The Bugel has a very simple flat fluke. There is no attempt to shape the fluke to distribute the weight more optimally, or orientate the anchor better when setting.)
Two points.
One, the concave edge of the Bugel fluke is designed specifically to allow the anchor to orient when setting.
Two, the original Bugel Patent included a "keel" welded to the bottom of the fluke which would have enhanced stiffness from tip to shank as well as added weight up front.
Why the second item was not included in the Wasi production version of the Bugel I don't know. I assume it was determined to be superfluous. You can also see sort of "winglets" where the roll bar hits the fluke in the original Bugel Patent which were likewise omitted in the production version.
Two, the original Bugel Patent included a "keel" welded to the bottom of the fluke which would have enhanced stiffness from tip to shank as well as added weight up front.
Why the second item was not included in the Wasi production version of the Bugel I don't know. I assume it was determined to be superfluous. You can also see sort of "winglets" where the roll bar hits the fluke in the original Bugel Patent which were likewise omitted in the production version.
Interesting, thanks.
I guess the competition was not too hard beat in those days.
Interesting, thanks.
I guess the competition was not too hard beat in those days.
Funny how sailor's tend to be a bit slow to adopt new technology. Make sense I suppose. Design a new ship, watch as it sails across the horizon, it never comes back, maybe that new ship design wasn't such a great idea?
Makes me think about Nathanael Herrshoff's Amaryllis catamaran. Borrowed a thousands year old design concept from the Polynesians, kicked everybody's ass in a race and got banned from racing by the NYYC, and yet I can remember when the first cruising charter cats hit the scene a hundred years later in the mid-eighties. At the time all the old salty sailor types considered them an abomination. Now they are everywhere.
One, the concave edge of the Bugel fluke is designed specifically to allow the anchor to orient when setting.
Two, the original Bugel Patent included a "keel" welded to the bottom of the fluke which would have enhanced stiffness from tip to shank as well as added weight up front.
Why the second item was not included in the Wasi production version of the Bugel I don't know. I assume it was determined to be superfluous. You can also see sort of "winglets" where the roll bar hits the fluke in the original Bugel Patent which were likewise omitted in the production version.
It is interesting to see the actual anchor patents and then see what the actual production anchor ended up looking like.
It is the wasi powerball. It came with the anchor. Some have criticized the weakness of the neck, but I have never heard of one broken (but the consequences would be serious with a very rapid drag)
Ultra make a similar, but smaller ball and socket swivel.
It is the wasi powerball. It came with the anchor. Some have criticized the weakness of the neck, but I have never heard of one broken (but the consequences would be serious with a very rapid drag)
Ultra make a similar, but smaller ball and socket swivel.
The Ultra Flip swivel now has a hoop on the anchor shank side and a self righting feature built into the socket.
If you need an anchor swivel, why not get one that brings the anchor up the right way every time.
I am surprised you objected to my comments below, perhaps I did not express them well, so I will elaborate.
The Bugel has a very simple flat fluke. There is no attempt to shape the fluke to distribute the weight more optimally, or orientate the anchor better when setting.
If we compare the Bugel with the more sophisticated concave roll bar anchors like the Rocna Manson Supreme, Mantus we see the following improvements from the simple flat sheet of SS in the Bugel.
1. Concave shape
2. Tip weight
3. A more shaped fluke with border shoulders and a narrower tip (rather than almost the simple triangle of the Bugel
4. Skids or wings on the back of flukes to present the tip more aggressively to the substrate
5.Careful weight distribution in the fluke results in a bigger fluke surface area for the same weight anchor.
These changes I believe make these anchors better and higher performing than the simpler Bugel. Nevertheless the Bugel is still a good performing anchor.
(I have left out the Spade and Boss that you mentioned only because they are very different anchors to the Bugel so their design features are not as suitable for a simple direct comparison)
The fluke top surface of the Spade is almost identical to the Rocna. Look at the plan view, the narrow toe angles, the change of angle to the back of the fluke, the proportion of narrow to wider portion - they are virtaully identical. Take the angle of concavity - they are almost identical. You call Rocna's almost identical version of the Spade sophisticated. The difference is that Rocna have a weighted toe based on thick plate (and they made the whole thing from plate) and Spade put the weight in a pocket in the toe to concentrate weight. I cannot imagine you idea of unsophisticated.
The fluke top surface of the Spade is almost identical to the Rocna. Look at the plan view, the narrow toe angles, the change of angle to the back of the fluke, the proportion of narrow to wider portion - they are virtaully identical. Take the angle of concavity - they are almost identical. You call Rocna's almost identical version of the Spade sophisticated. The difference is that Rocna have a weighted toe based on thick plate (and they made the whole thing from plate) and Spade put the weight in a pocket in the toe to concentrate weight. I cannot imagine you idea of unsophisticated.
Jonathan
I believe this is a not often considered fact, the Spade and it's clones function in a similar fashion to the roll bar anchors by incorporating the roll bar radius profile into the back of the fluke.
The fluke top surface of the Spade is almost identical to the Rocna. Look at the plan view, the narrow toe angles, the change of angle to the back of the fluke, the proportion of narrow to wider portion - they are virtaully identical. Take the angle of concavity - they are almost identical. You call Rocna's almost identical version of the Spade sophisticated. The difference is that Rocna have a weighted toe based on thick plate (and they made the whole thing from plate) and Spade put the weight in a pocket in the toe to concentrate weight. I cannot imagine you idea of unsophisticated.
Jonathan
Yes I agree the Spade is a sophisticated design, with its hollow shank and lead filled toe. Together with the similar Ultra they are the most sophisticated, or complex of the anchor designs.
I view the Spade (and Ultra) as a different category to roll bar anchors. While they share design elements in common, such as the concave blade, the way they orientate themselves into a setting position is fundamentally different.
In simple terms the large heavy lead filled tip of the Spade is responsible for most of the instability in anything other than the correct setting attitude. The roll bar anchors use the roll bar for a similar purpose. The roll bar anchors do have a slightly weighted tip, but this is not essential for their function (as we see with the Bugel which has no weighted tip and is still a good anchor)
It is always remarkable to me that two very different approaches to anchor design Spade and Rocna/MS produce such similar overall practical results. I think the Rocna/MS is slightly better, but I am always keen to observe anchor performance any change my mind. Others would give the nod to Spade. They are very close and most would agree they are both excellent anchors (although I would not even dare to dream of a consensus on an anchoring topic )
It is an exciting time for anchors with new contenders in the Spade like category with the Ultra and with the roll bar anchors in the Mantus and Knox. It will be interesting to see if these anchors can better the results of their forefathers.
They are very close and most would agree they are both excellent anchors (although I would not even dare to dream of a consensus on an anchoring topic )
It is an exciting time for anchors with new contenders in the Spade like category with the Ultra and with the roll bar anchors in the Mantus and Knox. It will be interesting to see if these anchors can better the results of their forefathers.
Rex wrote;
Yes well if ever you start to dream of a consensus don’t, not unlike all of the early and new concave designs we are going the other way , from what I can see we are the only ones doing so. These indeed are exciting times not just for anchors, but anchors of convex design also. The next generation in Anchor Technology.
Regards Rex.
I am using a 80 lb Luke. Pretty sure if this drags it will snag a next gen anchor and hold on real well. It comes apart and stows nicely. Great way to meet other cruisers. Has the same holding power in kelp or mud. Paul Luke is a a great guy who has never posted or bragged on endlessly about how smart he his. Sent me a free arm thing when I threw out the arm because I couldn't remember what it was. Great hook for Rocks, held well in isle of shoals once. Think about this anchor often . Actually like it might take it off the lawn when I go way down east. At 80 lbs it's rated as a storm anchor for my boat.
Troubled by how I like this thing and understand its ability to set. Yet it is not considered in today's anchor threads.
I guess sometimes we just like things that .uhh
My mentor said what ever blows your skirt up. He said it not me .
Hi Rex, we met recently at the Boat Expo at the Gold Coast.
I'm wondering what your thoughts on the topic are, given that your recommendation for my friend, who's Excel anchor dragged a couple of times, was to go to a 30kg, instead of the 22kg he had.
Also interested to hear more about what you were saying at the time, regarding lighter boats needing bigger anchors?
44 CRUISINGCAT
Hi Rex, we met recently at the Boat Expo at the Gold Coast.
I'm wondering what your thoughts on the topic are, given that your recommendation for my friend, who's Excel anchor dragged a couple of times, was to go to a 30kg, instead of the 22kg he had.
Also interested to hear more about what you were saying at the time, regarding lighter boats needing bigger anchors?
We may have met, not sure, we meet many at boat shows, did you come in with someone else or on your own, if you did have company with you could you tell me their name and your own, you can PM or email me if you do not want to give this information. I am not sure why you are asking the questions here as I am sure you would have asked me at the show, if so I would have given you the answers if this was the case, re your questions.
Regards. Rex.
)
Linear Mode
Recent Discussions