IanD

...so long as you don't enquire too closely about what's in them... 😉

The trouble is that predicting what will happen to boat prices in the near future is pretty much guesswork, especially given the events in the last year which have changed so many things. They might go up, they might go down, they might stay the same (allowing for inflation), it all depends what you think will happen to demand, the economy, housing, inflation, incomes, taxes, Russia/Ukraine, China/Taiwan. oil/gas prices, stock markets... The only certainty is that if you wait a year or so before buying a boat, you won't have a boat for a year or so... 😉

Hopefully it'll be as good as it was before...

And posting them on CWDF for newbies to be horrified over (advice is fine!) is getting close to scaremongering... 😞

Don't get me wrong, I don't approve of either practice. But banning things which are tied to religion has not gone well historically, especially when the laws are passed by governments or bodies which don't have cross-religious representation. As usual this is a complex subject; at one end you have FGM which most civilised people believe is horrendous (and is illegal in many countries), but then you have things like halal slaughter and circumcision which have been established practice for a very long time and are tied to religion, and where banning them could certainly lead to massive protests if not rebellion because it would undoubtedly be seen/promoted as an attack on a particular religion. There are many things that people disapprove of and think should be banned while other people disagree -- halal slaughter, circumcision, smoking, alcohol, drugs, abortion, guns, assisted dying, wearing a hijab, polygamy -- and it's up to society (and governments) to decide which should be permitted and which banned, preferably without ending up with religious wars/crusades or people being killed...

It's horrific, but thankfully *very* rare -- so take the precautions Alan suggested, but don't worry yourself sick... 🙂

Regardless of whether you approve of (legal) religious practices or not, banning them sets a dangerous precedent -- for example, criminalising parents who circumcise their male offspring...

Or there are andouillettes, which are the worst conceivable option on all counts -- French sausages made from tripe... 😞

AFAIK none, unless you ask for (and pay for) one. And unless you *specifically* ask for something better, it'll be a Danforth -- just like most (all?) hire boat firms drop into the well deck if you say you're going on a river. Probably too light and with too short/light chain and rope too, going by the ones I've seen... 😞

If everyone took all possible precautions against all potentially life-threatening situations they'd never leave the house, and certainly wouldn't ever drive or travel in a car -- or a train, or a plane, or a ship/boat. And they'd definitely live in a bungalow (no stairs), stay out of the kitchen (most dangerous room in the house), and not indulge in any DIY (most dangerous domestic activity) or gardening. And while they weren't in the house they wouldn't do anything like cycling, or walking (pedestrian deaths), and certainly nothing like bungee jumping or sky-diving or scuba-diving or rock climbing or... There is no such thing as a zero risk activity, and no such thing as 100% safe -- including safety precautions, some of which have significant costs/inconvenience/disadvantages. What people deem safe and unsafe is an individual choice; what seems fine to one person might seem risky to another ("it seems odd..."), but that doesn't mean that either is "wrong" 😉 Of course there are safety precautions like seatbelts and airbags where accidents leading to them being needed happen all the time, they are very effective, and they save many lives. The reported incidents and frequency suggest that anchors on narrowboats are *not* one of these cases (hence what I've been saying), but if having one makes people like Jerra feel safer then they should fit one, it's their choice. Even if I disagree with them I certainly wouldn't say that people doing this are wrong, and -- especially given the actual evidence of risk -- it would be nice if they would return this courtesy... 🙂 Punctures are pretty common -- I've had at least half a dozen over the years -- and can be (sometimes very) inconvenient and occasionally life-threatening. Run-flat tyres are one solution -- I've had cars with them in the past -- but are expensive to buy and not repairable, and often degrade ride and noise -- but they are the safest solution. Gunk can leave you stranded if/when it doesn't work, and the tyre usually has to be thrown away afterwards. An spare wheel -- emergency or full-size -- always works, and the punctured tyre can often be repaired, so many (most?) people would say this is the best solution. In spite of this, car manufacturers have been removing them to save cost and weight. Anchors on narrowboats -- not so clear-cut... 😉

Lots of cars since then have had no spare, just one of those "cans of gunk" tyre sealer/inflators which often don't work and mean the tyre is unrepairable. On my last two cars I've paid (about £100) for an emergency spare wheel instead -- and before someone says "Aha, hypocrite!" this is also based on an assessment of risk... 😉 Unlike canal-anchor-disasters punctures are not uncommon, I've had several over the years and had to resort to the emergency spare (if fitted) to get me home and keep me going until I could get a repair/replacement, or tried using the can-of-gunk which didn't... 😞

Which is exactly my point... 😉 (and if anchors were not required, why is the fact that they were available relevant when they turned out to just sit there unused?) If you want to have an anchor available "just in case" (or spend most or all of your time on rivers) then that's absolutely fine, that's *your* assessment of how much safer you think it makes your boat. However in reality most boaters will never have to deploy an anchor like this in their entire boating lifetime, as described by several posters on this forum with many years boating on rivers, and also by the very small number of events like this each year (or Alan's "boat over the weir" one) compared to the number of boats which venture out onto rivers. For a boat which spends most of its time on the canals with occasional trips onto rivers, not having an anchor is also a valid choice based on an assessment of how tiny the chance is of it ever being used or needed *and* doing its job *and* saving the boat from disaster. It's a personal choice, I'm not saying that either approach is right or wrong -- unlike people making posts which subtly (or sometimes less subtly...) imply "you're an idiot if you don't have an anchor"... 😉

IIRC it's mostly 6mm plate, so may not be much heavier. The curved sections that form the nose (starting with a 30 degree angle between them) are actually cut from a large-diameter steel tube, then the bits behind them are angled flat plates with a small kink -- same for the tail. The overall shape is very close to the drawing in the patent but a lot easier to make -- there are other drawings in the patent which also describe this kind of manufacture but which I didn't show to Tim, I just let him come up with what he thought was the best way of building it 😉

I'm not at the boat at the moment so I don't know how the rudder is actually attached to the rudder tube, or how big diameter the tube through the hull is, or how the bottom bearing is done and attached, so I can't answer your first question 😞 It's certainly heavier than a normal rudder so would be harder to lift back in if it ever did come out of the cup, but getting *any* rudder back in can be a pig of a job anyway -- I've never had the misfortune of having this happen, if it does I'll just have to deal with it. It's certainly less likely to get bent than a normal rudder because the whole assembly is much more robust. I plan to report back on how well it works, with thrust measurements if I get the chance -- even better would be a comparison with a flat plate rudder. Better steering (especially at large rudder angles) wasn't the only reason for going this way, it also sticks out about 200mm less past the stern, and this helps if you want to get a 60' boat through a lock which is officially 57'6" long... (yes I know boats with conventional rudders have done this, in the same way as some of them also steer very well -- but it's another advantage, it means I can use a short stern button so making it less likely that I'll have to lift it up)

He doesn't want to know more, he just wants to argue that he's right by nit-picking -- and not for the first time... 😉