Which windlass is best?

[alan_fincher]

1 minute ago, magnetman said:

On ebay it says "

Est. delivery Wed, 29 Mar - Sat, 1 AprEstimated delivery Wed, 29 Mar - Sat, 1 Apr

Or free collection in person from Bourton, Dorset"

 

My mistake, it seems - I could have sworn I read something different.

 

(And I DO go to Specsavers!)

[Alway Swilby]

We have one of these. It means you always have the long throw with you when you need it.

[magnetman]

I dislike those as I see potential for damage to the paddle spindles over time. 

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, magnetman said:

I dislike those as I see potential for damage to the paddle spindles over time. 

Not just potential, since these cheap/nasty windlasses appeared a few years ago I'm sure I've seen a lot more spindles with horrible grooves and wear marks in them... 😞

[dave moore]

I totally agree. Bloody awful things...says the trad minded grumpy!!

[Rob-M]

Another one in agreement, modern square holed windlasses are bl**#y awful.

 

 

[Mike Tee]

11 minutes ago, dave moore said:

I totally agree. Bloody awful things...says the trad minded grumpy!!

^^^^^^ well that’s two of us!!

[dmr]

I've got one  does anybody want it?   found it by a lock, can't bring myself to use it, can't give it away in case somebody else uses it, but can't throw it away, so if anybody wants an ornament let me know 😀

[David Schweizer]

I have five or six traditional windlasses, but tended only to use two of them, a Cast Bronze copy of a Harry Neale Windlass, and a chrome plated double headed welded steel windlass. Both have the head set at 45 degees to the shaft, which makes them more efficient to use.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 20 by David Schweizer

[Ray T]

8 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

I have five or six traditional windlasses, but tended only to use two of them, a Cast Bronze copy of a Harry Neale Windlass, and a chrome plated double headed forged steel windlass. Both have the head set at 45 degees to the shaft, which makes them more efficient to use.

 

 

Like wot this is?

Bought from Warwickshire Fly Boat Co., Stockton Locks.

 

There is also one in the museum at Stoke Breurne.

Edited March 20 by Ray T

[David Schweizer]

1 minute ago, Ray T said:

Like wot this is?

Bought from Warwickshire Fly Boat Co., Stockton Locks.

 

 

You beat me to it whilst I was adding the photo, and yes, bought from Warwickshire Fly.

[Hudds Lad]

53 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not just potential, since these cheap/nasty windlasses appeared a few years ago I'm sure I've seen a lot more spindles with horrible grooves and wear marks in them... 😞

nasty, yes. cheap, no. still £35ish from Swindlers  

 

I like the ally ones, i'm too tight to spring for a Dunton, although i do love the look of 'em

[Jon57]

2 hours ago, Ray T said:

Like wot this is?

Bought from Warwickshire Fly Boat Co., Stockton Locks.

 

There is also one in the museum at Stoke Breurne.

Things of beauty 😍

[magnetman]

3 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

I have five or six traditional windlasses, but tended only to use two of them, a Cast Bronze copy of a Harry Neale Windlass, and a chrome plated double headed welded steel windlass. Both have the head set at 45 degees to the shaft, which makes them more efficient to use.

 

This is an interesting assertion. Why would it make a difference how the head was positioned? I also have bronze and also a chromed cast iron the same as the first one below and yes they are very nice to use but I'm struggling slightly to work out why a similar thing with the head in line with the shaft would actually be less efficient in use.

 

It is an interesting theory you have. I'd love an explanation as to why it would be the case.

 

This form of windlass clearly follows the forged wrought iron type which was made that way due to the material being used. I think you could cast one with an eye in line, it would look naff and be heavier but I can't see why it would be less efficient in use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

 

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Image upload failed. 

Edited March 20 by magnetman
edited as images did not show

[Captain Pegg]

5 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

I have five or six traditional windlasses, but tended only to use two of them, a Cast Bronze copy of a Harry Neale Windlass, and a chrome plated double headed welded steel windlass. Both have the head set at 45 degees to the shaft, which makes them more efficient to use.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting that you describe your copy as a 'Harry Neale' and I see it has some stamped mark on it.

 

May I ask what the stamping says? I have what is supposedly an original and I very rarely use it, because it's only one my seven windlasses that is precious.

[David Schweizer]

14 hours ago, magnetman said:

 

This is an interesting assertion. Why would it make a difference how the head was positioned? I also have bronze and also a chromed cast iron the same as the first one below and yes they are very nice to use but I'm struggling slightly to work out why a similar thing with the head in line with the shaft would actually be less efficient in use.

 

It is an interesting theory you have. I'd love an explanation as to why it would be the case.

 

This form of windlass clearly follows the forged wrought iron type which was made that way due to the material being used. I think you could cast one with an eye in line, it would look naff and be heavier but I can't see why it would be less efficient in use.

 

 

Over the past fifty plus years. I have used both types of windlass, and have always found that those with the head set at 45 degrees to the shaft seem to be more easy to use. I have no definitive answer as to why this should be, except that the shaft on the 45 degree ones are operating from the outside circumference of the spindle wheras the 90 degree ones are operating from inside the circumference.

 

 

13 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Interesting that you describe your copy as a 'Harry Neale' and I see it has some stamped mark on it.

 

May I ask what the stamping says? I have what is supposedly an original and I very rarely use it, because it's only one my seven windlasses that is precious.

 

The bronze windlass I not my one, but it is identical to mine. Mine has nothing stamped on it, and I have to admit, I cannot see anything stamped on the one in the photo. The reason I describe it as a copy of a Harry Neal is because Lawrence Hogg, who commissioned them, told me that the pattern used was an original Harry Neal Windlass.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21 by David Schweizer

[magnetman]

13 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

Over the past fifty plus years. I have used both types of windlass, and have always found that those with the head set at 45 degrees to the shaft seem to be more easy to use. I have no definitive answer as to why this should be, except that the shaft on the 45 degree ones are operating from the outside circumference of the spindle wheras the 90 degree ones are operating from inside the circumference.

 

 

Do you mean that the distance from your hand to the centre of the spindle is more with the original style of windlass than it would be if the head was positioned at 90 degrees and the dimensions of the finished product were the same?

 

That makes sense. You get a longer throw in a more compact size. 

I think the fact that the handle is at less than 90 degrees on the old type of windlass also helps. 

[Captain Pegg]

14 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

Over the past fifty plus years. I have used both types of windlass, and have always found that those with the head set at 45 degrees to the shaft seem to be more easy to use. I have no definitive answer as to why this should be, except that the shaft on the 45 degree ones are operating from the outside circumference of the spindle wheras the 90 degree ones are operating from inside the circumference.

 

 

 

The bronze windlass I not my one, but it is identical to mine. Mine has nothing stamped on it, and I have to admit, I cannot see anything stamped on the one in the photo. The reason I describe it as a copy of a Harry Neale is because Lawrence Hogg, who commissioned them, told me that the pattern used was an original Harry Neale Windlass.

 

 

 

I thought it looked like there was something stamped on the photo but it's irrelevant as you say there is nothing stamped on yours.

 

The reason I asked was to confirm if the name had been stamped corrrectly. Mine - of which I have no reason to doubt it's authenticity but equally no proof - is stamped NEAL and Harry Neal is how the man himself was registered at birth and baptism so I think it's the correct spelling.

[magnetman]

I was slightly intrigued by David spelling the name wrong too. 

[MtB]

On 20/03/2023 at 07:52, magnetman said:

My favourite windlass is an old hand forged single socket type which tucks in the front of my belt. 

 

The best way to avoid losing them is to shift the brain to understand that it is an important item not to be dropped. Same goes for keys. Always be 100% aware of it and just don't drop them. That way you never drop them.

 

 

It isn't that complicated. You just have to be aware of what you are doing and concentrate more. Keys in hand = do not drop keys. 

Keys in pocket = do not have hole in pocket. 

 

The same applies to centre lines. People are always saying centre lines should be short enough not to reach the propeller. This is stoopid as they are then too short to be of much use.  Better, have them a useful length and don't drop them in the water.

 

Oddly, no-one ever seem to propose the 'short enough not to reach the prop' argument to stern lines...

 

[Ray T]

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

The same applies to centre lines. People are always saying centre lines should be short enough not to reach the propeller. This is stoopid as they are then too short to be of much use.  Better, have them a useful length and don't drop them in the water.

 

Oddly, no-one ever seem to propose the 'short enough not to reach the prop' argument to stern lines...

 

Ah but, the working boaters of yore stored the motors stern line on the slide or in front of it, not hung over the tiller pin.

Albert Hollingshead.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

The same applies to centre lines. People are always saying centre lines should be short enough not to reach the propeller. This is stoopid as they are then too short to be of much use.  Better, have them a useful length and don't drop them in the water.

 

Oddly, no-one ever seem to propose the 'short enough not to reach the prop' argument to stern lines...

 

 

Except that centre lines are thrown to the bank (and fail to be caught) far more often than a stern line, which is also easier to retrieve if it drops in since it's dangling in the water next to the helmsman not halfway down the boat...

 

They're also more prone to getting swept into the water by low-hanging branches scraping along the roof, which are increasingly common with poor tree management.

 

I guess on a short boat they might be a bit too short to be useful, on a typical 57' I haven't found them to be too bad, especially if the rope end is back-spliced to make it more easily throw-able and catch-able.

 

But if you prefer a longer one, of course that's your choice... 😉

[Tacet]

15 minutes ago, Ray T said:

Ah but, the working boaters of yore stored the motors stern line on the slide or in front of it, not hung over the tiller pin.

Albert Hollingshead.

And what is that we can see on the inside dolly?  Maybe it's a strap and not a line? 

Edited March 21 by Tacet

[Lady C]

37 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

I guess on a short boat they might be a bit too short to be useful, on a typical 57' I haven't found them to be too bad, especially if the rope end is back-spliced to make it more easily throw-able and catch-able.

 

But if you prefer a longer one, of course that's your choice... 😉

 

Even on a short boat, you still need a centre line that will reach to/from a lock bollard if the steerer wishes to control the boat that way.