Poor little anchor

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't think so. Look at a Spade or Ultra shank and tell me how that is so much harder to bury. It does not require much increase in volume, to get structural strength.



For that matter, look at the shank of the hated CQR -- it's a forged I-beam construction, also strong.



All of this is inherently stronger and better than the simple cut out flat plates of many modern anchors. The ONLY reason to build them like that is cheap and easy manufacturing.

Well, the added cross section of the three dimensional shank does make it harder for the flukes to drag it down through the soil as the anchor tries to bury... that seems pretty obvious to me. I'm not competent to judge if the difference is important, but intuitively it seems that it would matter.

And I do not agree that "this is inherently stronger and better". The gains in stiffness in the horizontal plane come at the cost of complexity and the reliance on perfect welds in a complex shape. Simplicity does have its virtues, especially in critical items like anchors.

Not saying that your Spade/Ultra designs are not good anchors, for they surely are, but that they are not inherently stronger and better.

Jim

[rslifkin]

The Rocna Vulcan shank strikes me as pretty beefy as well. It's somewhat of a shallow I beam construction, but sharpened on the bottom presumably to reduce the impact on drag as the anchor buries.

[Manateeman]

Obviously a failed attempt with a budget sonar to determine what lies on the bottom. Result : target misidentification. The signal ...blob...was not a rock but a sleeping manatee who, being so rudely awakened, paddled the offending vessel’s ground tackle.
Advice: lower, do not heave your sounding lead.
Mark the hard hat manatee

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Shrew

I've seen a number of these pics before. I am continually surprised that an anchored boat would be able to exert this much force on the anchor shank. There are really only two ways this could occur on anchor...Wind...or Windlass.

In the case of either wind or windlass, the boats hull was able to secure itself against the water to be able to bend the shank? My windlass certainly doesn't have this much pulling power. I'd be surprised if the wind did as well.

Id' be more apt to speculate that this was the result of a docking mishap. Boat running into a seawall, piling or another boat. I've seen plenty of anchors and bow pulpits tweaked in these scenarios.

I have to wonder if this is an example of a real-world anchoring scenario or something else. As Paul Harvey used to say "......the rest of the story".

I think the docking mishap hypothesis is a good one.

Look closely at the fluke (ignore the shank) and you might see that the left side of the fluke appears to be deformed in a manner consistent with a collision.

Steve

Steve

[Don C L]

My theory is that was done on purpose to see what would happen, for display. I think this is the Seachoice or Vevor "Delta style" anchor, not a Delta.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Well, the added cross section of the three dimensional shank does make it harder for the flukes to drag it down through the soil as the anchor tries to bury... that seems pretty obvious to me. I'm not competent to judge if the difference is important, but intuitively it seems that it would matter.

And I do not agree that "this is inherently stronger and better". The gains in stiffness in the horizontal plane come at the cost of complexity and the reliance on perfect welds in a complex shape. Simplicity does have its virtues, especially in critical items like anchors.

Not saying that your Spade/Ultra designs are not good anchors, for they surely are, but that they are not inherently stronger and better.

Jim

I'm not talking about the whole anchor. People can judge that for themselves. I'm talking specifically about the shank construction.


I stand by "inherently stronger and better", from an engineering point of view this is obvious. But I'm only talking about a cut out flat plate shank vs a shank made like an I-beam (CQR and Rocna Vulcan) or a hollow one (Ultra or Spade). You would need a massive amount of material to make a simple flat plate as strong as one of those.


Mantus tested shank strength. Results here: https://www.mantusmarine.com/anchor-...applied-loads/


You can make your own conclusions from that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

The Rocna Vulcan shank strikes me as pretty beefy as well. It's somewhat of a shallow I beam construction, but sharpened on the bottom presumably to reduce the impact on drag as the anchor buries.

You are right; I forgot about the Vulcan. Another 3-dimensional shank

[Izikalvo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't think so. Look at a Spade or Ultra shank and tell me how that is so much harder to bury. It does not require much increase in volume, to get structural strength.



For that matter, look at the shank of the hated CQR -- it's a forged I-beam construction, also strong.



All of this is inherently stronger and better than the simple cut out flat plates of many modern anchors. The ONLY reason to build them like that is cheap and easy manufacturing.

Unfortunately, it is not so simple, bulky anchors do not Burry well, we have tested this issue many times, as thinner the anchor is (fluke and shank) the anchor berries deeper, even a bulky swivel affects the depth.
So as always with anchors, it is a compromise, on one hand, you want a slim built anchor that will penetrate and set deeper and on the other hand, it has to be strong enough to suffer bravely whatever it encounter with.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Izikalvo

Unfortunately, it is not so simple, bulky anchors do not Burry well, we have tested this issue many times, as thinner the anchor is (fluke and shank) the anchor berries deeper, even a bulky swivel affects the depth.
So as always with anchors, it is a compromise, on one hand, you want a slim built anchor that will penetrate and set deeper and on the other hand, it has to be strong enough to suffer bravely whatever it encounter with.

And I agree with that. But not just thickness, but the SHAPE is important, in how different parts of the anchor bury in the seabed. The Rocna, with its simple flat plate shank, does not bury better than the Spade, which has a slightly thicker but sharp and wedge-shaped shank. On the contrary, the Rocna's roll bar creates significant resistance to burying and I think anyone who has used both, will tell you that the Spade buries better.



As someone who has actually bent two anchor shanks, and have seen countless bent anchor shanks, I know that they are typically not strong enough.

[Izikalvo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And I agree with that. But not just thickness, but the SHAPE is important, in how different parts of the anchor bury in the seabed. The Rocna, with its simple flat plate shank, does not bury better than the Spade, which has a slightly thicker but sharp and wedge-shaped shank. On the contrary, the Rocna's roll bar creates significant resistance to burying and I think anyone who has used both, will tell you that the Spade buries better.



As someone who has actually bent two anchor shanks, and has seen countless bent anchor shanks, I know that they are typically not strong enough.

Indeed the roll bar has its own effect, again, you need to balance the good and bad, the roll bar has its own job self-righting the anchor, we even tested flat bars and HT cables to do the job, but at the end, the round tube does it better especially in mud.
and without a roll bar you need a heavy tip that makes a heavy anchor.... a lot of headace

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Izikalvo

Indeed the roll bar has its own effect, again, you need to balance the good and bad, the roll bar has its own job self-righting the anchor, we even tested flat bars and HT cables to do the job, but at the end, the round tube does it better especially in mud.
and without a roll bar you need a heavy tip that makes a heavy anchor.... a lot of headace

The only disadvantage of the "heavy tip" of the ballasted, balanced anchor is cost. The weight is a benefit, right up to the point where the anchor is too heavy to manage. Weight by itself does not create holding power, but it greatly helps penetration and burying of the anchor.



The roll bar (like a flat plate shank) is simply a way to make an anchor cheaper to make. An unbalanced roll bar anchor has some means of self righting, but does not require the expensive fabrication needed to balance the anchor with ballast. The fluke of a roll bar anchor can be a simple stamped or folded steel plate, cheap to make.


The downside is balance, and the resistance created by the roll bar. Mantus, and it looks like, your anchor, use much thinner roll bars than the original roll bar anchors like Rocna. That looks like a good idea to me, both from the point of view of resistance to burying, and also from the point of view of balance.

[noelex 77]

Any anchor design can bend in the wrong circumstances. There are examples of virtually every popular anchor design with some deformation.

The buying public expects anchors to be bulletproof. Unfortunately, weight and/or thickness in the shank decreases anchor performance substantially. A better solution is a compromise between anchor strength and performance, where the anchor is very unlikely to bend, but the design does not unduly sacrifice performance.

The better anchor manufacturers use high strength steels in the anchor shank, allowing the shank to be stronger without adding weight. Some use fabricated shanks (Spade, Ultra) or a profiled construction (Vulcan). Some also guarantee the anchor against deformation. Many of these guarantees do not work well in practice, but Fortress and Mantus show that this can be very valuable.

Ironically, anchor certification standards make the problem worse. HHP and SHHP certification tests the strength of anchor shanks only in a vertical direction. Hence anchor manufacturers need to build a deep shank that is very strong in a vertical direction. This increases the shank weight, decreasing anchor performance for little practical gain in strength. Shanks invariably bend (as this example displays) due to side loading. The standard does not test side loading. Older anchors such as the CQR were developed before the testing standards and could therefore be designed with far more appropriate balance between strength in the vertical and horizontal directions. Hopefully, we will see a revision of the counterproductive and expensive anchor testing protocol in the future.

This photo of a bent anchor has been posted by an anchor manufacturer. I don’t think it is helpful for other manufacturers to try and denigrate the opposition.

I have not seen a Viking anchor in the flesh, but from the photos the shank looks to be less substantial than other similar designs. Perhaps Izikalvo can comment, as this impression may be wrong. If so, this will also be lighter and help the performance of the Viking anchor, so it is not necessarily a bad thing, but the strength/performance issue is a delicate balance. The best test is how the anchor behaves in the real world.

It would also be nice to know how the Viking anchor warranty will work in practice.

[Izikalvo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The only disadvantage of the "heavy tip" of the ballasted, balanced anchor is cost. The weight is a benefit, right up to the point where the anchor is too heavy to manage. Weight by itself does not create holding power, but it greatly helps penetration and burying of the anchor.



The roll bar (like a flat plate shank) is simply a way to make an anchor cheaper to make. An unbalanced roll bar anchor has some means of self righting, but does not require the expensive fabrication needed to balance the anchor with ballast. The fluke of a roll bar anchor can be a simple stamped or folded steel plate, cheap to make.


The downside is balance, and the resistance created by the roll bar. Mantus, and it looks like, your anchor, use much thinner roll bars than the original roll bar anchors like Rocna. That looks like a good idea to me, both from the point of view of resistance to burying, and also from the point of view of balance.

The manufacturing cost is definitely higher but there are more to it, the blasted tip is forced to be thicker and we already talked about the value of being slim when penetrating, also, a no-roll bar anchor will have more difficulties to reset in case mud is accumulated on the fluke unbalancing the anchor, the roll bar has a major role here helping the anchor bringing it back to its right penetrating position.
Making the shanks from an HT steel sheet (750 Mpa and above) gives the ability to make them thinner and therefore, with less drag and resistance to the seabed. the shank acts as a vertical fluke when buried sufficiently protecting itself from suffering lateral forces and reducing the need for resetting.
Non-roll bar anchors have their own advantages with weed, by not bringing a lot of it on retrieval and they also fit better to different pulpits.

It is all compromises and fortunately, we have choices.

You already know my opinion on weight so no need to bring it up again

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Any anchor design can bend in the wrong circumstances. There are examples of virtually every popular anchor design with some deformation.

The buying public expects anchors to be bulletproof. Unfortunately, weight and/or thickness in the shank decreases anchor performance substantially. A better solution is a compromise between anchor strength and performance, where the anchor is very unlikely to bend, but the design does not unduly sacrifice performance.

The better anchor manufacturers use high strength steels in the anchor shank, allowing the shank to be stronger without adding weight. Some use fabricated shanks (Spade, Ultra) or a profiled construction (Vulcan). Some also guarantee the anchor against deformation. Many of these guarantees do not work well in practice, but Fortress and Mantus show that this can be very valuable..

If you don't count failed galvanizing (a particular weakness of the Spade), then surely 99% of anchor failures, are bent shanks. It's a key issue.


The compromise is not just between strength and performance, cost is the other leg. It's a classical strong-light-cheap kind of balancing act, for manufacturers.


Mild steel/flat plate (e.g. original Rocna) -- really cheap, but weak. Maybe decent burying performance.


High strength steel/flat plate (e.g. current Rocna) -- medium cheap, medium strong, maybe decent burying performance.


High strength steel/fabricated sharp shank (e.g. Spade) -- not cheap at all, but really strong, maybe decent burying performance.


High strength forged I-beam shank (e.g. CQR) -- not cheap at all, really strong, probably less good burying performance.




Pick your poison. The Viking seems to have an especially thin flat plate shank -- probably very good for burying performance (but the roll bar will offset that to some extent). But probably pretty weak even with very high strength steel.

[Izikalvo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Any anchor design can bend in the wrong circumstances. There are examples of virtually every popular anchor design with some deformation.

The buying public expects anchors to be bulletproof. Unfortunately, weight and/or thickness in the shank decreases anchor performance substantially. A better solution is a compromise between anchor strength and performance, where the anchor is very unlikely to bend, but the design does not unduly sacrifice performance.

The better anchor manufacturers use high strength steels in the anchor shank, allowing the shank to be stronger without adding weight. Some use fabricated shanks (Spade, Ultra) or a profiled construction (Vulcan). Some also guarantee the anchor against deformation. Many of these guarantees do not work well in practice, but Fortress and Mantus show that this can be very valuable.

Ironically, anchor certification standards make the problem worse. HHP and SHHP certification tests the strength of anchor shanks only in a vertical direction. Hence anchor manufacturers need to build a deep shank that is very strong in a vertical direction. This increases the shank weight, decreasing anchor performance for little practical gain in strength. Shanks invariably bend (as this example displays) due to side loading. The standard does not test side loading. Older anchors such as the CQR were developed before the testing standards and could therefore be designed with far more appropriate balance between strength in the vertical and horizontal directions. Hopefully, we will see a revision of the counterproductive and expensive anchor testing protocol in the future.

This photo of a bent anchor has been posted by an anchor manufacturer. I don’t think it is helpful for other manufacturers to try and denigrate the opposition.

I have not seen a Viking anchor in the flesh, but from the photos the shank looks to be less substantial than other similar designs. Perhaps Izikalvo can comment, as this impression may be wrong. If so, this will also be lighter and help the performance of the Viking anchor, so it is not necessarily a bad thing, but the strength/performance issue is a delicate balance. The best test is how the anchor behaves in the real world.

It would also be nice to know how the Viking anchor warranty will work in practice.

I don't want to promote our anchors here, it is not polite and not in order,
However, since you asked for my comment I will comment briefly:

We developed our anchors to be the lightest they can be, using HT metals with all anchor parts and unique modified design we came up with something we truly believe it is better.
We have sold and gave away a few tens of our different sizes anchors and so far so good, the COVID 19 affected us also as it did on many of us, our warranty is more than generous, again I don't want to talk about it here, you can read it on our web site if you wish.

We are moving forward hoping for the best.