Panope

Anchor Geekdom

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Russell Brown said:

Maybe I don't understand he term "tandem anchoring". Both anchor lines were led to the bow and the boat was generally between the anchors. Panope just did a video, as I now see, but I haven't watched it yet.  Panope has led me to a new world of anchoring... and it's a lot easier on my back.

 I believe that’s known, in anchor geekeryspeak [ :-) ], as a “Bahamian moor”, if I’m understanding your description correctly.  Or maybe it’s a “double bow offset”?!  Anyway, doesn’t sound like a tandem set up, from what I understand.

Per pics here: https://www.oceannavigator.com/anchoring-techniques/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Russell Brown said:

Maybe I don't understand he term "tandem anchoring". Both anchor lines were led to the bow and the boat was generally between the anchors. Panope just did a video, as I now see, but I haven't watched it yet.  Panope has led me to a new world of anchoring... and it's a lot easier on my back.

Ah. So you have been lying to two anchors, not in tandem. Watch the video, it makes everything clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tandem video was very enlightening. I have considered in the past that I would deploy a tandem anchor if I was caught out in weather but this has turned me off of the idea.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

 I believe that’s known, in anchor geekeryspeak [ :-) ], as a “Bahamian moor”, if I’m understanding your description correctly.  Or maybe it’s a “double bow offset”?!  Anyway, doesn’t sound like a tandem set up, from what I understand.

Per pics here: https://www.oceannavigator.com/anchoring-techniques/

I've never seen that nomenclature. I suspect they just made it up, as we often have to when there is no common agreement.

For clarity, I refer to what they call double bow in line as an in-line tandem. More commonly, it is just called a tandem. What they refer to as double bow offset I just call V anchoring. Several magazine editors have accepted that and I was never questioned about it. But English and nomenclature are fluid.

A Bahamian moor is then logically a subset of V-tandem.

Another subdivision, and the reason I coined the term, is that it can make sense to place two anchors on the same main rode, with a sub-rode splitting into a V of either near zero length (see piggyback, post 793) or much longer (10-30 feet) (V-tandem?). These methods are both used on platforms, by the Navy, and by sailors.

So there are really 4 variations on a V from the bow, all of which are used, some for oil rigs. That makes for confusing nomenclature. Suggestions for clarification are welcome.

---

BTW, setting the double bow offset with equal rode lengths, as shown, is a great way to foul anchors. One of the rodes should be shorter so that they don't drag into each other if one gives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Bahamian moor" nomenclature is quite common and has been used for many decades. In the Bahamas, there are some serious tide reversals in some of the cuts, and not much room. The classic Bahamian moor is two anchors set at 180 deg, and active and a passive depending on tide, but the name has come to include two anchors set on two rodes, which might be partial (shackled together on the bottom) or complete (to the bow). 

I'd think that shackling them together close to one of the shanks would help the roll out problem, but might be the cause of many fouling problems. The farther anchor's rode necessarily must cross the near anchor if there is much veering. Like tandem anchoring, you'd still have the far anchor undiminished in holding power. Perhaps it should be the big one. 

But: if you are willing to have say two 35 lbs anchors and the rode and windlass to handle them, how much better off would you be with a 70 lb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second the common use of ‘Bahamian Moor’ for opposed anchors. I have never heard another term. (Tandem is in-line, as far as I always knew.)

Current sets something like 4kt or better in the pictured channel

9348311C-6A57-47A7-8EC4-BFCF83B602D3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DDW said:

The "Bahamian moor" nomenclature is quite common and has been used for many decades. In the Bahamas, there are some serious tide reversals in some of the cuts, and not much room. The classic Bahamian moor is two anchors set at 180 deg, and active and a passive depending on tide, but the name has come to include two anchors set on two rodes, which might be partial (shackled together on the bottom) or complete (to the bow). 

I'd think that shackling them together close to one of the shanks would help the roll out problem, but might be the cause of many fouling problems. The farther anchor's rode necessarily must cross the near anchor if there is much veering. Like tandem anchoring, you'd still have the far anchor undiminished in holding power. Perhaps it should be the big one. 

But: if you are willing to have say two 35 lbs anchors and the rode and windlass to handle them, how much better off would you be with a 70 lb?

The simpler the better.

Sometimes though two anchors are good to reduce swing room for shorter periods of anchoring, I used it to good effect for a month in one bay on a 57 footer in the Carrib. I'd really recommend being able to see both anchors and rode.

Once in deep water in an outer anchorage the anchors weren't visible.  I got three full 360 degree wraps  that were quite hard to untangle even though I thought the wind had been consistently from one quarter of the compass . If it had been an emergency we would have had to  jettison both sets of ground tackle to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A type of veering we have not considered is the regular, cyclical veering known as yawing. Many boats are bad for this, and even moderate cases can halve anchor holding by increasing rode tension and wiggling the anchor. A V-anchor arraignment stops this.

 

An advantage of joining the two rodes away from the roller and NOT terminating both rodes in the locker is that they don't tangle if the boat swings. I've watched my boat circle more than a dozen times in a tidal creek without a tangle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My boat yaws quite actively but it only seems to swing about 10' on either side of zero with a period of about 60 seconds. At my typical ~3:1 rode length of 75 feet, that's only about +/- 7.5 degrees variation. I'd be amazed if that small amount of swing at that slow a frequency caused any significant loss of holding power with my 80 lb Mantus. In fact, in the mud bottoms around here, I could see it increasing holding power over time by helping the anchor to bury deeper.

Only testing would tell, of course. but I'm not sweating it in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My boat dances quite a bit in breeze. Before I added 200ft of chain it wasn't uncommon for me to be yawing 30°+ side to side at ~1.5kts. With the chain it's a bit more tame.

I'm planning on making a riding sail to stick on one side of the split backstay to calm things down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2015 at 1:19 AM, Whinging Pom said:

Please explain where the tide changes direction instantly at 3.5 Kts. Thank you.

Salt water tide change - about these speed in both directions (but I’m not sure it’s exactly a 3.5 kt instant change :-) )

And - no one anchors here :-). But you asked... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 12:39 PM, Russell Brown said:

Maybe I don't understand he term "tandem anchoring". Both anchor lines were led to the bow and the boat was generally between the anchors. Panope just did a video, as I now see, but I haven't watched it yet.  Panope has led me to a new world of anchoring... and it's a lot easier on my back.

afaik, "tandem anchoring" is supposed to mean both anchors on the same rode, but i might be wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IStream said:

My boat yaws quite actively but it only seems to swing about 10' on either side of zero with a period of about 60 seconds. At my typical ~3:1 rode length of 75 feet, that's only about +/- 7.5 degrees variation. I'd be amazed if that small amount of swing at that slow a frequency caused any significant loss of holding power with my 80 lb Mantus. In fact, in the mud bottoms around here, I could see it increasing holding power over time by helping the anchor to bury deeper.

Only testing would tell, of course. but I'm not sweating it in the meantime.

It would not. I could not measure loss <30 degrees and the increase in rode tension is small. The trouble starts at about 45 degrees total and become serious starting at about 60 degrees. But I've seen boats zig more than 100 degrees. I remember taking pictures of a bad one from a kayak; I had to really paddle to keep up! He ended up on the beach a month later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, climenuts said:

My boat dances quite a bit in breeze. Before I added 200ft of chain it wasn't uncommon for me to be yawing 30°+ side to side at ~1.5kts. With the chain it's a bit more tame.

I'm planning on making a riding sail to stick on one side of the split backstay to calm things down.

Look at V-riding sails. FAR more effective and much more stable in high winds, in my experience. A diamond over an elevated boom is also very effective, perhaps even better.

Riding Sails.

This one is from Banner Bay. I tested one, very nice, very effective.

5a.+fin+delta+riding+sail.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thinwater said:

Look at V-riding sails. FAR more effective and much more stable in high winds, in my experience. A diamond over an elevated boom is also very effective, perhaps even better.

Riding Sails.

This one is from Banner Bay. I tested one, very nice, very effective.

5a.+fin+delta+riding+sail.jpg

 

From what I've read the asymmetric options are much more stable than the delta's or V's. While very effective at re-centering the boat the V's and Delta's need the boat to have yaw to develop a righting force which lets the boat continue to oscillate at a reduced magnitude.

The asymmetric options which are basically one side of the V's keep the boat balanced with a slight yaw to one side when cross sheeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, climenuts said:

My boat dances quite a bit in breeze. Before I added 200ft of chain it wasn't uncommon for me to be yawing 30°+ side to side at ~1.5kts. With the chain it's a bit more tame.

I wonder if the "Winch Bridle" technique would help?  From the Ocean Navigator article mentioned above:

anchor3.jpg.6c06f23ccc230458411cb5f7ebd2e137.jpg

Might get fouled when wind and current go slack?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used that technique.  Proa has it right, it works like a charm until the wind dies.  I'm my case, it took a while to untangle the mess after the wind died overnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 7:15 AM, climenuts said:

My boat dances quite a bit in breeze. Before I added 200ft of chain it wasn't uncommon for me to be yawing 30°+ side to side at ~1.5kts. With the chain it's a bit more tame.

I'm planning on making a riding sail to stick on one side of the split backstay to calm things down.

A storm jib can do double duty as a riding sail.

Although not often practical most sailboats are totally docile when anchored from the stern.

Anchoring bridles are also really useful for getting the bow into the swell to reduce the roll. Use a chain claw that falls off freely rather than hitching the rope to the chain makes retrieval much simpler.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's a charter boat one to one scope not sure yawing will have any effect on your hook other than maybe chaffe on the snubber.  If the boat sails on the hook for sure, but that's why you never anchor next to cats...

 

Our bow tends to blow down in gusts, used to use a bridle from the bow hause holes but it doesn't ride well, have always went off the bow roller since and it much happier that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SASSAFRASS said:

that's why you never anchor next to cats...

Y’know, I get really tired of leaner owners dragging out the same lame tropes when my personal observation over these last years is that it is the leaners doing all the hunting at anchor. Y’all get all the current effects and none of you have any idea WTF a bridle is. It frightens me especially to be next to a Hunterbenelina; holy fuckfarts those things swing like a 60s couple.

Dont throw stones from your glass house. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Y’know, I get really tired of leaner owners dragging out the same lame tropes when my personal observation over these last years is that it is the leaners doing all the hunting at anchor. Y’all get all the current effects and none of you have any idea WTF a bridle is. It frightens me especially to be next to a Hunterbenelina; holy fuckfarts those things swing like a 60s couple.

Dont throw stones from your glass house. 

Yep. I swear I've had some Med charters where we've done more sailing in the anchorage than the entire rest of the trip.

Blasting madly around the anchorage during evening thunderstorms and then motoring in a flat calm to the next anchorage to repeat.

I put it down to dock queen windage and crappy ground tackle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Panope said:

 

I'm sure the video is great Steve, as usual, but 53+ minutes long!?  Sorry but TLDW, only for the super dedicated.  Is there a short version?

P.S.  Watching at two times normal speed works rather well.

double_speed.jpg.0fa7ace04429ee15a9c577e1f1f805ab.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just cut to the last five minutes for his conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Y’know, I get really tired of leaner owners dragging out the same lame tropes when my personal observation over these last years is that it is the leaners doing all the hunting at anchor. Y’all get all the current effects and none of you have any idea WTF a bridle is. It frightens me especially to be next to a Hunterbenelina; holy fuckfarts those things swing like a 60s couple.

Dont throw stones from your glass house. 

LOL!

My cat is probably the LEAST active swinger when I use a proper bridle, though I notice many cats are now being rigged with stupid-short under tramp bridles (the legs should be attached to the bows and be greater in length than the beam , which they are not). And those are probably the boats he (perhaps correctly) noticed. Cats with boards up can also swing.

I actually measured one AWB with a dinghy on the bow and a rope rode swinging though 130 degrees. I was taking sites from a kayak with a hand bearing compass. It was hard to keep up with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ProaSailor said:

I'm sure the video is great Steve, as usual, but 53+ minutes long!?  Sorry but TLDW, only for the super dedicated.  Is there a short version?

P.S.  Watching at two times normal speed works rather well.

double_speed.jpg.0fa7ace04429ee15a9c577e1f1f805ab.jpg

Anchor GEEKDOM!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Y’know, I get really tired of leaner owners dragging out the same lame tropes when my personal observation over these last years is that it is the leaners doing all the hunting at anchor. Y’all get all the current effects and none of you have any idea WTF a bridle is. It frightens me especially to be next to a Hunterbenelina; holy fuckfarts those things swing like a 60s couple.

Dont throw stones from your glass house. 

All in jest, there seems to be no correlation between scary neighbors at anchor and the boats they are on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ran a Baltic 51 thru the Med for a year - NO anchor windlass, so had to use rope, short chain & lighter anchors. Almost always in even moderately popular anchorages I'd set two anchors to limit swing. Had 40 lb bruce as primary, 2 x 40 lb Danforths as 2ndaries. Would set primary to prevailing wind, then take out 2nd on dinghy for expected wind shift or neighbors. This did not add much effort once a good technique/storage system was figured out. And remember, anchoring 'space requirements" in the Med are completely different than US. 

   Actually had 3 anchors down once on the Istrian coast for a Bora which during passage would have major wind shift (think hurricane). Turned out very good, as at zero dark hundred a German powerboat started dragging, got their windlass breaker tripped & crashed into us. I was able to just hand them the slack 3rd anc & get them off me & securely anchored through the rest of the night. Went over in the morning & figgered out that they had borrowed daddy's boat & did not know of the breaker at all. It was on lower control station & they had only been using flybridge controls. Cheap bastards only gave me one bottle of wine.   

   In the Med, if two boats contact at night, they just raft up - no one re-anchors 

The rare times I had full twists in the rodes it was pretty simple to cast off all of on line into the water & run the bitter end around to un twist. Or tie a fender to end & throw it all over, pick up one, come back & pick up 2nd. Or use dink to pick up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panope said:

Anchor GEEKDOM!!

!!!

When I write, I usually get reader comments both that there should have been more data, and that I dug too far into data (just wanted a quick answer). In the end, the editor decides how far down the rabbit hole to go. Personally, I love your work, and If I want to scan forward, obviously I can.

A short answer on anchors or anchoring... is a superficial answer that is wrong a good part of the time. That's just the way it is!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, to those of you who have a Spade, what is the diameter of the hole at the front of the anchor? Can you pass an 8mm retrieval line through it?

Also, for a Pogo 36 the Spade website recommends the S60 (9.5Kg). The Pogo is a 10.9m and 4000 kg boat, isn't that too light? They made a mistake?

Thanks!

Spade.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mais78 said:

Also, for a Pogo 36 the Spade website recommends the S60 (9.5Kg). The Pogo is a 10.9m and 4000 kg boat, isn't that too light? They made a mistake?

The Pogo is a light boat.  4000kg is about what a 30-footer weighed in 1970.  But it's also a much more bulky boat than most 1970s 36-footers.  

I have never really understood how to calculate anchor loads.  I resume that it is some combination of boat weight, windage and expected motion ... but I have only the haziest idea of how they interact.   For example, a boat barely floating, with almost nothing above the water, would be almost immune from wind forces, so loads would come from waves or current.  Or a very light boat might have lots of windage, generating a massive load in high winds.  Or a boat which sailed a lot o anchor could generate huge shock loads.

I presume that people much wiser than me have researched and calculated some of these issues.  Does anyone know of any technically-reputable publications?  Or are anchor sizes just being decided on a trial-and-error basis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Pogo is actually 3800 Kg but I am rounding up for full cruising displacement. This is the sizing chart from the UK distributor of the Spade. According to the table the S60/9.5Kg is good up until 7.5m of boat length and 3500 Kg. The Pogo 36 exceeds both measures.

I would not assume that they did any complicated test for all the boats in their database. Maybe S60 because the Pogo has a very shallow and flat hull? 

559817930_Spade2.thumb.jpg.fa5801a0af1b73f8db2bca05623d5a75.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No perfect science on anchor sizing. 

An S60 Spade will work fine - Until it doesn't.

If I had a Pogo 36, I would want an S80.  Minimum.

Steve

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve, the yard puts the S80 on the Pogo 44 as standard, while on the 36 standard is the Fob Rock 14kg, but I would like to put either a Spade or a Rocna.

Do you happen to know the diameter of the hole in the Spade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mais78 said:

Hi guys, to those of you who have a Spade, what is the diameter of the hole at the front of the anchor? Can you pass an 8mm retrieval line through it?

Also, for a Pogo 36 the Spade website recommends the S60 (9.5Kg). The Pogo is a 10.9m and 4000 kg boat, isn't that too light? They made a mistake?

Thanks!

Spade.jpg

On 1/16/2021 at 12:31 PM, Panope said:

Anchor GEEKDOM!!

Length and area matte more than displacement.  I've measured the rode tension on many boats, and it is mostly about projected area (weight seems like it could tug more, but is also dams waves).

 

I think I would go up one size, and I'm a multihull guy that likes minimal ground tackle. I had a Manson 35 on my 34', 4500 kg catamaran, and it was just barely enough in soft mud. The rode also matters. If all-chain (I'm guessing not) you can go lighter, but if you use rope to save weight (smart on a Pogo), then a few more pounds in the anchor won't be wrong.

 

You can also consider an Alloy Spade or Excel (up one size) if you will be anchoring exclusively in good sand and mud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, not all chain. I am getting 25m of 8mm chain and 30m of 14mm rope. And It is mostly rocks and poseidonia  around my home port.

Would you get the Spade over the Rocna? Which works best on a shorter scope? The Med goes deep quite quickly.

Thanks  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aluminum Spade is what we heave used on our boat, which weighs 11,000# fully loaded. It’s held in 60+ knot gusts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mais78 said:

Thanks Steve, the yard puts the S80 on the Pogo 44 as standard, while on the 36 standard is the Fob Rock 14kg, but I would like to put either a Spade or a Rocna.

Do you happen to know the diameter of the hole in the Spade?

Tripping line holes in both of my SPADE anchors are imperfect circles. 

That said, a 7/16" drill bit will pass through the hole in the S60.

Oddly, the hole in the larger S100 is somewhat smaller.  13/32" drill bit is the largest that will pass.

The S80 that I owned briefly, was not measured prior to trading it away (for the S60).

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Panope said:

Tripping line holes in both of my SPADE anchors are imperfect circles. 

That said, a 7/16" drill bit will pass through the hole in the S60.

Oddly, the hole in the larger S100 is somewhat smaller.  13/32" drill bit is the largest that will pass.

The S80 that I owned briefly, was not measured prior to trading it away (for the S60).

Steve

Thanks Steve, seems like an 8mm rope should pass through the hole of both. How would you set up the tripping line? Line directly through the hole or a shackle through the hole and line attached to it?

May I know why you traded away the S80 for the S60?

thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hole is not very smooth, so kinda unfriendly for the line.  But it will only be pulled tight once in a lifetime, so keep it simple - tie it on with a bowline.

Traded S80 for S60 because a friend needed a bigger anchor and I needed smaller for testing against other small anchors.

I originally picked up the S80 on Craigslist for 60 or 70 bucks (seller did not know what he had). Was a bit corroded.  My friends S60 was brand new.

We both won. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve. Great trade!!

How do you find the Spade on a shorter than ideal scope (less than 3:1)? Not unusual in the Med when the sea becomes deep very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mais78 said:

Thanks Steve. Great trade!!

How do you find the Spade on a shorter than ideal scope (less than 3:1)? Not unusual in the Med when the sea becomes deep very quickly.

All of my 2.5:1 testing was conducted with heavy (BBB) all chain rode in 26 feet depth, with no "higher power" holding testing, and only at the "sandy mud" and "loose sand and gravel" test sites.  

That said, the Spade (and some other anchors) set and reset perfectly at 2.5:1.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve. Had read somewhere that the Rocna performs better than Spade with a shorter scope.

I just spoke to the company seeking clarification regarding their database: they stand by their claim that the S60 is the one to go for the Pogo 36. They say the most important factor is the weight of the boat. They also said to ignore the sizing chart that says the S60 is good up to 3,500kg, they say it is fit for purpose until 5,000 kg. 
Still 9.5kg fees small for 36 feet. One side of me wants to keep boat light and get S60, other side the S80 to be safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mais78 said:

Thanks Steve. Had read somewhere that the Rocna performs better than Spade with a shorter scope.

I just spoke to the company seeking clarification regarding their database: they stand by their claim that the S60 is the one to go for the Pogo 36. They say the most important factor is the weight of the boat. They also said to ignore the sizing chart that says the S60 is good up to 3,500kg, they say it is fit for purpose until 5,000 kg. 
Still 9.5kg fees small for 36 feet. One side of me wants to keep boat light and get S60, other side the S80 to be safer.

In my "soft mud" test at 5:1 scope (mostly rope rode), the S60 dragged repeatedly at less than 300 lbs.

If you can be sure that your anchor will ALWAYS be in a perfect substrate, with lots of scope, and no foreign debris, then a tiny anchor is great.

Personally, I can NEVER be sure of all that, so I carry a big anchor.

Steve

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve. I would add that 15kg for 36feet does not sound oversized at all in any case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Panope said:

In my "soft mud" test at 5:1 scope (mostly rope rode), the S60 dragged repeatedly at less than 300 lbs.

If you can be sure that your anchor will ALWAYS be in a perfect substrate, with lots of scope, and no foreign debris, then a tiny anchor is great.

Personally, I can NEVER be sure of all that, so I carry a big anchor.

Steve

I think you have done the boating community a great service.  Do you switch anchors depending on the bottom or go with your favorite and see if it will work?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the rare occasions when an anchor does not set, moving to a different spot (deeper, over a bit, etc) always has worked.  So, no real need to switch.

(I cannot recall the Spade S100 not setting or dragging - in real use or testing -  EVER.)

Other, more worldly cruisers would know better, but I believe my cruising area (salish sea) has somewhat easy anchoring conditions: Good holding, protected anchorages, light prevailing summertime winds, virtually zero thunder storms.

There can be a LOT of weed in the shallows.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with the easy conditions in the PNW. I haven't quite figured out if the easy conditions breeds incompetent anchoring or if incompetent anchorers just don't survive in other parts of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all easy peasy until that squall comes through the anchorage and thins the herd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2021 at 2:49 PM, Panope said:

On the rare occasions when an anchor does not set, moving to a different spot (deeper, over a bit, etc) always has worked.  So, no real need to switch.

(I cannot recall the Spade S100 not setting or dragging - in real use or testing -  EVER.)

Other, more worldly cruisers would know better, but I believe my cruising area (salish sea) has somewhat easy anchoring conditions: Good holding, protected anchorages, light prevailing summertime winds, virtually zero thunder storms.

There can be a LOT of weed in the shallows.

Steve

Anchoring is like real estate, location, location, location.  I have extensively cruised the Northeast of the US since a little kid. Growing up and on my prior boat, we always used a CQR and lots of scope. We always dug it in, backing down on it with full RPM. If it didn't set, we would reset the anchor, about 10-20% of the time.  Weathered many a squall, current changes and wind shifts. We never dragged.  Not once in over 40 years.  Once can't deny the experience, but it is limited to the places we anchored. One can't deny the data that you have generated either.  My current boat came with Bruce that was a bit undersized and a big Fortress. I chose a Rocna Vulcan in part based on your testing.  I have only used it a couple of times and was very happy. It did set faster than my CQR experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when you include cqr, never dragged and 40 years all in the same shpeel you will get a little skepticism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SASSAFRASS said:

I think when you include cqr, never dragged and 40 years all in the same shpeel you will get a little skepticism.

I can understand that, however it’s the truth. We never considered the anchor set unless it could handle full rpms in reverse. In the places we anchored, it was an excellent anchor. We always set at least 7:1 scope. Frequently 10:1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gn4478 said:

I can understand that, however it’s the truth. We never considered the anchor set unless it could handle full rpms in reverse. In the places we anchored, it was an excellent anchor. We always set at least 7:1 scope. Frequently 10:1. 

Hell, an electric range will set at 10:1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In shallow water that scope sounds very reasonable, I'm guessing they always tried for the 15' low water range, know lots who do the same.  We almost always put min 150' and if possible are 15-25'. In the PNW usually not a option lucky to get 30' but lots of other places especially river entrances etc not a issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I dragged into the neighbors I’d expect that would make them madder than swing, but then my primary anchoring goal is to not have neighbors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BOI Guy said:

So in 10m water you going to swing nearly 200m circle, must piss off the neighbors. 

Where we anchor, depth is in the 10-15 ft range. Draft was less than 6 ft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Hell, an electric range will set at 10:1. 

Which is a good reason to use 10:1 scope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gn4478 said:

Where we anchor, depth is in the 10-15 ft range. Draft was less than 6 ft. 

Was this somewhere with a low tide range?

The maths of scope get a lot more complex when anchoring in bigger tide ranges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Was this somewhere with a low tide range?

The maths of scope get a lot more complex when anchoring in bigger tide ranges

About 5 ft Where we usually sail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SASSAFRASS said:

I think when you include cqr, never dragged and 40 years all in the same shpeel you will get a little skepticism.

We never had a problem with our CQR and that a 20k boat on a 35lb anchor. We went as far as the North side of Newfoundland. I think the only place we dragged was Martha's Vinyard and the Danforth Hi-tensile put a stop to that.  We only had 10, maybe 15', of chain and the rest was nylon rode. 

I can't explain it. By modern standards we should be dead in a flaming pile on a lee shore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Elegua said:

We never had a problem with our CQR and that a 20k boat on a 35lb anchor. We went as far as the North side of Newfoundland. I think the only place we dragged was Martha's Vinyard and the Danforth Hi-tensile put a stop to that.  We only had 10, maybe 15', of chain and the rest was nylon rode. 

I posted this above somewhere, but I found it interesting anchoring data (as I contemplate heading south one day).  70 days in Patagonia: anchoring systems used 

This is just a 1-page screenshot of the 4-page doc:

They seem to have had success with their CQR - but perhaps it was on the bigger side.  Their frequency of using shorelines probably contributed greatly :-)

12A8A73D-CEF9-4554-AE4F-72EFDD6B9556.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Elegua said:

We never had a problem with our CQR and that a 20k boat on a 35lb anchor. We went as far as the North side of Newfoundland. I think the only place we dragged was Martha's Vinyard and the Danforth Hi-tensile put a stop to that.  We only had 10, maybe 15', of chain and the rest was nylon rode. 

We frequently anchored in vineyard haven to the north of the breakwater and in edgartown harbor, inside Katama. 2014 was anchored in Vineyard haven in about 15 ft of water. I had 120 ft of chain with a 45 lb cqr on my 29000 lb Bristol 43.3. Wind was from SW.  a cold front came. Winds of 40 kn with a shift to the north. Totally exposed. No issues. Other boats were dragging. A friend of mine That night was anchored outside in cuttyhunk. He had a delta with rope/chain. He dragged, fouled other anchors.  Cluster fuck and hit a breakwater. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't explain any of it. The objective testing pretty consistently says it's shite. I would only use it for a lawn ornament now.  I have another anchor, a genuine Bruce, that also tests horribly, but I've also never had an issue with it. I've had some sleepless nights watching to see if it moved and the rocks off my transom, but it never budged.  I'm planning on moving to a Spade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We (my Father and I) used a CQR for 10 years.  Never dragged (much) but sometimes was difficult to set. Was holding firm in one of those 60 kt. Santa anna winds (Baja) when the rode (rope) parted (chafe at boat).

I think a CQR is a fine anchor in some seabeds.  Shitty in others.

Lost CQR was replaced with a 33lb. Bruce (15K lb. Boat) and used for another 10 years.  Setting was noticeably faster/better.  Never dragged, but I do not recall ever being exposed to much wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 12:41 PM, thinwater said:

A short answer on anchors or anchoring... is a superficial answer that is wrong a good part of the time. That's just the way it is!

 

On 1/17/2021 at 4:56 AM, TwoLegged said:

I have never really understood how to calculate anchor loads.  I resume that it is some combination of boat weight, windage and expected motion ... but I have only the haziest idea of how they interact.... 

I presume that people much wiser than me have researched and calculated some of these issues.  Does anyone know of any technically-reputable publications?  Or are anchor sizes just being decided on a trial-and-error basis?

Classic multivariate regression analysis problem. You have many variables, more variables than equations for solving them; you have independent variables and dependent variables. Often the approach is to weight the variables by relative importance, then to start subtracting the most influential variables one at a time to study the effect of lesser contributors, and to get a single answer for a given array. This sort of works ... sometimes. You might at least get a probabilistic spread that says "Most boats in most conditions will hold most of the time in most bottoms with an anchor of  type W of weight X with rode Y using scope Z."  

When researchers want to test for, say, the effectiveness of a cancer treatment, either prospectively or retrospectively, they can either tightly control for variables in selecting the cadre (all people of the same sex, age, cancer type, stage, baseline health, etc), or they can opt for a larger sample group and try to minimize or eliminate the effects of variation within the sample by identifying, weighting, and controlling for each variable until the last one standing is "took/did not take  PARP inhibitor". If, all other things being equal (or equalized), YesPARPS live longer than NoPARPs, you have some measure of the drug's effectiveness. You have to show your work, your methodology will be viciously assailed, but that's life as a researcher.:lol:

This is not easy. My sister, who is an actuary, does this sort of thing every day. You can crunch numbers for five hours on powerful modeling computers; alter one weighting value by a fourth decimal place; re-run the model, and get spectacularly different results. I think that's why anchoring discussions are prone to both wild-ass guesses (based on past experience, gut instinct, what some old bloke told me in a pub, and  weird tribal allegiance) and super-granular analysis of things like HT vs. BBB chain (elastic behaviors of).

Naturally, we want something a bit more definite. But in complex, dynamic, interactive feedback systems with lots of unknowns and exponential forces, reductive analyses and probabilistic forecasts are the best that can be done. From practical experiments like Steve's we generate heuristics, and we apply safety factors, and we hope. :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Diarmuid said:

 

Classic multivariate regression analysis problem. You have many variables, more variables than equations for solving them; you have independent variables and dependent variables. Often the approach is to weight the variables by relative importance, then to start subtracting the most influential variables one at a time to study the effect of lesser contributors, and to get a single answer for a given array. This sort of works ... sometimes. You might at least get a probabilistic spread that says "Most boats in most conditions will hold most of the time in most bottoms with an anchor of  type W of weight X with rode Y using scope Z."  

When researchers want to test for, say, the effectiveness of a cancer treatment, either prospectively or retrospectively, they can either tightly control for variables in selecting the cadre (all people of the same sex, age, cancer type, stage, baseline health, etc), or they can opt for a larger sample group and try to minimize or eliminate the effects of variation within the sample by identifying, weighting, and controlling for each variable until the last one standing is "took/did not take  PARP inhibitor". If, all other things being equal (or equalized), YesPARPS live longer than NoPARPs, you have some measure of the drug's effectiveness. You have to show your work, your methodology will be viciously assailed, but that's life as a researcher.:lol:

This is not easy. My sister, who is an actuary, does this sort of thing every day. You can crunch numbers for five hours on powerful modeling computers; alter one weighting value by a fourth decimal place; re-run the model, and get spectacularly different results. I think that's why anchoring discussions are prone to both wild-ass guesses (based on past experience, gut instinct, what some old bloke told me in a pub, and  weird tribal allegiance) and super-granular analysis of things like HT vs. BBB chain (elastic behaviors of).

Naturally, we want something a bit more definite. But in complex, dynamic, interactive feedback systems with lots of unknowns and exponential forces, reductive analyses and probabilistic forecasts are the best that can be done. From practical experiments like Steve's we generate heuristics, and we apply safety factors, and we hope. :)

And in clinical research, if you develop a multivariate model that explains 40% of the variance of the data, it’s exciting!  The real issue is that the testing conditions don’t replicate how I set my CQR, and the time the anchor has to set prior to a veer or 180. The tests do show exactly what they show. Why did I buy a Vulcan for my new boat? Instead of taking 15-20 min to get my CQR set sufficiently, my Vulcan seems to set more quickly and that lets me make the dark and stormy sooner. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Diarmuid said:

Naturally, we want something a bit more definite. But in complex, dynamic, interactive feedback systems with lots of unknowns and exponential forces, reductive analyses and probabilistic forecasts are the best that can be done. From practical experiments like Steve's we generate heuristics, and we apply safety factors, and we hope. :)

Thanks, @Diarmuid.  That's a very thoughtful reply.  Maths is not my field, but that process of isolating variables is familiar to what most of us do various ways in our daily lives.  The problem here is, as you say, that there are so many variables.

Steve's experiments are very valuable, because of his sheer persistence in systematic testing.  It seems to go way beyond what anyone has done before, repeatedly fixing a set of variables and comparing how a wide range of anchors handles that set of variables.

It would be great to have some team of researchers extending Steve's  approach to test many more variables.  But it's hard to see where the resources would come from, since there is no great commercial interest in developing more comprehensive scientific theories of small boat anchoring.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2021 at 4:59 PM, Panope said:

We (my Father and I) used a CQR for 10 years.  Never dragged (much) but sometimes was difficult to set. Was holding firm in one of those 60 kt. Santa anna winds (Baja) when the rode (rope) parted (chafe at boat).

I think a CQR is a fine anchor in some seabeds.  Shitty in others.

Lost CQR was replaced with a 33lb. Bruce (15K lb. Boat) and used for another 10 years.  Setting was noticeably faster/better.  Never dragged, but I do not recall ever being exposed to much wind.

Steve, can you please clarify something in your video #95? 

At 46:30 you say the Excel performed the worst in soft mud. At 51:10 you say the Excel was among the very best in soft mud. What did I misunderstood?

Thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mais78 said:

Steve, can you please clarify something in your video #95? 

At 46:30 you say the Excel performed the worst in soft mud. At 51:10 you say the Excel was among the very best in soft mud. What did I misunderstood?

Thanks!

 

It was the 17 pound Excel the failed in the soft mud.  The 48 pound Excel was among the best (but not as good as a 10 pound Fortress).

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2021 at 1:24 PM, Diarmuid said:

....

Naturally, we want something a bit more definite. But in complex, dynamic, interactive feedback systems with lots of unknowns and exponential forces, reductive analyses and probabilistic forecasts are the best that can be done. From practical experiments like Steve's we generate heuristics, and we apply safety factors, and we hope. :)

What an excellent summation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panope said:

It was the 17 pound Excel the failed in the soft mud.  The 48 pound Excel was among the best (but not as good as a 10 pound Fortress).

Steve.

Interestingly, I've done repeated testing of a light aluminum Excel #2 (4.5kg) in soft mud and it performed considerably better on a weight basis than other steel anchors that performed well for you. Perhaps a steel Excel would have done even better. The primary advantage seems to be that this mud is rather trashy (sticks and shells) and the clean design of the Excel prevented fouling and allowed deeper setting, compared to other anchors that would have junk pile on the roll bar, inhibiting deeper setting.

Different soft mud.

There is one beach I commonly anchor off (very fine sand--super holding) that reveals an interesting characteristic of the alloy Excel that I don't know quite what to make of. When set lightly (my F-24 has only about 35 pounds of reverse thrust) the anchor sets instantly, but hardly buries at all. Northill and Mantus anchors dig in more deeply. The tip rotates very easily if the boat yaws much, and as such feels insecure. BUT it will never come out, because it stays straight, rotates well as you demonstrated, and it will out hold both of these anchors (winched against each other) by 15-25%, even though they are both about 30% heavier (~ 150% more hold on a mass basis). As you noted, it does not move forward appreciably when it rotates. In summary, it rotates not just more stability, but also more freely (less side force). The opposite of the Fortress, which is stable until it flips.

 

In the softer bottoms, during a storm where you have buried some chain, this would be less noticeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panope said:

It was the 17 pound Excel the failed in the soft mud.  The 48 pound Excel was among the best (but not as good as a 10 pound Fortress).

Steve.

Got it, thanks, did not catch that in the video! The 10 pound/4.5Kg fortress is actually the anchor I am getting as back up for my Pogo 36 (main one will be Spade S80/S60), as recommended by the yard, along with a 40m Liros weighted line. Does 4.5Kg feels too light for this boat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mantus owners, and the Steve's of Panope fame that have tested Mantus M1 anchors....I am interested on your thoughts on the following:

Their is an Aussie over on the UK YBW Forum whom says the following about the Mantus:

"I'd discount a Mantus, it has the same hold as a Delta and probably costs more "

and

"Mantus, M1 - it sets, very, shallow and will benefit greatly from a horizontal rode). I cannot comment on Vulcan nor M2 - whereas I have used the others, I have not used these 2). A Mantus M1 sets at an angle of 16 degrees modern anchors set at 30 degrees - guess which one set deeply and quickly. Guess which one is more secure with some part of the tension imposed in the 'vertical'."

Ok, so those that have used and or tested a Mantus - your thoughts ?  I think he is talking horseshit, but to be fair I have not used a Mantus myself, but was (and still will) planning to change to using it as my bower next summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh the Aussie has responded when I semi-challenged him on his statements.

Here is what he replied with:
 

"Engaging and setting are different characteristics. Setting then develops to hold.

Most modern anchors engage and set in their own shank length - how quick do you want, fastest might mean an extra 10cm - so what?

If we measure hold - I've measured the Mantus M1, as has Steve, I measure its hold as bit better than a Delta and considerably less than a Rocna. Please link me to other hold test data - anything!

A Mantus M1 locks up, develops its maximum hold over a long distance because it sets shallow. Mantus M1 has a trajectory through the seabed of 16 degrees. Rocna, Excel, Spade have a trajectory through the seabed of 30 degrees - which do you think reaches depth quickly.

Try this

An Inquiry into Anchor Angles - Practical Sailor

I'm not sure what the attributes of the new Mantus has that are relevant to the original.

Check the toe of your Mantus M1, they are prone the bending at the weld joint. When you start your wlerdsing course one of the first things you are taught it ' do not weld at right angle to the possible line of tension - the weld weakens the steel.

Jonathan"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That "Aussie" seems to have a bee in his bonnet about Mantus anchors and will dis them at every opportunity.

Its all theory and no practible examples such as Panopes excellent work. Watch the videos and decide!

I have a Mantus that has seen us through 50 knot winds and always sets very quickly.

I sleep well at anchor :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-My test boat(s) lacks the bollard pull needed to investigate the maximum holding power of the larger (45lb.) anchors.  My bad.

The 13 lb. M1 Mantus appears to have lower holding power than other top performing anchors (note that I have not tested against the top performing anchors of similar size).

The 2.5 lb. Mantus Dinghy anchor appears to have very high holding power (compared to many other 2.5 pound anchors).

I will soon delve deeply (no pun intended) into the question of holding power as I have just (yesterday) received a 17lb. M1 Mantus and a 21lb. Rocna.  These will be tested against the 17lb. Excel and the 21lb. Spade that I already own.

These anchors are light enough that I will be able to use a considerable amount of chain in the rode.

Stay tuned for what should be a very revealing series of tests.

Steve

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 13 pound Mantus has been great, holding my boat in 50 knots once and 40 quite a few times over the last 4 years or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2021 at 1:58 PM, Jim in Halifax said:

A Fisherman will hold your boat in rocky or weedy bottoms better than anything (as long as its heavy enough). Good score. I keep waiting for such a deal...

There is (was?) one for sale on eBay, but more than I wanted to pay.  


My anchor finally arrived - more correctly, both packages arrived (the seller shipped it in two packages since it’s fairly large, 70#).  I had them send it to my Dad’s place in the US since it was a US seller and shipping to Canada would be prohibitively expensive - they’ll bring it up when they come to visit some time.)  After the first package I arrived, the next day I started thinking, “shit, I hope the post office hasn’t lost the other one!”)

I feel like a kid waiting for Xmas, for it to get to my house! :-) :-). 
 

There’s something about this anchor that symbolizes big adventure cruising...now, I gotta work on getting down/up to those adventure places...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, I bent two anchors during testing.  

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panope said:

Today, I bent two anchors during testing.  

Steve

That's called a success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Panope said:

-My test boat(s) lacks the bollard pull needed to investigate the maximum holding power of the larger (45lb.) anchors.  My bad.

The 13 lb. M1 Mantus appears to have lower holding power than other top performing anchors (note that I have not tested against the top performing anchors of similar size).

The 2.5 lb. Mantus Dinghy anchor appears to have very high holding power (compared to many other 2.5 pound anchors).

I will soon delve deeply (no pun intended) into the question of holding power as I have just (yesterday) received a 17lb. M1 Mantus and a 21lb. Rocna.  These will be tested against the 17lb. Excel and the 21lb. Spade that I already own.

These anchors are light enough that I will be able to use a considerable amount of chain in the rode.

Stay tuned for what should be a very revealing series of tests.

Steve

 

I suggest you also try them with practically no chain and shortish scope.  Let's see how the difference in fluke angle affects actual short scope performance (as you know, if the chain holds the rode down we don't know what the actual angle at the bottom is without a bunch of calculation). When I have done tests of holding capacity vs. scope (I did this for a number of anchors) I used NO chain and a Dyneema leader; I did not want catenary confusing the math. Yes, there will always be catenary, but that is a separate subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thinwater said:

I suggest you also try them with practically no chain and shortish scope.  Let's see how the difference in fluke angle affects actual short scope performance (as you know, if the chain holds the rode down we don't know what the actual angle at the bottom is without a bunch of calculation). When I have done tests of holding capacity vs. scope (I did this for a number of anchors) I used NO chain and a Dyneema leader; I did not want catenary confusing the math. Yes, there will always be catenary, but that is a separate subject.

For sure, I will conduct "minimum chain" tests.  But first, I need to appease the "must use lots of chain" crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2021 at 12:27 AM, Panope said:

For sure, I will conduct "minimum chain" tests.  But first, I need to appease the "must use lots of chain" crowd.

When using chain, even at relatively short scope, there is always chain on the bottom for the first part of the setting process; there isn't enough tension to lift it. I think we can all agree on this. So on the short scope tests, my protecole was always to set the anchor with what I believed would be about 25% of holding capacity at long scope, and only then shorten up the scope and pile on the pressure. You could do the same thing by simply limiting the mount of chain to something like 25 feet, based on your observations, anchor size, and water depth; enough to keep it down during the initial set, then lift as the load comes on. That would be realistic for both combination rode users (many of those in the Chesapeake, for example, because we have neither rocks nor coral) and extreme winds with limited scope and water depth (catenary matters more as the water gets deeper).

 

A side note. If you ask Fortress, the ultimate rode for their anchor in very soft mud is steel cable for the first 15 feet, then chain. The cable cuts down into the bottom more easily than chain--and very important in very soft mud--does not weigh the shank down. If the aluminum shank is weighted by chain and sinks faster than the flukes, the anchor can get pinned with the flukes angled up, a posture from which it cannot set. The LAST thing you want to do on a Fortress is use oversize chain... from the factory! Thus, for many years I used a Dyneema leader with a chafe cover for my Fortress leader. It was easy to handle from a tender or even a kayak, set more quickly in super soft mud, and never cut. I was setting a  Fortress kedge often, along with my bower in a V, to hold the boat stationary during anchor testing. But this is a Fortress kedge only trick, not for general use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/01/2021 at 7:45 AM, Steve_sos said:

That "Aussie" seems to have a bee in his bonnet about Mantus anchors and will dis them at every opportunity.

Its all theory and no practible examples such as Panopes excellent work. Watch the videos and decide!

I have a Mantus that has seen us through 50 knot winds and always sets very quickly.

I sleep well at anchor :)

+1. So far the Mantus has not failed us, including  a 50 kts blow in funky holding last summer.  I too sleep well at anchor, although not when its blowing 50 ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 8:07 AM, ProaSailor said:

I'm sure the video is great Steve, as usual, but 53+ minutes long!?  Sorry but TLDW, only for the super dedicated.  Is there a short version?

P.S.  Watching at two times normal speed works rather well.

double_speed.jpg.0fa7ace04429ee15a9c577e1f1f805ab.jpg

Would you like a refund?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites