Videos of Anchors Setting

[eheffa]

Another excellent series Steve!

I think that your veering test makes a lot of sense, in that this better replicates the real world conditions we encounter when tide changes and wind shifts swing our boats in a different direction from our initial set.

This is invaluable information. I will look forward to seeing more veer testing in other substrates.

(Addendum: It looks like your Spade S100 has been re-galvanized. Is that correct? )

-evan

[Panope]

Thanks evan,

The S100 has not been re-galvanized.

It has only a small spot or two of rust - no big deal (yet).

Given how little use the anchor has had, I do feel the galvanizing to be inferior to some other anchors.

Steve

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by malbert73

... And, the old days of 2 anchors on the bow are hopefully gone. Put your money and weight into a great primary and let it do its job!

One still relevant use for two anchors on the bow is a hammer lock mooring. Handy when the wind is veering rapidly, and dead easy to do. Two anchors also greatly stabilize a shore-tie situation, although that is rare for most of us.


But 90% yes.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Panope

Thanks evan,

The S100 has not been re-galvanized.

It has only a small spot or two of rust - no big deal (yet).

Given how little use the anchor has had, I do feel the galvanizing to be inferior to some other anchors.

Steve

Furthering this response.....

I contacted a marine metals specialist and asked about the effects of the 'poured lead ballast' into the galvanized steel fluke chamber of the Steel Spade Anchors.

His answer was that zinc (galvanizing) and lead are "far apart on the galvanic scale" and "not especially good friends" and the "galvanizing will be sacrificed to the lead".

In the future, I will modify my statements about Spade anchor galvanizing from:

"Spade anchor galvanizing is inferior"

to:

"Spade Anchor galvanizing fails quickly due to it's proximity/contact with the lead ballast"

Here are some photos of my Spade S100 anchor. This anchor came to me in new condition in about 5 years ago. It has been immersed in salt water for a total of less than 2 months. It has been on the bow of my boat and exposed to salt spray and weather for about 1.5 years. Anchor received a fresh water rinse every two weeks when in service.

Overview of the area in question:


Looking into one of the ballast chambers. Note crusty deposits on top of the lead ballast (pencil). Also, note the rusting of steel directly adjacent to the lead ballast (to the right of the pencil).


Same thing in the other ballast chamber.


Close-up of failing Galvanizing located about 3 inches from lead. These blobs are NOT salt deposits or leftover seabed material. Blobs are easily scraped away with a metal edge. These blobs where not present when the anchor was new.


Further away from the lead (about 10 inches) the galvanizing is doing much better. Note: None of these areas are subject to being "smoothed" by seabed scouring.


As far as anchoring performance is concerned, I think the Steel Spade Anchor is a fantastic design.

As far as long-term corrosion is concerned, I think the Galvanized Steel Spade Anchor design is a compromise.

Steve

[CarlF]

Great test Steve. It confirmed my thinking to get an Excel.

I thought it was interesting that you got such good results with no chain. Presumably because of the 7:1 scope. Even the CQR did well - which explains why we were all taught to use 7:1 back when everyone anchored with CQRs.

I liked your chain catenary test you did a bit ago but would really enjoy seeing some in-the-water tests with different lengths of chain. So many of us lug around 300lbs of chain in the bow which certainly doesn't help sailing performance. Maybe 50ft would serve just as well?

[Panope]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Great test Steve. It confirmed my thinking to get an Excel.

I thought it was interesting that you got such good results with no chain. Presumably because of the 7:1 scope. Even the CQR did well - which explains why we were all taught to use 7:1 back when everyone anchored with CQRs.

I liked your chain catenary test you did a bit ago but would really enjoy seeing some in-the-water tests with different lengths of chain. So many of us lug around 300lbs of chain in the bow which certainly doesn't help sailing performance. Maybe 50ft would serve just as well?

Thanks Carl,

I'll add "Moderate Amount of Chain" to my list of possible future tests.

My guess is that the anchors will perform just fine with 50 feet of chain (especially if a touch more scope is used).

Personally, I use long chains not so much for anchor performance, but for ultimate chafe prevention and ease of handling (chain in windlass gypsy).

I've been chastised for saying it in the past - but my boat really does not care about the weight in the bow. In fact, the boat is designed to have ballast extending forward along the keel to almost directly below the chain locker. And there is not enough forward ballast. If I were to shorten my chain, I would have to add lead to the same location. Chain is more useful than lead.

Steve

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I liked your chain catenary test you did a bit ago but would really enjoy seeing some in-the-water tests with different lengths of chain. So many of us lug around 300lbs of chain in the bow which certainly doesn't help sailing performance. Maybe 50ft would serve just as well?

To some degree, that depends on your cruising grounds. In some places, 50 feet of chain, plenty of rope and good monitoring for chafe (and good chafe protection where it goes over the roller) would be fine. In other places, you need the extra chain for underwater chafe protection, so the most you can do is go to a higher grade of smaller chain to save weight.

[eheffa]

Originally Posted by Panope

Furthering this response.....

I contacted a marine metals specialist and asked about the effects of the 'poured lead ballast' into the galvanized steel fluke chamber of the Steel Spade Anchors.

His answer was that zinc (galvanizing) and lead are "far apart on the galvanic scale" and "not especially good friends" and the "galvanizing will be sacrificed to the lead".

In the future, I will modify my statements about Spade anchor galvanizing from:

"Spade anchor galvanizing is inferior"

to:

"Spade Anchor galvanizing fails quickly due to it's proximity/contact with the lead ballast"

Here are some photos of my Spade S100 anchor. This anchor came to me in new condition in about 5 years ago. It has been immersed in salt water for a total of less than 2 months. It has been on the bow of my boat and exposed to salt spray and weather for about 1.5 years. Anchor received a fresh water rinse every two weeks when in service.
.... /.....

As far as anchoring performance is concerned, I think the Steel Spade Anchor is a fantastic design.

As far as long-term corrosion is concerned, I think the Galvanized Steel Spade Anchor design is a compromise.

Steve

Thanks Steve,

Not to derail the primary purpose of this thread; but, aside from the considerations of anchor performance (the Spade is excellent), the Spade’s corrosion tendency is an irritation. If your analysis of the dissimilar galvanic effects are true, re-galvanizing might be not be any better than the factory galvanization.

I sandblasted my steel S120 down to bare metal and coated it with 3 coats of ZINGA. So far this holding up quite well & is very easy to touch up when needed. I don’t currently see a need to melt out the lead & re-galvanize.

By comparison, the Sarca Excel would be much easier to re-galvanize. .

- evan

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Panope

Furthering this response.....

I contacted a marine metals specialist and asked about the effects of the 'poured lead ballast' into the galvanized steel fluke chamber of the Steel Spade Anchors.

His answer was that zinc (galvanizing) and lead are "far apart on the galvanic scale" and "not especially good friends" and the "galvanizing will be sacrificed to the lead".

In the future, I will modify my statements about Spade anchor galvanizing from:

"Spade anchor galvanizing is inferior"

to:

"Spade Anchor galvanizing fails quickly due to it's proximity/contact with the lead ballast"

Here are some photos of my Spade S100 anchor. This anchor came to me in new condition in about 5 years ago. It has been immersed in salt water for a total of less than 2 months. It has been on the bow of my boat and exposed to salt spray and weather for about 1.5 years. Anchor received a fresh water rinse every two weeks when in service.

Overview of the area in question:


Looking into one of the ballast chambers. Note crusty deposits on top of the lead ballast (pencil). Also, note the rusting of steel directly adjacent to the lead ballast (to the right of the pencil).


Same thing in the other ballast chamber.


Close-up of failing Galvanizing located about 3 inches from lead. These blobs are NOT salt deposits or leftover seabed material. Blobs are easily scraped away with a metal edge. These blobs where not present when the anchor was new.


Further away from the lead (about 10 inches) the galvanizing is doing much better. Note: None of these areas are subject to being "smoothed" by seabed scouring.


As far as anchoring performance is concerned, I think the Steel Spade Anchor is a fantastic design.

As far as long-term corrosion is concerned, I think the Galvanized Steel Spade Anchor design is a compromise.

Steve

It’s interesting that your SPADE corrosion is concentrated near the lead because I had a SPADE that overall was in good shape with only a little surface rust, except the metal that forms the pocket for the lead had rusted right through in 2 places. But when I emailed a photo of this to them inquiring about getting it repaired, they sent me a new anchor for free. [emoji4] Another thing that might be contributing to rust in this area is that when my SPADE is suspended in my anchor roller, the pocket is situated such that it holds water, usually salt water so the galvanic reaction continues 24/7/365. If the SPADE corrosion problem is indeed caused by this lead/steel galvanic reaction rather than by inferior galvanizing, and since the shape of the pocket is triangular, it seems like the problem could be solved by slightly changing the shape of the pocket to accommodate sliding in a precast lead shape that’s been coated in plastic for galvanic isolation and with a bolt through the back of the pocket to keep the ballast from sliding out. If the anchor ever needed to be regalvanized the lead plug could be easily removed by removing the bolt.

[Jim Cate]

If the SPADE corrosion problem is indeed caused by this lead/steel galvanic reaction rather than by inferior galvanizing, and since the shape of the pocket is triangular, it seems like the problem could be solved by slightly changing the shape of the pocket to accommodate sliding in a precast lead shape that’s been coated in plastic for galvanic isolation and with a bolt through the back of the pocket to keep the ballast from sliding out. If the anchor ever needed to be regalvanized the lead plug could be easily removed by removing the bolt.

Now THAT is an interesting idea! Wonder if Spade has ever considered such a ploy?

Jim

[Souzag818]

Originally Posted by Panope

Furthering this response.....

I contacted a marine metals specialist and asked about the effects of the 'poured lead ballast' into the galvanized steel fluke chamber of the Steel Spade Anchors.

His answer was that zinc (galvanizing) and lead are "far apart on the galvanic scale" and "not especially good friends" and the "galvanizing will be sacrificed to the lead".

In the future, I will modify my statements about Spade anchor galvanizing from:

"Spade anchor galvanizing is inferior"

to:

"Spade Anchor galvanizing fails quickly due to it's proximity/contact with the lead ballast"

Here are some photos of my Spade S100 anchor. This anchor came to me in new condition in about 5 years ago. It has been immersed in salt water for a total of less than 2 months. It has been on the bow of my boat and exposed to salt spray and weather for about 1.5 years. Anchor received a fresh water rinse every two weeks when in service.

Overview of the area in question:


Looking into one of the ballast chambers. Note crusty deposits on top of the lead ballast (pencil). Also, note the rusting of steel directly adjacent to the lead ballast (to the right of the pencil).


Same thing in the other ballast chamber.


Close-up of failing Galvanizing located about 3 inches from lead. These blobs are NOT salt deposits or leftover seabed material. Blobs are easily scraped away with a metal edge. These blobs where not present when the anchor was new.


Further away from the lead (about 10 inches) the galvanizing is doing much better. Note: None of these areas are subject to being "smoothed" by seabed scouring.


As far as anchoring performance is concerned, I think the Steel Spade Anchor is a fantastic design.

As far as long-term corrosion is concerned, I think the Galvanized Steel Spade Anchor design is a compromise.

Steve

Hey Steve. If what you're saying is true, why are so many CQR anchors still around? They were made with the same galvanized/lead in the toe combination and don't seem to have that problem. I upgraded from a CQR that had to be at least 50 years old, to my Spade and it had zero rust. Can it be that 50 years ago galvanizing was bigger/better/faster/stronger, and as you first stated, the galvanizing IS inferior on a Spade? Next time I'm at my boat , I'll take a look inside the toe and see what it looks like. The only rust I'm aware of on my anchor is a little on the edge of the flukes, which makes sense to me as it is a sharp angle, in my mind would have the thinnest layer of galvanizing, and is constantly being abraded by the bottom. Certainly not enough to get rid of my Spade

[motion30]

Does anyone know where one can get an anchor regalvanized in South florida?

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Souzag818

Hey Steve. If what you're saying is true, why are so many CQR anchors still around? They were made with the same galvanized/lead in the toe combination and don't seem to have that problem. I upgraded from a CQR that had to be at least 50 years old, to my Spade and it had zero rust. Can it be that 50 years ago galvanizing was bigger/better/faster/stronger, and as you first stated, the galvanizing IS inferior on a Spade? Next time I'm at my boat , I'll take a look inside the toe and see what it looks like. The only rust I'm aware of on my anchor is a little on the edge of the flukes, which makes sense to me as it is a sharp angle, in my mind would have the thinnest layer of galvanizing, and is constantly being abraded by the bottom. Certainly not enough to get rid of my Spade

Hi Jim- I’m sure you know more than I but I didn’t think original CQR had lead in the toe

Quick internet search yields post on this by a PS anchor expert

[SaltyMetals]

I have supplied millions of dollars worth of zinc to galvanizers over the years. The metallurgical process is such that the longer the steel item is left in the zinc bath the thicker the Zn layer will be. So there is a choice in the timing. Unless a close watch is kept on the galvaniser they are most likely to lift the steel out of the bath of molten Zn as soon as "enough" is deposited rather than a generous protective layer. I doubt that most steel fabricators even know how to measure the thickness of the galvanising once they receive their items back.

It gets worse! Some galvanisers operate their Zn baths with a very small addition of nickel. What this does is to slow down/stop the growth of the Zn layer so that not too much of their Zn is consumed from the bath so that you end up with a thinner layer of Zn. I have no idea what galvanisers were chosen by Spade or even if they do the galvanising themselves (which i doubt due to the costs of running such an operation) but there is a bit more to this story than most people might have imagined.

PS: About 3 yrs ago I actually upgraded my old Bruce (copy) to a 20Kg Spade S100. A great anchor.
Andrew

[wrwakefield]

Originally Posted by Panope

Furthering this response.....

I contacted a marine metals specialist and asked about the effects of the 'poured lead ballast' into the galvanized steel fluke chamber of the Steel Spade Anchors.

His answer was that zinc (galvanizing) and lead are "far apart on the galvanic scale" and "not especially good friends" and the "galvanizing will be sacrificed to the lead".

In the future, I will modify my statements about Spade anchor galvanizing from:

"Spade anchor galvanizing is inferior"

to:

"Spade Anchor galvanizing fails quickly due to it's proximity/contact with the lead ballast"

Here are some photos of my Spade S100 anchor. This anchor came to me in new condition in about 5 years ago. It has been immersed in salt water for a total of less than 2 months. It has been on the bow of my boat and exposed to salt spray and weather for about 1.5 years. Anchor received a fresh water rinse every two weeks when in service.

Overview of the area in question:


Looking into one of the ballast chambers. Note crusty deposits on top of the lead ballast (pencil). Also, note the rusting of steel directly adjacent to the lead ballast (to the right of the pencil).


Same thing in the other ballast chamber.


Close-up of failing Galvanizing located about 3 inches from lead. These blobs are NOT salt deposits or leftover seabed material. Blobs are easily scraped away with a metal edge. These blobs where not present when the anchor was new.


Further away from the lead (about 10 inches) the galvanizing is doing much better. Note: None of these areas are subject to being "smoothed" by seabed scouring.


As far as anchoring performance is concerned, I think the Steel Spade Anchor is a fantastic design.

As far as long-term corrosion is concerned, I think the Galvanized Steel Spade Anchor design is a compromise.

Steve

Steve,

Thank you for your ongoing efforts. It is always a treat to see a new video from you. I have learned a lot.

Your details about the Spade anchor lead-zinc battery caught my immediate attention since our primary bower is a Spade S180. [45KG; 99lb]

A quick check of the log shows our Spade is approaching 1000 days of submersion in saltwater since we installed it new in Jan-2017 [purchased Nov-2016].


Photo when new in Jan-2017:


I should mention that all our gear receives frequent fresh water rinses most of the year courtesy of mother nature...

Preliminary inspection: Since we are currently backed into a slip, for a quick peek I had to lean over the bowsprit to take some blind close-ups [while trying not to test the buoyancy of my smartphone...]



I also managed to get my upside-down head close enough in bright sunlight to confirm no obvious rust near the ballast area [yet...] However, the galvanized surfaces in that region are not smooth like when new...

So far the only rust I can see on the anchor is a small section on top of the exterior of the shank [no explanation], and on the toe and sharp outside edges on the fluke. [This is no surprise given the usage to date.]



Your mention also prompted me— since we are due to swap the chain ends this year— to add the task of pressure washing the anchor to scrutinize the galvanizing inside the toe at that time.

I think I will also attempt to mitigate any future ill effects on the zinc galvanizing by installing an aluminum alloy anode [which is ~0.1V more active than zinc...] inside the toe on the galvanized steel.



I will then watch for evidence of erosion on the aluminum anode over time. If any does occur, it might indicate a level of protection is being afforded the zinc galvanizing— at least in the vicinity of the anode...

Stay tuned... I will keep a close eye on it, and scrutinize again after a few hundred more days of submersion...

Thanks again for all of your efforts.

Cheers! Bill