Is there a Quality Anchor Swivel?

[Lagoon4us]

I guess the OP didn't ask about price however sometimes quality comes at a price.

For us as a percentage of our investment it isn't that much because it is part of what we have set up as an anchoring kit that will hold up to the rigours.

Our boat in 100 knots would be unlikely to generate the energy to make a swivel that's load tested to 16+ tonnes fail.

We threw away the crappy unit that was on the chain, it had already started parting company with side loads and only in 62knots with little chop just yawing a fair bit.

Cheers

[settingsun]

You know, Cotemar, I had the same reaction to the price.

My hubby was the one who went for both the swivel and that crazy expensive anchor. His reason? "How much is the boat worth to you?"

Well, the cost of anchor and swivel were a pittance compared to the cost of the boat.

And seeing how they have performed through the gnarliest situations with godawful winds and waves on a lee shore for 48 hours at a stretch, all I can say is, "Thank you, sweet hubby, for your incredibly good sense." I NEVER would have paid that much on my own -- but in hindsight I'm so glad I did.

If you love your boat and don't want to deal with insurance and replacement value and salvage and seeing your dreams smashed on the beach, then put a few precious pennies into the anchor and swivel!!

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

I agree. The Ultra Flip Swivel is nice, but the price will hold most back as it cost as much as the anchor.

Ours is a 13 it cost $286:00.

Cheers

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Kong swivels have proof ratings for side pulls as well as straight pulls. If the side pull rating matches the rest of your ground tackle, then I don't see anything wrong with attaching it directly to your anchor, a role for which it was designed. It has a very smooth bullet shape so very good for going over the bow roller

That being said, I'm glad to be back to using a plain shackle with no swivel at all. I am using the Wichard forged stainless allen key shackle which looks like this:

Attachment 52202

It doesn't have anything sticking out of it, so it goes over the bow roller quite well also. I use Loctite on the screw for extra security.

I've looked at these shackles several times. The largest is rated at 2080kg working load, which didn't seem strong enough. Obviously it has worked for you so I'll go ahead and get one.
Thanks.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

I agree. The Ultra Flip Swivel is nice, but the price will hold most back as it cost as much as the anchor.

I actually don't see the point of the articulating ball in these, which can move only 28 degrees in any direction according to the Quickline website. This does nothing to solve the
problem of levering of the jaws apart in a side pull. What's the point of 28 degrees of articulation? Furthermore, they have load-bearing bolts, which was identified as a crucial weak point in Viv Cox's destructive testing mentioned above.

I don't like the looks of them at all, even not considering the price.

I actually agree with the critique on Morgan's Cloud:

"Since the WASI PowerBall and its copy by Ultra was mentioned: in addition to my response below, my opinion on these “ball-and-socket” designs is that they’re pointless.

The objective is ostensibly to alleviate the lateral loading on the swivel joint. However the more important issue is not this but rather the lateral leverage on the jaw sides when attached directly to the anchor, which both these ball designs still do!

Furthermore, the ball-and-socket allows an articulation of only 30 degrees. Hardly the 90 you might think is required. What is the point? It is a gimmick.

As to the Quickline specifically, it is produced in Turkey by the same outfit that make the “Ultra” copy of the Spade anchor (from only weak 316 stainless). . ."

http://www.morganscloud.com/2010/09/12/anchor-swivels/

Now the author of that is none other than Craig Smith, the anchor guy we all love to hate, but for all his other faults, Craig was extremely knowledgeable, and the Rocna Knowledge Base remains in my opinion the best single anchoring resource on the web.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Palarran

I've looked at these shackles several times. The largest is rated at 2080kg working load, which didn't seem strong enough. Obviously it has worked for you so I'll go ahead and get one.
Thanks.

2000kg working load is the same as my high test 12mm chain, so that's ok, but breaking strength is 6000kg, which is two tons less, so I'm not actually satisfied. I'm going to try something different at my next scheduled shackle replacement this summer. Maybe really titanium.

Wichard also makes extraordinarily strong "HR" shackles, but alas not with the Allen key. Might try that with cutting off the ears like Noelex does.

Yet another variant would be to use two of those, which would easily fit. Not sure double shackles would have double the strength, however.

One comforting fact is Wichard shackles in destructive testing always well outperform their rating. It's good quality, expensive, French stuff.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

I guess the OP didn't ask about price however sometimes quality comes at a price.

For us as a percentage of our investment it isn't that much because it is part of what we have set up as an anchoring kit that will hold up to the rigours.

Our boat in 100 knots would be unlikely to generate the energy to make a swivel that's load tested to 16+ tonnes fail.

We threw away the crappy unit that was on the chain, it had already started parting company with side loads and only in 62knots with little chop just yawing a fair bit.

Cheers

Don't underestimate the destructive power of snatch loads.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

......

Wichard also makes extraordinarily strong "HR" shackles, but alas not with the Allen key. Might try that with cutting off the ears like Noelex does.

Yet another variant would be to use two of those, which would easily fit. Not sure double shackles would have double the strength, however.

One comforting fact is Wichard shackles in destructive testing always well outperform their rating. It's good quality, expensive, French stuff.

Just a warning - the standard material Wichard shackles mentioned in your previous post are fine, but I wouldn't recommend using Wichard HR (Haute Resistance = High Tensile) shackles for long term immersion.

They're a precipitation hardening martensitic grade (17-4PH, sometimes referred to as 630 in the US) and this occasionally succumbs to catastrophic failure under oxygen deprivation situations. This can be aggravated in quiescent conditions, and especially sulphite-rich mud, occasionally found near rivers subject to industrial contamination

Their English language catalogues are not translated by someone who understands metallurgy so they often don't make this particularly clear; it's a bit more clear what they're referring to in the original (French) versions.

Here's an excerpt from a translation I did for them years ago (AFAIK they never got around to using it):

<< In order to better understand the behaviour of stainless steels in total and prolonged immersion (a particular problem for permanent mooring), Wichard has checked the electrolytic reactions of the materials most commonly currently used in the marine environment.
The year-long experiment has been performed with the cooperation of a diving group of the College in Thiers, which was tasked with the systematic immersion and supervision of the test installation in the Mediterranean.

In order to show up the electrolytic corrosion phenomenon, a variety of shackles were connected together, both of same and different types : the electrolytic phenomenon which takes place can be likened with an electric battery.

On a microscopic scale and in a very conductive environment, a current will arise between both parts and create an electrolysis. The part with the highest electrolytic potential is called the anode, and destroys itself, effectively dissolving.
We have been able to check the pronounced lack of sensitivity of titanium, which is not affected at all. Still more surprisingly, when coupled to a traditional galvanized shackle, the latter does not alter too much.

Austenitic stainless steels (305 Cu or 316L) behave excellently. Corrosion does not even begin. On the other hand, it was noted that martensitic stainless steel (HR 17.4 PH) was very sensitive to the electrolytic phenomenon, causing, in all cases, serious corrosion from within. The use of such a stainless steel is not recommended, either alone or in contact with another material, for a total and prolonged immersion, without taking special care.>>

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Just a warning - the standard material Wichard shackles mentioned in your previous post are fine, but I wouldn't recommend using Wichard HR (Haute Resistance = High Tensile) shackles for long term immersion.

They're a precipitation hardening martensitic grade (17-4PH, sometimes referred to as 630 in the US) and this occasionally succumbs to catastrophic failure under oxygen deprivation situations. This can be aggravated in quiescent conditions, and especially sulphite-rich mud, occasionally found near rivers subject to industrial contamination

Their English language catalogues are not translated by someone who understands metallurgy so they often don't make this particularly clear; it's a bit more clear what they're referring to in the original (French) versions.

Here's an excerpt from a translation I did for them years ago (AFAIK they never got around to using it):

<< In order to better understand the behaviour of stainless steels in total and prolonged immersion (a particular problem for permanent mooring), Wichard has checked the electrolytic reactions of the materials most commonly currently used in the marine environment.
The year-long experiment has been performed with the cooperation of a diving group of the College in Thiers, which was tasked with the systematic immersion and supervision of the test installation in the Mediterranean.

In order to show up the electrolytic corrosion phenomenon, a variety of shackles were connected together, both of same and different types : the electrolytic phenomenon which takes place can be likened with an electric battery.

On a microscopic scale and in a very conductive environment, a current will arise between both parts and create an electrolysis. The part with the highest electrolytic potential is called the anode, and destroys itself, effectively dissolving.
We have been able to check the pronounced lack of sensitivity of titanium, which is not affected at all. Still more surprisingly, when coupled to a traditional galvanized shackle, the latter does not alter too much.

Austenitic stainless steels (305 Cu or 316L) behave excellently. Corrosion does not even begin. On the other hand, it was noted that martensitic stainless steel (HR 17.4 PH) was very sensitive to the electrolytic phenomenon, causing, in all cases, serious corrosion from within. The use of such a stainless steel is not recommended, either alone or in contact with another material, for a total and prolonged immersion, without taking special care.>>

Thanks, that's interesting, but I think not very much relevant to this, as an anchor shackle (as opposed to a mooring shackle, where I would never consider stainless) is not really immersed for long periods.

Nevertheless, of course, stainless is prone to crevice corrosion even without any kind of immersion, which is why I rigorously replace any stainless in my anchoring system every two years. So I think stainless is somewhat undesirable in the ground tackle in general. Its only advantage is that it is very slippery, which is a big advantage in some cases (including shackles).

I am using a stainless shackle only because it was the only thing strong enough I could buy in Europe which would fit. I have just found this: Crosby Catalog - Crosby Alloy Screw Pin Shackles

which is what many of the guys here are using. The 12mm size (1/2") should fit and has SWL of 3.3 short tons, and breaking strength of 5x that -- quite a bit stronger than the Wichard I have now, and quite a bit stronger than my chain -- just what I want. Since it's galvanized, I won't have to worry about crevice corrosion, and any corrosion problem will be obviously, so I might even extend my 2 year replacement cycle (although they are so cheap, there is hardly any reason to do that).

I would consider titanium, which is probably the ideal material for this application, but I don't want to buy this type of thing from a dodgy company. I think it's really important to buy life-and-death safety items of forged metal from top metal forging companies only, and never anything Turkish or Chinese or of unknown provenance. Metal forging is a very delicate operation which requires a very high level of skill and rigorous quality control procedures. Wichard -- which fits that bill -- makes Ti shackles, but the biggest bow shackle they make in Ti is 10mm -- too small for me.

So the Crosby shackle really fits the bill. As a bonus, Crosby shackles are extremely cheap compared to anything from Wichard. Crosby is a top company which produces gear for critical lifting applications -- on which people's lives may depend -- so most rigorous standards of control. This is the kind of company you want making something like your anchor shackle. I guess I could cut off the shackle pin ears like some of the guys here do, and drill out a mousing wire hole (so why else do I have a drill press and cobalt bits on board?! ). I'll be in the States again in February and could bring one back with me. Any of you guys cruising in Europe need one, let me know and I could bring back a couple.

[Andrew Troup]

Dockhead

I'd personally move everything one notch to the more conservative end of things: I wouldn't consider 316 SS for permanent mooring, and I wouldn't consider high tensile grades like 17-4 PH for anchoring.

Anyone who's unsure what grade a particular item uses should apply a magnet: the high tensile shackles (which Lewmar also make, among others) will be attracted to it. (Not because they're high quality, in fact they're extraordinarily high quality, and very well suited to marine use at or above the splash zone.)

Wichard don't quantify what they mean by "prolonged" , but other investigations suggest the effect can be cumulative, and can proceed to failure within weeks and months. Self-passivation typically doesn't happen once active zones are well established, even when oxygen becomes available to the surface containing those zones.

The original text referred to "mouillage" -- which in French can be applied to anchoring as well as mooring -- so it's not (I think) wise to dismiss their warning as inapplicable to an anchoring system.

Even if they did mean "mouillage" in the restricted sense of mooring, they mention it to emphasise that it's particularly problematic in that situation. To me, this does not necessarily imply it's not potentially problematic for anchoring.

It's also a consideration (at least for some cruisers) that circumstances can sometimes result in a boat having to remain at anchor for unexpectedly long periods ...

As a general and very crude rule, higher tensile materials tend to fail by pulling planes of atoms apart (ie brittle failure) rather than sliding them across each other (ie ductile failure) which is more often the case for 'weaker' materials.

Naturally the former tends to happen suddenly and unexpectedly, and most materials prone to this failure mode are adversely affected by immersion in electrolytes, especially containing chlorides and the like.

Given how consequential failure is, it doesn't seem to me like a place to venture into questionable territory. I personally feel pretty queasy about high-test chain, too... expecially if advantage is taken of the increased strength in order to down-size it. I think anyone taking this course should plan to replace it very regularly, if they're anchoring a lot.

[nhschneider]

We also use a Wasi Powerball swivel to connect our anchor to the chain and we've been delighted with it even though its over 15 years old. For what it's worth, it is certified by Germanischer Lloyd, a fairly respectable company when it comes to marine engineering. I'm certain that they also certify shackles but I've never seen them.

Fair winds and calm seas.

[Lagoon4us]

Whatever you use on a boat someone will white-ant it, tell you it's crap, it seems they just feel good doing it. They'll argue about the design of the boat, rig, anchor, engines etc etc..... Unless it conforms to their google search its ****.

Personally we do what we consider best for ourselves and our boat. The swivels we use are proof tested, they exceed the possible loadings by at least a 5times factor, we don't connect chain direct to cleats, bitts or any part of our boat we use a bridle i.e. two parts of 1inch Nylon rope, this absorbs most snatch loads.

We are cautious with our anchoring, the stronger the wind the better the boat lays. We have not anchored where the boat is pulling on our anchor lifting all chain whilst veering/yawing 30deg.

316# SS is the domain of the working mans boat, in my life it has not let me down in fact it has made our boating life easier as i always use it on chip or hard working areas on boats i've built.

Every outboard engine, most propellor shafts and rudder shafts in this world incorporate it. Bring on the high tech bring on the Titanium sounds great but hey i don't think in the rest of my cruising life i will commonly see it available in a Chandlery.

Yes their are quality swivels and yes the people that employ them enjoy the benefits and sleep soundly knowing they are secure.

Bugel anchors in SS have a fantastic reputation for holding and simplicity. Yet they are made of this SOFT SS ??? Ultra anchors in SS same story, if i could afford one i'd buy one, i rate our Steel KOBRA as second to the ULTRA for holding.

The chain on our boat 13mm is rated around 3tonne and the ULTRA Swivel 16 tonne!!! Where's the weak link there? We added 3 links of chain to our anchor to swivel connection FOOLPROOF.

Anyone can google and regurgitate some person's theory/findings etc but to be honest i'd rather ask someone who actually has experience of the product, otherwise it's just an opinion.

Cheers.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Dockhead

I'd personally move everything one notch to the more conservative end of things: I wouldn't consider 316 SS for permanent mooring, and I wouldn't consider high tensile grades like 17-4 PH for anchoring.

Anyone who's unsure what grade a particular item uses should apply a magnet: the high tensile shackles (which Lewmar also make, among others) will be attracted to it. (Not because they're high quality, in fact they're extraordinarily high quality, and very well suited to marine use at or above the splash zone.)

Wichard don't quantify what they mean by "prolonged" , but other investigations suggest the effect can be cumulative, and can proceed to failure within weeks and months. Self-passivation typically doesn't happen once active zones are well established, even when oxygen becomes available to the surface containing those zones.

The original text referred to "mouillage" -- which in French can be applied to anchoring as well as mooring -- so it's not (I think) wise to dismiss their warning as inapplicable to an anchoring system.

Even if they did mean "mouillage" in the restricted sense of mooring, they mention it to emphasise that it's particularly problematic in that situation. To me, this does not necessarily imply it's not potentially problematic for anchoring.

It's also a consideration (at least for some cruisers) that circumstances can sometimes result in a boat having to remain at anchor for unexpectedly long periods ...

As a general and very crude rule, higher tensile materials tend to fail by pulling planes of atoms apart (ie brittle failure) rather than sliding them across each other (ie ductile failure) which is more often the case for 'weaker' materials.

Naturally the former tends to happen suddenly and unexpectedly, and most materials prone to this failure mode are adversely affected by immersion in electrolytes, especially containing chlorides and the like.

Given how consequential failure is, it doesn't seem to me like a place to venture into questionable territory. I personally feel pretty queasy about high-test chain, too... expecially if advantage is taken of the increased strength in order to down-size it. I think anyone taking this course should plan to replace it very regularly, if they're anchoring a lot.

Andrew do you have any data on failure of chains and kit to support this high winded technical opinion?

Do you consider just how many boats in this world are anchored right now? I don't see any drifting around me with anchorless chains hanging over the side.

Sorry i'm not having a go at you but fair dinkum mate?..

[Lagoon4us]

As a general and very crude rule, higher tensile materials tend to fail by pulling planes of atoms apart (ie brittle failure) rather than sliding them across each other (ie ductile failure) which is more often the case for 'weaker' materials.

Naturally the former tends to happen suddenly and unexpectedly, and most materials prone to this failure mode are adversely affected by immersion in electrolytes, especially containing chlorides and the like.

Can't win SS is too soft and Hi-Tensile too tough! At least negatives are balanced between posters!!!!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

As a general and very crude rule, higher tensile materials tend to fail by pulling planes of atoms apart (ie brittle failure) rather than sliding them across each other (ie ductile failure) which is more often the case for 'weaker' materials.

Naturally the former tends to happen suddenly and unexpectedly, and most materials prone to this failure mode are adversely affected by immersion in electrolytes, especially containing chlorides and the like.

Can't win SS is too soft and Hi-Tensile too tough! At least negatives are balanced between posters!!!!

Well. First of all, every skipper is responsible for the safety of his own ship, and will decide on the right type of ground tackle, and about the right materials to use in it, himself, based on whatever information he thinks is reliable. So everyone is of course entitled to his own opinion. We are just sharing views here and it's healthy and normal for people to disagree about this or that.

Secondly: I don't think you read AndrewTroup right -- neither he nor anyone else on here condemned the use of 316 stainless in ground tackle. The guy on Morgan's Cloud does condemn it, but I think the rest of us here respectfully disagree with him, including AndrewTroup.

Forged 316 of good quality (preferably not Chinese or from an unknown forger) is plenty strong and plenty reliable enough. I use it myself in my ground tackle right now. It has a big plus in being very slippery. A minus in that it is subject to crevice corrosion, so should be replaced from time to time. Most of us have it in our chain plates, too.

If you have to have a swivel in your anchor gear, then in my opinion stainless is the only way to go, because only stainless is slippery enough to allow the joints to work.

That's all just my opinion based on nervous reflection (since I am responsible for the safety of my boat, just like you are of yours) and a lot of reading and asking questions. If you have a different one, I'm interested in it -- maybe I'll learn something more.

AndrewTroup told us something about very high strength stainless which I, for one, didn't know. Don't know if he's right or not, but I have definitely filed that information away and will be careful if I'm ever tempted to use very high strength stainless in my ground tackle.