manufacturer backs the anchor with a good warranty that covers bending and hopefully a system in place where the transport costs are reasonable or free. Some manufacturers have a warranty that is next to useless, as it does not include bending. Others make you return the bent anchor, sometime to the original manufacturer, and pay for delivery of the new model. The shipping costs in some cases can be a very significant portion of simply buying a new anchor.

An anchor shank made from simple flat plate is hard to design, to be resistant to bending and yet not too heavy. A heavy shank unbalances the anchor. One thing I like a lot about Spades is that the shanks are hollow, so much stronger for a given weight.

Fortress shanks are forged in an I-beam shape. I did bend one of those, and was quite amazed when the maker sent me a new shank.

We may all have CQRs for the sleepless night of terror we have suffered with them, but look at the shanks - things of real beauty - forged I-beam shape. Cost a fortune to make, I guess.

[double u]

"...CQRs for the sleepless night of terror..."
much as I value all your contributions I have to contradict you here:
we (the LOTM & I) have to thank 3 different CQRs for many peacefully spent nights at anchor during 7 years of cruising/2 rtws.
(as stated in several postings before: there are better anchors on the market now, no doubt, & on the 3rd rtw we preferred a 20kg Bügel over a 65lbs CQR, but the CQRs served us well in MANY anchorages (on the first 7-year rtw we stayed exactly 1x in a marina, at the very end)
(I was obsessively careful with our anchoring, backing down like a maniac & if at all possible diving & looking at the anchor)

[Jim Cate]

We may all have CQRs for the sleepless night of terror we have suffered with them, but look at the shanks - things of real beauty - forged I-beam shape. Cost a fortune to make, I guess.

Yep, those forged I-beam shanks look pretty strong, but I have personally seen several well bent genuine CQR shanks... but never a broken one.

Jim

[double u]

drop forged!
things of the past though, the new ones are facbricated (& pst!-grapevine from the horse's mouth: there is development of a new anchor "extreme holding power" going on at Lewmar's)

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by double u

"...CQRs for the sleepless night of terror..."
much as I value all your contributions I have to contradict you here:
we (the LOTM & I) have to thank 3 different CQRs for many peacefully spent nights at anchor during 7 years of cruising/2 rtws.
(as stated in several postings before: there are better anchors on the market now, no doubt, & on the 3rd rtw we preferred a 20kg Bügel over a 65lbs CQR, but the CQRs served us well in MANY anchorages (on the first 7-year rtw we stayed exactly 1x in a marina, at the very end)
(I was obsessively careful with our anchoring, backing down like a maniac & if at all possible diving & looking at the anchor)

I never said everyone experienced these sleepless nights, so you're not contradicting me .

If I had a dollar for every cruiser I've known who did experience those awful nights, though, I could buy a new boat

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Yep, those forged I-beam shanks look pretty strong, but I have personally seen several well bent genuine CQR shanks... but never a broken one.

Jim

I guess any anchor shank can be bent. But I guess the genuine CQR has the best shank I've ever seen. I suppose it must be even more expensive to make than the Spade's hollow one, which I suppose is why no one makes them anymore.

A really premium anchor might be like a Spade, but with a forged I-beam shank, excellent galvanizing, and a removable lead ballast which can be taken out to regalvanize the anchor. And maybe a very sharp, removable TUNGSTEN tip with the chisel pointed the right way.

Maybe the tungsten would eliminate the requirement of lead ballast, so simplifying the regalvanizing problem.

[kas_1611]

Maybe one day we'll see a Titanium anchor; incredibly light, incredibly strong and incredibly expensive

[double u]

"...If I had a dollar for every cruiser..:"
100% agree, dockhead, but still, +2 decades later I don't know what I should attribute it too though, but to different "anchorpractices" from ours (& I never, NEVER! encountered any other cruisers nearly anywhere as obsessive with their anchoring as we were...[hadn't met Noelex & the Mermaid of course...])

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by kas_1611

Maybe one day we'll see a Titanium anchor; incredibly light, incredibly strong and incredibly expensive

Titanium is not so expensive, that it could not be used in anchors. It's almost 10x cheaper than tungsten.

Ti might be good in shanks. But I think forged steel in the right form (NOT flat plate) would be quite all right.

But we need as much weight as possible in the tip. 5 or 10kg of tungsten in the tip would really improve the balance of a 45kg anchor a whole lot. That's only $150 -- $300 worth of Tungsten. Might add $1000 to the price of a 45kg anchor. The 45kg Spade already costs $2000 or so. Tungsten is extremely hard, so could be made into a very sharp tip. Might be too brittle, though. Maybe there's an alloy which would be tough enough.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I guess any anchor shank can be bent. But I guess the genuine CQR has the best shank I've ever seen. I suppose it must be even more expensive to make than the Spade's hollow one, which I suppose is why no one makes them anymore.

A really premium anchor might be like a Spade, but with a forged I-beam shank, excellent galvanizing, and a removable lead ballast which can be taken out to regalvanize the anchor. And maybe a very sharp, removable TUNGSTEN tip with the chisel pointed the right way.

Maybe the tungsten would eliminate the requirement of lead ballast, so simplifying the regalvanizing problem.

Really! Any anchor shank can be bent? Oh, let me prove your statement.

[noelex 77]

Interesting discussion on shanks with some very insightful replies.

In my view, the award for the world's best anchor shank is a tie between the steel Spade and the Ultra. The fabricated construction used on both of these anchors keeps the shank very light (especially the Ultra) without resorting to high tensile steel. The Spade shank is detachable, helping with anchor storage, and it is very rare to hear of one that bends. The Ultra is in some ways even better with its convex curves adding further strength, therefore enabling the use of very thin stainless steel skins, but it is not detachable and the early models did seem to suffer some occasional bending problems. Ultra added some internal reinforcement and they now seem pretty tough.

Next comes the Vulcan. It achieves a lightweight shank with a complex shape that is basically a modified I beam. The modifications are mainly to ensure the leading edges are streamlined. A very worthwhile aim.

The CQR shank is very different. Forging is a better process that no one has copied, probably only due to cost. The I beam construction also adds a lot of strength, but has the drawback that the shank is more reluctant to bury, inhibiting the performance.

Modern shanks are much stronger in a vertical direction, whereas the CQR is much more balanced having more equal strength in the vertical and horizontal direction. The CQR is not indestructible. Until recently I had a bent CQR sitting forlornly in my outside locker, but it is an anchor that bends very infrequently.

The anchorholics may ponder why modern shanks have such a different strength profile. Why are modern shanks made to be much stronger with a vertical pull rather than a horizontal pull? This is especially puzzling when the nearly all shanks bend in a horizontal direction. Why don't anchor manufacturers sacrifice some vertical strength and beef up the horizontal strength for the same overall weight?

I think the reason is mostly related to anchor standards. These standards only test the strength of anchor shanks in the vertical direction. This has been widely and, in my view, justifiably criticised. Most shanks bend in the horizontal direction, but this is completely untested by the standards. These standards have been promoted in this thread, but I believe they have been very poorly thought out and the net effect is to make anchors more expensive with little practical value.

It would be great to see a better standard. Testing the strength of the shank in a horizontal direction, and a much tougher anchor holding power requirement than the very low bar which is the current standard would be a good start.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Why don't anchor manufacturers sacrifice some vertical strength and beef up the horizontal strength for the same overall weight?

We do. Our shanks are thickened and heightened from the shackle end of the shank up to the crown (center piece). In a sense, it resembles an airplane wing.

As an example, the shank of FX-37 model starts out at the shackle end with .5" thickness and ends at 1". The height starts out at 2" and ends at 4".

The shank is also tapered on both sides to give it a knife-like effect when penetrating into a sea bottom, and to improve structural strength and load disbursement.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

. . .The anchorholics may ponder why modern shanks have such a different strength profile. Why are modern shanks made to be much stronger with a vertical pull rather than a horizontal pull? This is especially puzzling when the nearly all shanks bend in a horizontal direction. Why don't anchor manufacturers sacrifice some vertical strength and beef up the horizontal strength for the same overall weight?

I think the reason is mostly related to anchor standards. These standards only test the strength of anchor shanks in the vertical direction. This has been widely and, in my view, justifiably criticised. Most shanks bend in the horizontal direction, but this is completely untested by the standards. These standards have been promoted in this thread, but I believe they have been very poorly thought out and the net effect is to make anchors more expensive with little practical value.

I think the reason is purely cost.

It is very cheap to make an anchor shank by just water-cutting out from a piece of steel plate. Many times cheaper than fabricating or forging a shank.

So much cheaper to make that it easily justified the cost of Bis-alloy in the original Rocna. Until they got greedy and started selling low-strength steel while selling it as bis-alloy.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Titanium is not so expensive, that it could not be used in anchors.

Titanium would produce the ultimate anchor shank. As Dockhead suggests, I understand the cost of titanium has fallen considerably. The lighter weight and thinner profile would, I think, produce a significant performance boost.

With a bolt on shank, companies like Spade and Mantus could relatively easily offer a super high performance model with a titanium shank. It could even be offered as an upgrade option to existing owners. It would not be cheap, but anchorholics would be drooling .