Anchor Geekdom

[Mr. Ed 439]

We alternate between a big CQR and an equally big Manson Boss (a horrible looking thing that reminds me of a galvanized USS Enterprise, but which squirrels down in weedy anchorages.) 

My careful planning worked for once, and it does house beautifully, but this season it developed a really vexing vice, which turned out be due to a malign interaction between the relatively thin shank and the groove in the bow roller. This groove by the way does a really good job of keeping the chain from twisting. The trouble came when the shank itself began to bed in that groove which made it very difficult to launch or stow (you have to do a little manual capsize as it comes up or down).

I fixed it by increasing the shank's width by whipping it: when asked why i've done that I tell people it's to increase the buoyancy.

What a boring post. Sorry. Shows how really boring the task I'm supposed to be doing right now is.

[Autonomous 232]

I like the buoyancy angle.

I have a HydroBubble back-up anchor that breaks down for storage.

 

[Autonomous 232]

And yes, the Boss is an ungainly looking thing. At times new anchor fever sets in and I want to replace it with a Rocna Vulcan. So far I have resisted but it may be inevitable.

[Panope 176]

 

 

[eliboat 187]

Thanks for the update Steve.  I love my Sarca Excel, and I sleep very well at night after I have set it.  Aside from my own mooring gear, I prefer to be hanging from my Excel than be tied to a mooring.  I should say that the galvanizing on my anchor started failing on the top of the shank within the first season of use.  Perhaps that's an isolated defect on my anchor.  My 30 year old Bruce that I lost, prompting me to purchase the Excel never had any issues in this regard.  

I anchor primarily in Maine, where we are blessed for the most part with wonderful dense mud.  On the occasion that I must pull into Camden (which I really dislike) I will anchor tucked into Curtis Island, which provides protection from the prevailing swell that will rearrange your galley every night.  It's a rocky bottom there and certainly not ideal for anchoring... however I have never moved outside of my anchor alarm zone while set there.  The only time I've ever had an issue was oddly enough in mud, and I was most likely due to unique circumstances.  I had fouled my prop entering the anchorage for the WoodenBoat school while on my way there to race in the Eggemoggin Reach Regatta.  I ended up anchored where I was anchored without much of a choice to move for a while, as there were boats packed in everywhere (it's a sensational experience actually).  I had to reduce scope to get a little breathing room from the Fife parked right behind me, and I think I probably held on 2:1 or less scope for a couple of nights until the Sunday after the race.  The breeze picked up then, just as I was able to secure some scuba gear to clear the mess on my prop, and I dragged quite a ways before letting out more chain.  I don't think any of this can be blamed on the Excel!  

As far as the Spade goes, I specd one out for a custom race boat project I was working on over the last couple of years, and the reason was that it could be broken down.  Obviously the AL Excel can be broken down too, however, if you wanted to weld the Spade together, that shouldn't be too difficult no?

 

-Eli

[Elegua 433]

Nice test!

I love my "genuine" Bruce. Seems to work well in Maine despite the poor test results. However I'm thinking of joining the modern anchor era with an Excell. I have a 35lb Northhill and a 28lb Fortress as alternate and kedge anchors. 

[Panope 176]

11 hours ago, eliboat said:

Thanks for the update Steve.  I love my Sarca Excel, and I sleep very well at night after I have set it.  Aside from my own mooring gear, I prefer to be hanging from my Excel than be tied to a mooring.  I should say that the galvanizing on my anchor started failing on the top of the shank within the first season of use.  Perhaps that's an isolated defect on my anchor.  My 30 year old Bruce that I lost, prompting me to purchase the Excel never had any issues in this regard.  

I anchor primarily in Maine, where we are blessed for the most part with wonderful dense mud.  On the occasion that I must pull into Camden (which I really dislike) I will anchor tucked into Curtis Island, which provides protection from the prevailing swell that will rearrange your galley every night.  It's a rocky bottom there and certainly not ideal for anchoring... however I have never moved outside of my anchor alarm zone while set there.  The only time I've ever had an issue was oddly enough in mud, and I was most likely due to unique circumstances.  I had fouled my prop entering the anchorage for the WoodenBoat school while on my way there to race in the Eggemoggin Reach Regatta.  I ended up anchored where I was anchored without much of a choice to move for a while, as there were boats packed in everywhere (it's a sensational experience actually).  I had to reduce scope to get a little breathing room from the Fife parked right behind me, and I think I probably held on 2:1 or less scope for a couple of nights until the Sunday after the race.  The breeze picked up then, just as I was able to secure some scuba gear to clear the mess on my prop, and I dragged quite a ways before letting out more chain.  I don't think any of this can be blamed on the Excel!  

As far as the Spade goes, I specd one out for a custom race boat project I was working on over the last couple of years, and the reason was that it could be broken down.  Obviously the AL Excel can be broken down too, however, if you wanted to weld the Spade together, that shouldn't be too difficult no?

 

-Eli

Thanks for the report on the Excel, Eli.

As to welding the Spade together,  I would only consider this just prior to a re-galvanizing event. 

Even then, I would proceed with great caution as any heat-treating of the shank may be negatively affected.  Also, welding may create an occlusion (trapped air gap) that might promote hidden corrosion. 

Steve

[Panope 176]

3 hours ago, Elegua said:

Nice test!

I love my "genuine" Bruce. Seems to work well in Maine despite the poor test results. However I'm thinking of joining the modern anchor era with an Excell. I have a 35lb Northhill and a 28lb Fortress as alternate and kedge anchors. 

Thanks, Elegua

I've also got a soft spot for the Bruce anchor.  I reckon if I had a 66 pounder for Panope (15,000 lbs), It would be all the anchor I would ever need.

Steve

[Fah Kiew Tu 1,453]

Nice one, Steve. And very interesting as I swapped my 15 kg CQR for a 16 kg Sarca Excel a few weeks ago. We haven't got it wet yet though - lot of moorings I can pick up locally so why bother anchoring.

The Sarca anchor is wider as well as longer - I had to add a chafing pad to my bowsprit to keep the anchor from destroying the galvanising on both. It's probably as wide as my 20 kg CQR in fact.

Good to see how well it holds.

FKT

[eliboat 187]

10 hours ago, Elegua said:

Nice test!

I love my "genuine" Bruce. Seems to work well in Maine despite the poor test results. However I'm thinking of joining the modern anchor era with an Excell. I have a 35lb Northhill and a 28lb Fortress as alternate and kedge anchors. 

I loved my Bruce In Maine mud Elegua.  While the ultimate holding power is far lower on a Bruce than with new anchor styles, it always set quickly and firmly in mud and always reset.  I ended up with a Sarca Excel simply because they had stopped manufacturing authentic Bruce anchors by the time mine decided to leave for good on a vacation to the bottom of Muscungous bay.   One of the many interesting insights Steve shed some light on in his series was the relatively poor performance of Bruce-type clone anchors vs the real thing.  

[Russell Brown 496]

I guess I need to watch the series again. When you say Bruce type anchor clones, do you mean anchors like the Rocna? I bought a Mantus (on Steve's suggestion) a few years ago and feel positive about it. I have had it not bite before, but it's probably undersized and I have used it a ton in the last 3 years.

[DDW 429]

Steve, an alternative view on the Spade two piece: the anchor shank to fluke joint is probably the highest stressed location in most any anchor. For those with a sharp angle between shank and fluke, there is a large stress riser at the corner nearest the rode. A few anchors round this into a sort of fillet which will reduce the riser, but most do not. The Spade design eliminates most of that stress riser, further, it is not dependent on the skill of the welder. As you know, the Spade does not depend on the bolt for strength, it is not a structural element: once on the bottom and set you could remove the bolt and it will stay together due to the angle of shank and socket. 

On balance, there are pros and cons to both fabrication methods but I'd not chose an anchor based on that difference. 

Keep up the good work - I can't believe the amount of time and effort you've put into this project!

[Ishmael 4,351]

32 minutes ago, Russell Brown said:

I guess I need to watch the series again. When you say Bruce type anchor clones, do you mean anchors like the Rocna? I bought a Mantus (on Steve's suggestion) a few years ago and feel positive about it. I have had it not bite before, but it's probably undersized and I have used it a ton in the last 3 years.

He is talking about anchors that look sorta like a Bruce, but with cheaper material, poor galvanizing, and design compromises like a blunt leading edge where the Bruce is quite sharp. Clones like the Lewmar Claw. Once you see it side by side with a real Bruce, the differences are quite noticeable. Steve had one episode where he tested clones of good anchors and the clones performed miserably.

 

[Panope 176]

57 minutes ago, Russell Brown said:

I guess I need to watch the series again. When you say Bruce type anchor clones, do you mean anchors like the Rocna? I bought a Mantus (on Steve's suggestion) a few years ago and feel positive about it. I have had it not bite before, but it's probably undersized and I have used it a ton in the last 3 years.

Russell,  Ishmaels' response about the copy anchor is spot on.  

Which size Mantus did you end up with?

Steve 

[Panope 176]

1 hour ago, DDW said:

Steve, an alternative view on the Spade two piece: the anchor shank to fluke joint is probably the highest stressed location in most any anchor. For those with a sharp angle between shank and fluke, there is a large stress riser at the corner nearest the rode. A few anchors round this into a sort of fillet which will reduce the riser, but most do not. The Spade design eliminates most of that stress riser, further, it is not dependent on the skill of the welder. As you know, the Spade does not depend on the bolt for strength, it is not a structural element: once on the bottom and set you could remove the bolt and it will stay together due to the angle of shank and socket. 

On balance, there are pros and cons to both fabrication methods but I'd not chose an anchor based on that difference. 

Keep up the good work - I can't believe the amount of time and effort you've put into this project!  I can't either!

DDW,  I had not considered that the 2 piece design might be a structural benefit.  Thanks for that insight. 

Taking your thoughts further, a "fillet" at the intersection of fluke and shank might cause sub-strait to collect and foul the anchor (like the wide shank base of the Manson Supreme does chronically). 

All that said, if Spade sold both versions (1 and 2 piece) and they behaved identically,  I would even pay a (small) premium for the single piece.

 Steve

[Elegua 433]

8 hours ago, Panope said:

Thanks, Elegua

I've also got a soft spot for the Bruce anchor.  I reckon if I had a 66 pounder for Panope (15,000 lbs), It would be all the anchor I would ever need.

Steve

 I have a 66lb for a 22k lbs boat. 

1 hour ago, eliboat said:

While the ultimate holding power is far lower on a Bruce than with new anchor styles, it always set quickly and firmly in mud and always reset.

I haven't experienced the low holding power...yet. I've been on shortish scope in an unexpected breeze from a bad angle in thin mud and all was okay per drag queen. Didn't sleep very well, though...

[Autonomous 232]

The Rocna I bought a while back had a negative fillet, if that makes sense. Rather than the fillet between the flukes and shank adding volume to the 90° intersection it was below the surface plane.

I got rid of it and bought a Manson Boss. 

But wait, there's more!

The Boss had dirty, chipping galvanizing. There were rust spots on the anchor after a short time in the rain and the boat was stored 100 miles inland. I wasn't the only one with this issue. It seems at least one bad batch made it through. It was replaced but only after a series of emails which became unpleasant with both the seller and distributor. Ugh.

Interestingly the new Boss was built differently from the first one. They kept it very close to the original shape but built it with fewer pieces of steel for, I assume, the sake of efficiency.

[DDW 429]

3 hours ago, Panope said:

DDW,  I had not considered that the 2 piece design might be a structural benefit.  Thanks for that insight. 

Taking your thoughts further, a "fillet" at the intersection of fluke and shank might cause sub-strait to collect and foul the anchor (like the wide shank base of the Manson Supreme does chronically). 

All that said, if Spade sold both versions (1 and 2 piece) and they behaved identically,  I would even pay a (small) premium for the single piece.

 Steve

I don't have a use for the ability to disassemble the Spade, other than it makes it cheaper to ship. That alone might justify it. The best construction ever was the original Bruce, forged out of steel in Belgium. Even when Bruce moved them to Brazil they were one piece forged steel. Most of the Bruce copies are some of the poorest construction, castings with ubiquitous flaws and warpage. A new one came with the trawler and I gave it away on the dock - I was embarrassed to have that thing on the bow. 

[Panope 176]

36 minutes ago, DDW said:

I don't have a use for the ability to disassemble the Spade, other than it makes it cheaper to ship. That alone might justify it. The best construction ever was the original Bruce, forged out of steel in Belgium. Even when Bruce moved them to Brazil they were one piece forged steel. Most of the Bruce copies are some of the poorest construction, castings with ubiquitous flaws and warpage. A new one came with the trawler and I gave it away on the dock - I was embarrassed to have that thing on the bow. 

I'll give the Bruces' construction a slightly lower rating than best.  If it had a shank of Bisalloy 80 like the Excel, the shank could be made much thinner, and maybe the Bruce would then be able to dive into the seabed and generate better holding power.

[Russell Brown 496]

12 hours ago, Panope said:

Russell,  Ishmaels' response about the copy anchor is spot on.  

Which size Mantus did you end up with?

Steve 

Pretty sure it's 13 pounds and has about 10 ft of 1/4" chain. Kept it all light for the R2AK, but it seems okay for the amount of windage the boat has at anchor.

[Autonomous 232]

On 9/23/2016 at 12:25 PM, DDW said:

I think the holes release the suction, allowing the mud to slide off.

 

On tractor buckets and backhoe buckets, you will often find weld bead run at intervals at right angles to the expected "dirt flow". It is said to be done to keep sticky dirt from sticking to the bucket - as it slides the weld bead pushes it off a little, allows air in, lets it release.

 

I wonder if you could get the same effect as the holes by doing that on the anchor fluke. It has the advantage of not weakening the anchor.

 

Just to add to your workload .

Mud tires often have similar ridges in the void between the lugs for the same purpose.

[Autonomous 232]

It looks like we're gonna get a new Mantus. I won a 40% off prize from them.

Don't really need another anchor but they have a 2 1/2# collapsible dinghy anchor I could use. Their M2 anchor looks like it would penetrate weed better than my Manson Boss.

Or I could save 60% and walk away.

[gwilcox 4]

I have long been fascinated by this thread and want to compliment Steve on the hard work and quality results.

It would be very interesting to test a Vulcan against the Spade.  I wonder if anyone has tried this? 

The Vulcan looks a lot like a Spade but has enough features of the Rocna to make predicting performance difficult. Rocna says the fluke is just the same so that is troubling - but its not exactly the same.  Also, it has large radii at the shank to fluke attachment.  I had considered that to be a plus until now but hadn't considered it could pick up mud.  One thing not discussed much here is the importance of tip weight.  I dont know if its important but Spade puts a lot of stock in it.  I noticed at the store that the Rocna and Vulcan are considerably different in this regard.  I set some similar weight anchors on the floor at the store with the tips resting on my thumb.  The Vulcan had about double the pressure on the GW thumb weight scale.

I cruised for seven years around the Pacific with an aluminium Spade. I believe it only dragged once in a thin layer of sand over a hard coral situation.  It kept the boat from disaster any number of occasions.  The aluminium did not really hold up however.  I went through two anchors due to wearing the welds away.  Anyway, the next primary anchor will be steel and the lower price of the Vulcan is certainly attractive.

[SASSAFRASS 222]

I can give the Vulcan big thumbs up.  I think it is probably pretty close to the performance of the spade.  The aluminum two piece would make a great backup that can be stowed.  I haven't looked at Steve's videos I a while to see if he ever did a Vulcan.  It seems to always pull up about the same amount of bottom as the rocna did, which is our backup stowed below.  Both are useless if not totally clean when setting.  Ironically I dug out our fisherman and put it in the other bow roller as we did end up in a couple dive the hook rock pile ancorages that it would have been the best choice.  All in all have been super happy with the no swivel Vulcan set up.  We wore the galvanizing off the blade after two years but it wasn't too bad to have it re-done with our chain.

[gwilcox 4]

Thanks Sassafrass. Your observation that both the Rocna and the Vulcan need to be clean to set would indicate the Vulcan is more similar to the Rocna then the Spade.  My Spade could be dropped with a ball of mud and set just fine anyway. Not that I did that much but I got away with it when I did.

 

[SASSAFRASS 222]

^ it's probably a bit more technical but it only takes a couple times to make it a routine.  I think super soft mud is pretty forgiving all around.  Lots of kelp or a harder pack sand etc and it needs to be clean.  After we got to warmer water we pretty much dive the hook every time.  Outside of hepi spots like La Paz, Panama City etc.  My understanding was the Vulcan and Rocna are the same blade/weight geometry with the Vulcan blade being extended to replace the roll bar.  I should note we follow the same routine when possible of backing down at 75% power bow into the prevailing wind.  It's likely in lighter air that it will dig in a bit dirty over time and rolling around with adequate scope. As a side note I still think the aluminum fortress is bar none the best non swinging hook.  

[nota 31]

In just got a T-7000 103lbs danforth deep set at a yard sale

amazing

List Price 

$2295.84  any idea why that high ?

https://www.fisheriessupply.com/danforth-anchor-deepset-ii-lightweight-anchors

list is for a TII - 7000 aka deepset2

I can't find a thing on the T-7000 original

very familiar with standard danforths and the HT models even had a older seaplane takeapart 50 lbs cast WW2 danforth as a working anchor

but no idea about what a deep set danforth or difference in a #1 and newer #2 or why the high value ?

or even the difference in deepset from the standard or HT

or the value of a very lite used T-7000 that is way bigger then I need

[socalrider 288]

3 hours ago, nota said:

In just got a T-7000 103lbs danforth deep set at a yard sale

amazing

List Price 

$2295.84  any idea why that high ?

https://www.fisheriessupply.com/danforth-anchor-deepset-ii-lightweight-anchors

list is for a TII - 7000 aka deepset2

I can't find a thing on the T-7000 original

very familiar with standard danforths and the HT models even had a older seaplane takeapart 50 lbs cast WW2 danforth as a working anchor

but no idea about what a deep set danforth or difference in a #1 and newer #2 or why the high value ?

or even the difference in deepset from the standard or HT

or the value of a very lite used T-7000 that is way bigger then I need

Holy crap - how big is your boat?!?

My dock neighbor has something like that as a stern anchor, but he's a ~120' research trawler.  Probably tough to find the buyer who has the need and is willing to buy used, but good luck!  Would be fun to see an anchor test video for her!  

[SASSAFRASS 222]

If you watch all of Steve's videos they show that the engineering of anchors has moved well past brute force weight.  Blade area and geometry are the key.  Getting a 100lbs on deck is no small feet.  

[nota 31]

no comments on the very high price for the T-7000 deep set ?

or the difference in standard, high tension , and newer the deep sets 1 or 2 ?

I see knock off's at 100lbs at about $350 and 100 lbs danforth HT about $1000

so why is the T-7000 more then DOUBLE AT $2K as it looks very similar to the standard or HT

WHAT IS IN THE ALLOY OR TREATMENT THAT DOUBLES THE PRICE OF A DEEP SET  OVER THE HT [that is all ready high priced]

 the anchor will be used as a mooring and likely pulled on every few years to check the chain and shackles

I have never had a 22lbs danforth or bigger drag set well in the coconut grove /dinner key anchorage inc hurricane andrew

SO YES IT IS OVER KILL BUT NOBODY LOST A BOAT BY USING TOO BIG AN ANCHOR OR LINES

and yes I know danforths do NOT like reverse pulls so there will be other anchors set so the big guy never gets a side pull

[Panope 176]

 

[Russell Brown 496]

I recognize that anchor! Steve recommended it to me for my small catamaran and it has been to Alaska and back a couple of times. I can't say it has always bit in right off and everywhere, but overall I'm pleased with it. Mine is a one anchor boat, so it wasn't easy to find one anchor that works everywhere.. Been through some serious blows with that thing. 

[socalrider 288]

I'm curious if results for a small anchor are equivalent to a large anchor of the same design - do all designs scale up linearly?  Or might there be some cases where, say, a small Bruce beats a small Mantus but a large Mantus beats a large Bruce... if you follow...

[IStream 1,610]

I think this is likely the case. Intuitively, holding power is a function of fluke area (size squared) and geometry. Diving power into the substrate is a function of weight (size cubed) and geometry. As you scale the size of the anchor up and down, even if the geometry is the same, the relative abilities will change but both are required to excel at Steve's tests. 

[SASSAFRASS 222]

2 hours ago, socalrider said:

I'm curious if results for a small anchor are equivalent to a large anchor of the same design - do all designs scale up linearly?  Or might there be some cases where, say, a small Bruce beats a small Mantus but a large Mantus beats a large Bruce... if you follow...

There are a couple good Practical sailer articles out there as well as Steve's awesome videos.  It seems that the new designs are using a combination of blade fluke geometry and specific location of mass.  In theory I would think these would have a uniform effectiveness in a linear up trending scale of holding power as the anchor size scales up in the same design. Older designs based more on mass alone or fluke size alone probably not as much.  I think the newer recommended sizing is also very conservative. 

[Panope 176]

Bollard Pull of the "small" test boat has been verified.

Use the data to get an idea of the holding power of anchors that have been tested with this boat, such as the recent test of the 13 lb. Mantus Anchor.  

Steve

 

 

[Panope 176]

 

[Max Rockatansky 333]

Would you please recall to me why you chose the scope of 3.5:1?

[Panope 176]

Max,  

Nothing scientific about it.  I just like to overnight in tight little coves and frequently anchor at that scope (or less) so I wanted to test similar. 

I  have also tested the larger anchors at 2.5:1 just to test the envelope.

If an anchor fails at 3:5:1, I will re-test at 5:1

I am not interested in anchors that require more than 5:1 to function.

Steve

[Max Rockatansky 333]

Thank you.

[Dogscout 43]

Just spent a valuable morning going through this thread.  Thank you Steve!

[Panope 176]

You're welcome, Dogscout

[Panope 176]

 

[Max Rockatansky 333]

Good vid as usual, @Panope

I would rather donate to you via PayPal than Patreon, if that is possible 

[Panope 176]

2 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Good vid as usual, @Panope

I would rather donate to you via PayPal than Patreon, if that is possible 

Not possible at this time, Max.  I'm out floating around now, but when I get back to civilization I'll look into setting that up.  Thanks,  Steve