Shackle to anchor connection video

[tozz]

Even if it did, it would do so as a result of the change in tide, not wind, which would be a very slow motion event. Wind rarely shifts at high speed 180 degrees.

We had this happen this summer and it was a bit scary. We had been pretty much in the same place for about 3d when all of a sudden the wind shifted and increased to 25-30kt for about 40 min. we shot right across in a straight line!

 

[mvweebles]

We had this happen this summer and it was a bit scary. We had been pretty much in the same place for about 3d when all of a sudden the wind shifted and increased to 25-30kt for about 40 min. we shot right across in a straight line!

View attachment 111822

Yikes! Did your anchor reset? What kind/size anchor, depth, boat, etc?

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

TCap,
Beautiful pice of hardware .. your shackle.

When I bought my 2nd XYZ anchor they asked me if I wanted an extra shackle. I said give me three. The man there said they were much stronger than hardware store items. Still have at least two.

Does the red paint mean a certain size bolt or a certian strength of the bolt and perhaps (but not likely) the shackle.

That's a pretty carnivorous looking anchor. Is that your Sarca?

Shackle looks beefy, and anchor looks oversized especially for your W30. While not an issue for you, do you have concerns about side loading on a shackle affixed like this?

 

[DDW]

Any anchor will fail to hold or reset if you make the artificial conditions severe enough.

Ted

Yeah but wouldn't you prefer the anchor that works better, than worse, in severe conditions? That is what Steve's tests are designed to illuminate.

 

[mvweebles]

DDW - that's certainly how I read Panope's tests. I don't know of better testing methodologies out there. I general, I find Panope's information helpful in selecting an anchor.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter,
Shackle is small.
Anchor is 18lbs. About right for Willy.
I don’t think side loading is an issue. After all how much can most anchors resist?
If an anchor can take 500lbs dead ahead it will be likely under 100lbs at 90 degrees. Much much less at least. Yes the shackle can’t hold as much sideways but it shouldn’t ever need to.

Re this XYZ anchor there’s 4 high strength countersunk socket head screws holding the shank to the fluke. There’s been no hint of failure in this rig. And this anchor (18lbs) held our boat in a 50+ knots in a summer gale. I needed to reset due to another boat dragging into us. No anchor problem at all. And no shackle problem either.
The saw tooth edges are supposed to be for weed. But the toothy design may help on hard bottoms too.

Re Panope;
I find his vids very useable but not representative.

Small engine/big anchor
Soft mud/sandy bottom
Any anchor not setting in this is a nonsetting anchor.
But seeing the “body language” as it goes about it’s work is golden.

But his tests do focus on setting. High holding power is important. But what anchor lacks hhp? Not long ago there were anchors lacking hhp but now they are easy to find so one’s shopping efforts should be directed at other attributes of anchor performance. Steve’s tests led us away form the ultimate holding power feeding frenzy that was going on before.

 

[mvweebles]

I agree with you on side loading, but still, have seen many pictures of bent shanks. Maybe the of jams in rocks, but I wonder if there is are scenarios where high winds can whip a boat to and fro with sufficient force.

Steve's work with anchors is the most in depth I've ever seen - galvanizing, tip weight, slot size, everything. Maybe there's much more to do. I can't imagine what. But maybe.

 

[Greg S]

Does the red paint mean a certain size bolt or a certian strength of the bolt and perhaps (but not likely) the shackle.

The red paint on the bolt means it is a "Crosby" shackle.
Other manufacturers have different colour combinations.

 

[koliver]

Sorry, with a few exceptions, Craftsman is my brand of choice. Appreciate the quality of Mac and SnapOn, not willing to pay the price or have to fight to get tools exchanged. Never an argument at the Craftsman register.

Happy Holidays Peter

Ted

Christmas story:

My Craftsman socket set, one of those plastic boxes with ~150 pieces inside, was several years, maybe decades old, had lived in the bilge of two sailboats before getting healthier digs in Retreat, so bore the rust and flaking chrome proudly. One or two important sizes of both sockets and open end wrenches were missing and the plastic latches on the box were long gone.
I took the whole unsightly mess in to the local Sears store on a busy pre-Christmas day to see if I could find the replacement pieces. After looking carefully at everything on the shelves, without the success I had thought was going to be easy, The department manager, who had been watching me, grabbed a new kit of roughly the right size and told me to take it, as the Craftsman guarantee would cover the replacement, due to the rusty, flaking general appearance. I was thrilled! He wanted me and my unsightly box of their house brand out of sight quickly. I has happy to oblige.

Too bad Sears is gone, and with it the source of Craftsman tools.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Greg,
I suspected but now I know. The shackle has lettering embossed on it’s sides. And I would imagine the shackle and bolt are rated separately but they need compatible threads and size. But it could be otherwise.

Peter where’d ya see bent shackles? Never seen one in my life.
Must be cheap hardware store shackles. I may be correct in saying many to most are unrated.

 

[mvweebles]

Greg,
I suspected but now I know. The shackle has lettering embossed on it’s sides. And I would imagine the shackle and bolt are rated separately but they need compatible threads and size.

Peter where’d ya see bent shackles? Never seen one in my life.
Must be cheap hardware store shackles. I may be correct in saying many to most are unrated.

I've seen a few bent shafts in the docks. Danforth style as I recall. Panope shows a couple now and again. I think last one I saw was a rocna. Of course, he gets donated anchors.

 

[O C Diver]

The shackle and hammerlock can't be compared by size. The shackle has to be downsized to fit the pin into a chain link. Easy to show, hard to post. (maybe I'll make video someday) A hammerlock that fits through the same link is many times stronger than the shackle that fits. In our service, shackle pins bent, and were next to impossible to back the pin out. I've see a hammerlock pin break, it's rare, but never fail. Multiple connection points.

Actually it was very easy to compare by size. It has to fit through the chain link and pivot without binding. Use their diagram and find the largest size that will work with my 3/8" chain. The WLL before it starts to corrode is 8,800 pounds verses 5,300 from a galvanized Crosby.

Ted

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter re your post # 41.
Sure I’ve seen bent anchors .. but not shackles.

 

[tozz]

Yikes! Did your anchor reset? What kind/size anchor, depth, boat, etc?

Peter

It did reset but probably needed a boat length or so to do so. 65' Nordlund PH, about 50T, Forfjord #12 (~145#), and we were in about 35' of water with about 150' of chain out.

-tozz

 

[O C Diver]

Yeah but wouldn't you prefer the anchor that works better, than worse, in severe conditions? That is what Steve's tests are designed to illuminate.

No, I want one of the best holding and resetting anchors with a 7:1 scope or greater. If an anchor can reset in Steve's test at 3.5:1 scope but has only half the holding power of another equivalent weight anchor at 7:1 scope, why would you choose less holding in severe conditions?

The point is that there is no correlation of holding power with proper scope, to short scope resetability.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

No, I want one of the best holding and resetting anchors with a 7:1 scope or greater. If an anchor can reset in Steve's test at 3.5:1 scope but has only half the holding power of another equivalent weight anchor at 7:1 scope, why would you choose less holding in severe conditions?

The point is that there is no correlation of holding power with proper scope, to short scope resetability.

Ted

I think we've had this conversation before about power setting anchors, but if one anchor resets well at 3:5:1 and one doesn't, wouldn't you have more confidence at 7:1 in the former, even if the latter seems okay?

Closest analogy I can quickly think of is that if you have two engines but one is rated at 5000 rpm redline and the other is rated at 7000 rpm but you only run at 4500, wouldn't you expect the 7000 rpm engine to hold together better?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter,
He’s got a Rocna.
Need long scope to work well.

 

[DDW]

No, I want one of the best holding and resetting anchors with a 7:1 scope or greater. If an anchor can reset in Steve's test at 3.5:1 scope but has only half the holding power of another equivalent weight anchor at 7:1 scope, why would you choose less holding in severe conditions?

The point is that there is no correlation of holding power with proper scope, to short scope resetability.

Ted

You live in Florida where the water is thin. Steve lives in the PNW where 7:1 scope is not happening in a lot of anchorages. Not unless you tow a barge to store the chain. The deepest I've anchored in was 120'. I'm not carrying 840' of chain. And I'd be run out of the anchorage by everyone else for using 50 acres of space to park.

I'll agree somewhat with your last point, except that I want both. Steve's tests aren't just on resetting. I'll assert that generally, the anchor that holds best at 3.5:1 will also be the best or near the best at 7:1. An anchor that doesn't set at 3.5:1 is useless to me, it's holding power is effectively zero.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Yes DDW,
An anchor setting and holding at short scope is much more valuable that one that performs at long scope.

But I suspect anchor designers will sacrifice short scope performance to get spectacular numbers at long scope. And I also suspect an anchor that does well at long scope (like Rocna) could be made (through modifications) to do minimally (or not so hot) at long scope to do much better at short scope.

But for anchor tests of the day the holy grail was max holding power. And that is achieved at long scope. Most anchor design features favor long or short scope. Get all the features lined up good for one thing and great performance can be had. But most often at the expense of other performance functions.

Ideally all anchor manufacturers would offer three anchors. A hot dog for short scope, a hot dog for long scope and for all of us that aren’t hot dogs a middle of the road hook that did everything well but nothing spectacularly.
That is the ideal anchor .. IMO. But if I only had hot dogs to choose from I’d wand the short scope performer. With that in mind that was my thinking when I bought my Supreme 12-13 years ago. The Supreme hardly gave up anything at the long end but had/has a huge advantage on short scope.

 

[O C Diver]

I think we've had this conversation before about power setting anchors, but if one anchor resets well at 3:5:1 and one doesn't, wouldn't you have more confidence at 7:1 in the former, even if the latter seems okay?

Closest analogy I can quickly think of is that if you have two engines but one is rated at 5000 rpm redline and the other is rated at 7000 rpm but you only run at 4500, wouldn't you expect the 7000 rpm engine to hold together better?

Which would you rather have in 50 knot winds at 7:1 scope on your boat, a 10 pound Sarca that will set at 3.5:1 scope or a 100 pound Rocna that won't set at 3.5:1 scope? Like I said before, the ability of an anchor to reset with short scope has no bearing on how well it will work with proper scope.

You engine analogy is ridiculous. You think a Cummins QSB5.9 480 HP (turbo charged after cooled, high pressure common rail) engine at 2,400 RPM is more reliable (better) than a Cummins 6B5.9 80 HP (naturally aspired) engine at 2,400 RPM? I'll take the 80 HP NA.

Peter,
He’s got a Rocna.
Need long scope to work well.

Not long scope, the correct scope. Show me an anchor manufacturer that endorses 3.5:1 scope in heavy weather, or even 5:1 scope.

Ted

 

[O C Diver]

You live in Florida where the water is thin. Steve lives in the PNW where 7:1 scope is not happening in a lot of anchorages. Not unless you tow a barge to store the chain. The deepest I've anchored in was 120'. I'm not carrying 840' of chain. And I'd be run out of the anchorage by everyone else for using 50 acres of space to park.

I'll agree somewhat with your last point, except that I want both. Steve's tests aren't just on resetting. I'll assert that generally, the anchor that holds best at 3.5:1 will also be the best or near the best at 7:1. An anchor that doesn't set at 3.5:1 is useless to me, it's holding power is effectively zero.

What depth of water did Steve conduct the tests in?

Can you offer anything objective to support your assertion in bold? Which would you rather have in 50 knot winds anchoring your boat, a 10 pound Sarca that will set at 3.5:1 scope or a 100 pound Rocna that won't set at 3.5:1 scope? Like I said before, the ability of an anchor to reset with short scope has no bearing on how well it will work with proper scope.

Ted

 

[mvweebles]

Which would you rather have in 50 knot winds at 7:1 scope on your boat, a 10 pound Sarca that will set at 3.5:1 scope or a 100 pound Rocna that won't set at 3.5:1 scope? Like I said before, the ability of an anchor to reset with short scope has no bearing on how well it will work with proper scope.

You engine analogy is ridiculous. You think a Cummins QSB5.9 480 HP (turbo charged after cooled, high pressure common rail) engine at 2,400 RPM is more reliable (better) than a Cummins 6B5.9 80 HP (naturally aspired) engine at 2,400 RPM? I'll take the 80 HP NA.



Not long scope, the correct scope. Show me an anchor manufacturer that endorses 3.5:1 scope in heavy weather, or even 5:1 scope.

Ted

Panope generally tests in 26 feet of water and mostly 20 KG (44lb) anchors. Pretty close to apples to apples comparison. Not perfectly similar, but pretty close.

I don't understand your point about 10 lb sarca vs 100 lb rocna. He has tested 20 KG versions of both. They test well

 

[Nomad Willy]

5-1 scope is good for all winds and close to all anchors.
7-1 scope is probably not better than 5-1.

“10lb SARCA and 100lb Rocna”.
Or a 10lb Rocna Nd a 100lb SARCA.
Must be different but not much.

 

[O C Diver]

You live in Florida where the water is thin. Steve lives in the PNW where 7:1 scope is not happening in a lot of anchorages. Not unless you tow a barge to store the chain. The deepest I've anchored in was 120'. I'm not carrying 840' of chain. And I'd be run out of the anchorage by everyone else for using 50 acres of space to park.

Scope is relative to depth. The shallower you anchor, the more scope you need. Anchoring in 10' of water requires more than 35' (scope 3.5:1) of rode in the water unless you want to drag through the anchorage in the middle of the night. I have no idea what you can get away with in 120' of water, but clearly the dynamics change. The weight of all chain rode hanging down clearly changes the curve of the rode also.

Ted

 

[O C Diver]

5-1 scope is good for all winds and close to all anchors.
7-1 scope is probably not better than 5-1.

“10lb SARCA and 100lb Rocna”.
Or a 10lb Rocna Nd a 100lb SARCA.
All the same IMO.

Dosen't surprise me. You can't recognize the value of chain in anchoring.

Ted

 

[psneeld]

I see Ted's point.

Expanding past the actual conditions of any test is "guessing " unless you get more data points and can reasonably extrapolate.

Unfortunately every anchor test is different enough that all combined still don't paint a perfectly clear picture.

Just plain old experience with what you use is the best test.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Ted when it comes to anchoring I’m not a populist.

 

[O C Diver]

Panope generally tests in 26 feet of water and mostly 20 KG (44lb) anchors. Pretty close to apples to apples comparison. Not perfectly similar, but pretty close.

I don't understand your point about 10 lb sarca vs 100 lb rocna. He has tested 20 KG versions of both. They test well

First, you have to recognize that scope requirements change with depth. None of the anchors he tested would have reset if he were doing the test in 10' of water with 3.5:1 scope. There wouldn't have been enough chain weight to keep them on the bottom.

Secondly I would guess that doing those tests in 100' of water would have yielded very different results as the rode would have more resembled a steep curve instead of a straight line because of the weight of the chain.

The difference between the 10 pound Sarca and 100 pound Rocna is surface area of the fluke. When you get to a reasonable scope, there are other considerations that make one anchor hold better than another. The difference in size was to demonstrate that point in an obvious way. The 100 pound Rocna would do better at 7:1 because of its substantially larger fluke.

Ted

 

[O C Diver]

Ted when it comes to anchoring I’m not a populist.

Really!

Eric, we all know that.

Without being derogatory in any way, your boat is small enough with a minimal enough wind resistance that you can get away with stuff in anchoring that we with larger boats can't. When I ran a 25' center console charter boat, a cinder block and 3/8" rope was all the sand anchor I would ever need. As the boat gets bigger, it takes a lot more to hold it in place and resist the strain from waves on the rode.

Ted

 

[Simi 60]

Peter,
He’s got a Rocna.
Need long scope to work well.

Not necessarily so

Short Scope Anchoring:

While this high spec gear is designed for adverse conditions it has one big advantage in every day use, you can anchor on much shorter scope. With Wind Horse 98% of the time we are on three to one scope or less. Probably half the time we anchor on two to one. This makes it possible to fit our rather long LOA into some very tight spaces. We often visit anchorages that yachts half our size would avoid

SetSail FPB » Blog Archive » Anchoring System Logic

We to have short scoped on many an occasion using our Manson supreme.