Jump to content

Anchor Geekdom


Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Panope said:

Hard to argue with going for the "middle".

On the other hand, in the case of soft mud (think softer than my soft mud), even the best "single tooth" bow type anchors are marginal, so a specialty anchor (Fortress) might by deployed in any case.

Steve

More and more, my philosophy in testing is to value the most consistant, not the best.

Re. soft bottoms, that is a quandry for many sailors, specifically in the Chesapeake Bay, as it is a very common type. Fortress is not desirable as a bower in most cases  because:

  • No reset
  • No useful on some bottoms
  • A bugger to recover if loaded hard

Re. Roll bars, the mud can also be quite sticky other places (or even under the pudding) and full of sticks. I've fouled a few so bad they set... but would not hold much load. I think that happens a lot here, and unless you get hammered by a squall, you won't know. 

So I remain befuddled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have not conducted a tandem anchor test.  I see a number of reasons to not pursue it: -Two cameras would be needed, simultaneously.  The resulting tangled mess would be horrid.  I have a hard e

Posted Images

On 1/14/2021 at 4:08 PM, MikeJohns said:

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.

 

I borrowed a riding sail that was basically a small storm jib, flown backward on one of our twin backstays, sheeted forward to the rail. So it was asymmetric a couple of ways. It worked fine, but we still didn't feel the need to buy one.

Stern anchoring does work fine. But small waves slapping under the stern counter all night will drive you nuts, especially with an aft cabin.

I've tried bridles a few times and never found them worth the effort. As noted above, they work until the wind drops or conditions otherwise change. Then you're back to square one, likely in the middle of the night.

Feel free to try it all anyway, as it may work for you.

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

First Amendment. The one that lets us argue about the Second Amendment and anchors.

I used to think 19A would save us from ourselves, but given the arrival of Thing 1 and Thing 2, now I’m very sceptical :-) 

Moving on...

8F8CB602-B4F6-4A78-9DD8-E2F5C9ED870E.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the MOST EFFECTIVE and STRONGEST riding sail is a asymmetric diamond of cloth laid over an elevated boom. I tested one made from a poly tarp up to 30 knots, and it was not even straining. I also tested several other styles, including the conventional off-set type. Not even close to as effective, and far, far weaker. It is also easily adjusted, to increase or decrease the correcting force.

V-Delta riding sail

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

Probably the MOST EFFECTIVE and STRONGEST riding sail is a asymmetric diamond of cloth laid over an elevated boom.

I'd argue that the strongest, most effective, and certainly easiest to rig is to simply set your mizzen. The need for some sort of bubble gum and baling wire lashup is just one of the many compromises that defines a sloop.

:D

On anchoring, so far after 99 videos and several hundred anchoring trials, I'm still pretty happy with my choice of the Spade. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, Steve.

As you suggest, I'll refrain from implementing until you confirm it does no harm but I'd be surprised if it did. One thing on the bury depth, I usually see recommendations in the ~64 diameters range. For your 1/4" stuff, that would be a totally impractical 16". However, I can't see you needing the strength of 1/4" dyneema. If/when I do this, I'll probably use 1/8" to try to get closer to the recommended bury depth. The thinner stuff will also fit through the hole in the shank better so you could bury "around the corner" where it passes through the hole and use both legs of the loop to get the necessary bury depth. 

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

I'd argue that the strongest, most effective, and certainly easiest to rig is to simply set your mizzen. The need for some sort of bubble gum and baling wire lashup is just one of the many compromises that defines a sloop.

:D

On anchoring, so far after 99 videos and several hundred anchoring trials, I'm still pretty happy with my choice of the Spade. 

Touche'.

Of course, I sail multihulls, and we just hook a bridle and don't yaw either. Even simpler.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Multihull has many advantages at anchor. However, not simpler. I put up the mizzen the moment I leave the berth. I don't take it down again until I return. So nothing to do for anchoring, really. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DDW said:

Multihull has many advantages at anchor. However, not simpler. I put up the mizzen the moment I leave the berth. I don't take it down again until I return. So nothing to do for anchoring, really. 

We could start a new thread diversion on the virtues of divided rigs? Just to screw with them.

But reducing yawing is not separate from anchoring. IME, it is one of the leading causes of anchors popping out and dragging, and thus part of why Panope is studying yawing.  A topic I will likely explore in some detail this summer when the water warms (too cold for diving now!) is how anchors react to actually yawing conditions. I will probably anchor my boat using an undersized anchor in moderate weather (diving in storms is uncool), and adjust the bridle for the amount of yawing I have in mind (I can adjust by tri from 20-120 degrees swing angle with simple changes, and have already documented the affect on rode tension).

My guess is that anchors respond even more differently to this sort of repeated cycling than they do to a steady yaw. There is probably a minimum yaw angle below which the anchor does not even feel it and it does not matter, but some will move more easily than others. Some may be more vulnerable to soil liquefaction. Some will more down wind faster than others, making them more prone to fouling.  But I sure don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The beauty of Steve's work is that his methodology is transparent and his results are posted for all to see, not locked behind a subscription paywall.

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

My guess is that anchors respond even more differently to this sort of repeated cycling than they do to a steady yaw. 

It would be an interesting test for Steve to contemplate. Rather than yaw 180 degrees, yaw back and forth 20 or 30 degrees. A variation is to yaw 15 degrees one way, then slacken the rode a bit and yaw 15 degrees the other way while the rode comes tight. This would better simulate gusty conditions or even steady conditions with a yawing boat. My sailboat is pretty much rock steady (with the mizzen set), yawing only a couple of degrees on a slow cycle. The trawler on the other hand will yaw its heading 45 degrees each way rapidly, dragging the rode 15 or more degrees each way, each time fetching up with a bit of a jerk. No way to reasonably fit a riding sail and a bridle does very little to stop it. The dragging pattern on the seabed can even be seen on the structured sonar when I'm weighing anchor. 

I can make an argument that this will set a good anchor even better, but I'd like to see the tests. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DDW, I like that test protocol.  Especially the "slack" between pulls at the extremes of the veer.

I'll put that test on my (ever growing) list of future tests.

Steve

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

I can make an argument that this will set a good anchor even better, but I'd like to see the tests. 

During my 180 degree veer testing in the SOFT MUD, the holding power was greater AFTER the veer than before.

In the SANDY MUD, the opposite seemed to be true.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the modern ones seem to stay upright and the back and forth load makes it act like a screw digging deeper.  However they all seem to fault on any fouling of the blade tip.  So if going through clay lots of shells etc in the movement may pop up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just was thinking to replicate what it feels like in a windy anchorage. It seems like the boat sails across the tack and then gets jerked up a bit at the ends. Would that wiggle the anchor in deeper, even in sand? It would be a interesting test. I would not be surprised if it were different somehow from a full 180 veer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, another idea for an anchor test, the amount of scope needed for an anchor to hold in an extreme pull.

There eventually comes a time when the rode is taut, whether it is chain or rope, and the anchor starts to let go.

It would be interesting to know the rode angles at which the various anchors drag under extreme loads, so if we are setting an anchor in a big blow we know how much rode to let out so it hangs on.

I suspect the scope would vary by anchor and by seabed, but it would be interesting to see if there was a “ rule of thumb” for various types of anchor.

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

Steve, another idea for an anchor test, the amount of scope needed for an anchor to hold in an extreme pull.

There eventually comes a time when the rode is taut, whether it is chain or rope, and the anchor starts to let go.

It would be interesting to know the rode angles at which the various anchors drag under extreme loads, so if we are setting an anchor in a big blow we know how much rode to let out so it hangs on.

I suspect the scope would vary by anchor and by seabed, but it would be interesting to see if there was a “ rule of thumb” for various types of anchor.

It's going to take a full Anchor Research Foundation to make all this happen. I nominate Kim Bottles for Chairman. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

It's going to take a full Anchor Research Foundation to make all this happen. I nominate Kim Bottles for Chairman. 

Could be funded with a YouTube channel, despite the skeptics on record out there  :-).

Put some hotties next to anchors in the thumbs, and you’re golden. Money will flow in.  (I can be treasurer.)

Anchor Research Foundation 

AARF-WOOF (Anarchy Anchor Research Foundation - We Observe, Obfuscate and Flabbergast)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

It's going to take a full Anchor Research Foundation to make all this happen. I nominate Kim Bottles for Chairman. 

The flywheel is actually starting to spin up.  I'm getting a fairly steady stream of sizable donations.  Lots of $20, $50, and several $100(+) hits.  Last week a stranger sent $500.  I gain a couple PATRONs per month and the YouTube money keeps growing.

I really do not need much income.  I'll quit the day job when/IF I get to a steady $2000/month.  At $3,000/month, I will buy or build (with my money) a more powerful test boat (too bad Kim's Shamrock is gone). 

 

Needs twin 150hp to achieve the 3,000 lbs. pull target.  

 RdoEilq.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Panope said:

 

Needs twin 150hp to achieve the 3,000 lbs. pull target.  

 

 

Nah, make it a double ended barge, set an anchor at each end, start your winch, and you can test 2 at a time... no engine required

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Weyalan said:

Nah, make it a double ended barge, set an anchor at each end, start your winch, and you can test 2 at a time... no engine required

Boat needs to be maneuverable for veering/reset testing. 

Boat needs to have a 20 knot+ cruising speed for traveling to different seabeds.

Boat needs to be easily trailerable to avoid moorage fees.

Boat needs to be easily tailerable for cross-country travel (Chesapeake, Miami, Maine, Baja, etc.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Weyalan said:

Nah, make it a double ended barge, set an anchor at each end, start your winch, and you can test 2 at a time... no engine required

Needs a load cell on each end, but with a reasonable budget they are much cheaper by the gross. 

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

Boat needs to be maneuverable for veering/reset testing. 

Boat needs to have a 20 knot+ cruising speed for traveling to different seabeds.

Boat needs to be easily trailerable to avoid moorage fees.

Boat needs to be easily tailerable for cross-country travel (Chesapeake, Miami, Maine, Baja, etc.)

It would be cheaper to have several test boats than trailer one all over the place. With good planning, most mods would be either removable or desirable for resale. 

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

It would be cheaper to have several test boats than trailer one all over the place. With good planning, most mods would be either removable or desirable for resale. 

I'm not seeing it.  A properly rigged boat is a challenge.  Boat will be abused.

I'll drive across the continent and back for $5,000.  WAY cheaper and better than screwing around cobbling together equipment away from my shop.  Shipping 30+ anchors, plus chain to multiple locations can't be cheap.

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, 1 bloke with a 1976 Ford Cortina, single axle trailer with a tin dinghy, a load cell and a block n tackle could do the lot. Talk about over engineering

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Weyalan said:

Seriously, 1 bloke with a 1976 Ford Cortina, single axle trailer with a tin dinghy, a load cell and a block n tackle could do the lot. Talk about over engineering

Yes, could do a lot. 

But not nearly enough.   

 

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

Steve, another idea for an anchor test, the amount of scope needed for an anchor to hold in an extreme pull.

There eventually comes a time when the rode is taut, whether it is chain or rope, and the anchor starts to let go.

It would be interesting to know the rode angles at which the various anchors drag under extreme loads, so if we are setting an anchor in a big blow we know how much rode to let out so it hangs on.

I suspect the scope would vary by anchor and by seabed, but it would be interesting to see if there was a “ rule of thumb” for various types of anchor.

5 years ago, I did testing called "reducing scope".  Anchors were set and then scope was reduced incrementally with 250 lb. pull until they released.  If I remember correctly, the Manson Supreme was King but all the anchors seemed to defy the laws of physics.    It would be good to revisit this now that I can pull at 1150 lbs. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Panope said:

Yes, could do a lot. 

But not nearly enough.   

 

There are almost too many variable so as to defy rigorous analysis. A bloke with a load cell and a block n tackle would be, I dunno, 75% accurate and that's probably good enough. Because no matter how scientific and prepared your approach is, Mother Nature, The RNG Fairy and Murphy will conspire to disprove in the Real World that which you have proven indisputably in the test lab.

Back when Jesus was still playing running back for the Galilee Saints, I was but a little junior design engineer in a large steel works. The senior looked over my drawings for a particular steel column and commented that I had under-engineered it. I showed him all my calcs (Euler buckling, from memory), factors of safety etc. He pointed out that Fred, who drove the 30 ton load rated forklift was often still drunk on Monday morning day shift, so my calculations needed to take into account the loads generated by a drunk forklift driver hitting the beam with his forklift, carrying a 20 ton steel billet, with pace...

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Weyalan said:

Back when Jesus was still playing running back for the Galilee Saints, I was but a little junior design engineer in a large steel works. The senior looked over my drawings for a particular steel column and commented that I had under-engineered it. I showed him all my calcs (Euler buckling, from memory), factors of safety etc. He pointed out that Fred, who drove the 30 ton load rated forklift was often still drunk on Monday morning day shift, so my calculations needed to take into account the loads generated by a drunk forklift driver hitting the beam with his forklift, carrying a 20 ton steel billet, with pace...

That's some first-rate mentoring, right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IStream said:

That's some first-rate mentoring, right there.

Truth. And I have applied the Drunken Forklift Fred Principle to many a design since.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weyalan said:

Seriously, 1 bloke with a 1976 Ford Cortina, single axle trailer with a tin dinghy, a load cell and a block n tackle could do the lot. Talk about over engineering

I used to have a Cortina, about that vintage. It would never work for anchor testing because it needed a full tuneup every week just to keep it running. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Weyalan said:

There are almost too many variable so as to defy rigorous analysis. A bloke with a load cell and a block n tackle would be, I dunno, 75% accurate and that's probably good enough. Because no matter how scientific and prepared your approach is, Mother Nature, The RNG Fairy and Murphy will conspire to disprove in the Real World that which you have proven indisputably in the test lab.

Back when Jesus was still playing running back for the Galilee Saints, I was but a little junior design engineer in a large steel works. The senior looked over my drawings for a particular steel column and commented that I had under-engineered it. I showed him all my calcs (Euler buckling, from memory), factors of safety etc. He pointed out that Fred, who drove the 30 ton load rated forklift was often still drunk on Monday morning day shift, so my calculations needed to take into account the loads generated by a drunk forklift driver hitting the beam with his forklift, carrying a 20 ton steel billet, with pace...

 

Too true. RNGesus gets a vote, too

rngesus-mug_design1.png

Our Father who art in Heaven,

Random be thy game....

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

DDW, I like that test protocol.  Especially the "slack" between pulls at the extremes of the veer.

I'll put that test on my (ever growing) list of future tests.

delete

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

Seriously, 1 bloke with a 1976 Ford Cortina, single axle trailer with a tin dinghy, a load cell and a block n tackle could do the lot. Talk about over engineering

I encourage you to acquire the Cortina, the tin dinghy, and the block and tackle and begin duplicating Steve's tests. One issue you may have is that loading 17 anchors in either the Cortina or the tin dinghy will cause both to sink. 

Let us know when you have made much (or any) progress. Until then, we will continue to encourage Steve's good work.

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

The flywheel is actually starting to spin up.  I'm getting a fairly steady stream of sizable donations.  Lots of $20, $50, and several $100(+) hits.  Last week a stranger sent $500.  I gain a couple PATRONs per month and the YouTube money keeps growing.

I really do not need much income.  I'll quit the day job when/IF I get to a steady $2000/month.  At $3,000/month, I will buy or build (with my money) a more powerful test boat (too bad Kim's Shamrock is gone). 

 

Needs twin 150hp to achieve the 3,000 lbs. pull target.  

 RdoEilq.jpg

 

Steve, you might consider making the A frame the belay point for the rode, and tying it back in the vertical position with the load cell. Or some variation on that. The idea is to have a free moving belay limited by the load cell, to give a constant readout of of pull, without having to rig it on the rode on each pull. Or perhaps the bollards could have a bit of fore and aft swing limited by the load cell. Obviously only a small amount of motion is necessary. Then of course, you'd want a recording load cell.....

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

a more powerful test boat (too bad Kim's Shamrock is gone). 

 

 

 RdoEilq.jpg

 

Is that Kim Smiths Shamrock?  Kinda random if it is, worked for him one summer 20 years ago, he used to commute from Lopez to FH with it.

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

I encourage you to acquire the Cortina, the tin dinghy, and the block and tackle and begin duplicating Steve's tests. One issue you may have is that loading 17 anchors in either the Cortina or the tin dinghy will cause both to sink. 

Let us know when you have made much (or any) progress. Until then, we will continue to encourage Steve's good work.

DDW, I believe that Weyalan is saying that I have already taken anchor testing beyond the point of producing useful knowledge.  

(Weyalan, If my above assumption about your meaning is incorrect, I apologize.  If correct, I respectfully disagree.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DDW said:

Steve, you might consider making the A frame the belay point for the rode, and tying it back in the vertical position with the load cell. Or some variation on that. The idea is to have a free moving belay limited by the load cell, to give a constant readout of of pull, without having to rig it on the rode on each pull. Or perhaps the bollards could have a bit of fore and aft swing limited by the load cell. Obviously only a small amount of motion is necessary. Then of course, you'd want a recording load cell.....

For sure, there will be an active load readout.  Recording sounds great too.

In addition to the "pivots up for anchor changing" benefit, the A-frame keeps the rode clear of the propellers and perhaps most importantly, it simulates a bridal thus keeping the boat's heading stable during the pull.

I was thinking that if the downward angle of the A-frame pivot matched (roughly) the rode scope angle, then the load sensor belay could be positioned at the bollard without much error.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SASSAFRASS said:

Is that Kim Smiths Shamrock?  Kinda random if it is, worked for him one summer 20 years ago, he used to commute from Lopez to FH with it.

Different Kim.

Our own Kim B. had a shamrock prior to buying WHITECAP.  

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

DDW, I believe that Weyalan is saying that I have already taken anchor testing beyond the point of producing useful knowledge.  

(Weyalan, If my above assumption about your meaning is incorrect, I apologize.  If correct, I respectfully disagree.)

Exactly.

My tongue was pretty firmly in my cheek when I used the ford cortina and tinny analogy (perhaps I should have used the purple font?), and for the record, I was merely assuming that the tinny would tow 1 anchor out to set it, and that the load cell and block and tackle would be attached to an appropriate hard point on shore. And even if bloke only carried 3 or 4 anchors at a time, he would still get a lot of testing completed while your man was fabricating his test vessel....

Such experiments are always limited by their assumptions, and, you do have to make an awful lot of assumptions. 

 

Nonetheless, I am not at the coal face (or perhaps the high water line), so I am happy for you, or indeed anyone, to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess, for me, the limit of useful knowledge is the that which allows me to confidently set the anchor(s) that I have available to me, with the chain and rode I choose to attach, in order to safely anchor my specific boat, in the particular anchoring conditions that I (choose to) experience. And that is a very personal set of variables. 

Others, obviously, have a more broad minded approach than I. Far be it from me to poo-poo such intellectual rigor.

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

DDW, I believe that Weyalan is saying that I have already taken anchor testing beyond the point of producing useful knowledge.  

(Weyalan, If my above assumption about your meaning is incorrect, I apologize.  If correct, I respectfully disagree.)

Maybe true if the point was to get absolute numbers for anchor holding - a fool's errand given the variability of substrate. But not at all true for general anchoring knowledge, including relative values for rode angles, veering, rode weights, etc. It is producing very useful knowledge. And to make those relative comparisons, more equipment than a dinghy and tackle is necessary, and more rigor in the measurements. Each time you anchor it is a unique event, but there are common traits that can be teased out of the data, which will apply equally to that unique event. So do carry on!

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

DDW, I believe that Weyalan is saying that I have already taken anchor testing beyond the point of producing useful knowledge.  

(Weyalan, If my above assumption about your meaning is incorrect, I apologize.  If correct, I respectfully disagree.)

That's the kind of diplomacy we should all aspire to!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So at the end of this there should be the Panope App, wherein one enters the bottom conditions (type, amount of weed/grass), depth, estimated veer, boat type, and is given  the output of an anchor / rode / scope to use... of course we'll all have to carry 15 or so anchors to ensure we have the right one... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sculpin said:

So at the end of this there should be the Panope App, wherein one enters the bottom conditions (type, amount of weed/grass), depth, estimated veer, boat type, and is given  the output of an anchor / rode / scope to use... of course we'll all have to carry 15 or so anchors to ensure we have the right one... 

Nah, just carry a 3D metal printer and whip one out on the fly that's optimized for the current conditions.

According to some, you don't need to concern yourself about anyone's IP either. Fair use doctrine, apparently...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all and in particular Steve, have you got a view on the FOB Rock anchor? I get that as standard from the yard (14kg) and still debating whether it is worth paying more and get a Spade 15Kg.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2021 at 8:14 AM, sculpin said:

So at the end of this there should be the Panope App, wherein one enters the bottom conditions (type, amount of weed/grass), depth, estimated veer, boat type, and is given  the output of an anchor / rode / scope to use... of course we'll all have to carry 15 or so anchors to ensure we have the right one... 

In which case the right one is to tie all 15 anchors to a rope and chuck them over. One of them is bound to engage; if not, the aggregate mass will serve as well as holding geometry. ;)

 

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

 

The Fortress brings into highlight a difference between veer testing and reset testing. It's isn't the only anchor that shows different veer performance than reset performance, just the most obvious.

What would happen if the veer test was run at 50% lower force, such that the anchor did not start rotating right away? Maybe this is more representative of a real front passage (one where the anchor is not truly straining through the whole turn). I'm guessing some anchors will rotate, some will resist for 90 degrees and then reset, and some will do something in between. The soil type and how hard they were set first will matter.

The comment about maximum probably force regarding 12-pound anchors makes an interesting point. On my 34-foot catamaran the maximum storm force (measured at about 60 knot squall) was about 1300 pounds, with all chain rode, 12 mile fetch, and a snubber.  That boat used a 35-pound new generation anchor, and some might go 45 pounds, although it came with a 25-pound Delta (which was too small in soft mud). The windlass could pull about 600 pounds. My F-24 trimaran, has about half that rode tension, and I've been using 12-pound anchors, though 17-pounds is more the recommended size (I'm mostly day sailing, if there are squalls I find a secure cove, and I can always set two if that feels right). Anchor recovery is by armstrong and the bouncing of the bow, unlikely more than a few hundred pounds. The rode tension at 35 knots, the most I have measured and the most I will likely every feel in a good cove, is 175 pounds, or about 10 times the weight of the anchor I probably should have. So less, 500 pounds is a very serious test for a 12-pound anchor, and 1000 pounds is something a small boat just can't apply. Of course charter boats (and manic testers:lol:) can be pretty abusive.

So what is the maximum force an anchor should endure without bending? The most it can hold without dragging in good sand? Llyods, I recall, requires about 40x the anchor mass, but the force is not applied to the tip, but about 1/4 of the way back. The Viking would have passed that (480 pounds) easily. But maybe that is not enough. An anchor may be asked to hold 40-50 times its mass in a storm, and a safety factor for jamming under rocks and bending is nice. Maybe the the Lloyd mass applied to the tip would be a good test. I have stopped fluke (Guardian) anchor tests at 200x weight because it seemed foolish to break something at that point.  I'm certain the anchor would have failed had the load been on the tips. What would a reasonable test be for a roll bar? They can be bent by soil, and I've snagged them on rocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thin,

Soon I will begin some sort of "alternative" veer testing.  I was thinking about a strait pull set, then (with slack rode) reposition the boat 90 degrees and then reapply (strait line) load.  This should be accurately repeatable.

Regarding anchor bending strength requirements, I reckon this will always vary depending on the person or scenario.  I used to build and fly planes. If I had a light boat, we can be certain that I would appreciate gear that was just barely strong enough. 

But, Panope is not light and I (re)built her with a particular "beefiness" to her deck structures.  It makes absolutely no sense to fit a dainty anchor on that boat.

If I owned owned a 100 year old tugboat.  I would choose an anchor that would survive an atomic bomb blast.

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

Thin,

Soon I will begin some sort of "alternative" veer testing.  I was thinking about a strait pull set, then (with slack rode) reposition the boat 90 degrees and then reapply (strait line) load.  This should be accurately repeatable.

Regarding anchor bending strength requirements, I reckon this will always vary depending on the person or scenario.  I used to build and fly planes. If I had a light boat, we can be certain that I would appreciate gear that was just barely strong enough. 

But, Panope is not light and I (re)built her with a particular "beefiness" to her deck structures.  It makes absolutely no sense to fit a dainty anchor on that boat.

If I owned owned a 100 year old tugboat.  I would choose an anchor that would survive an atomic bomb blast.

I did not mean to imply an anchor should be "just strong enough," only that like rode strength, we might want to think about how we should define "strong enough." It seems we have decided the Llyods requirement (40x anchor mass applied in a straight line at about 1/3 of the way from the fluke tip to shank attachment) is not enough. Lloyds does not have a side-bend requirement. And there is no roll bar strength requirement. I'm just posing the question of what better tests might be, what they would be based on, and how the requirement should be related to anchor mass.

I don't have an opinion on the topic since I've never bent an anchor, even in testing. I didn't have a big motor, so if they wouldn't winch up or pull loose with wave action, I dove. I never used boat momentum; it seemed like too good a way to break something expensive. But I've seen a lot of bent pivoting fluke anchors, generally damaged by using boat momentum on a deeply set anchor.Although some claim they were damaged by a storm, they obviously don't know what they looked like BEFORE they strained to recover them. We don't have many rocks here, but we do have some very sticky mud and pivoting fluke anchors do NOT like to rotate (veer) when deeply set in sticky mud.

So I don't know. I just though you had an interesting point when you implied that 1000 pounds on the tip may not be a fair test for a 12-pound anchor. Lloyds does not think so. Maybe, maybe not. But surely there should be a number past which testing is false, just as we don't fault a rope that fails above its rated strength.

 

 

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

Anyone had the chance to try the new Lewmar Epsilon? Is it going to be better than the Spade?

Epsilon price is twice as good as Spade.  

I messaged Lewmar recently, requesting a test specimen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Panope said:

Epsilon price is twice as good as Spade.  

I messaged Lewmar recently, requesting a test specimen.

Look forward!! Did they say they would send you one?

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

Look forward!! Did they say they would send you one?

No response yet.  

No guarantee that the proper personnel will receive the message as I used the general inquiry "message tool" from their website.

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

Epsilon price is twice as good as Spade.  

I messaged Lewmar recently, requesting a test specimen.

Hopefully they do a better job of copying the Spade than they did copying the Bruce. I had a new Lewmar copy Bruce, came on the boat, I gave it away on the dock. It was a caricature of the Bruce, and too large to use as a paperweight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 3:52 PM, thinwater said:

Maybe this is more representative of a real front passage (one where the anchor is not truly straining through the whole turn).

I've OFTEN had a wind change where it goes from very light in one direction to near a 180 degree shift and strong gust (usually a squall not a frontal passage; they can be brutal in terms of velocity but they don't slowly veer either).  The boat is at the end of the rode from the previous direction; the wind starts pushing it in the opposite direction and it gains a lot of momentum (2-3 knots at least) as it pops the anchor in the opposite direction. If would often pop out the best anchor. The better anchors immediately reset.

Our Delta 35 (30' mono) did not reset under these conditions in Norfolk, VA. Popped out and the boat kept going. While I was ashore watching!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Our Delta 35 (30' mono) did not reset under these conditions in Norfolk, VA. Popped out and the boat kept going. While I was ashore watching!

Ouch.  What happened next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Squalls bad, mmkay? Exactly as Zonker said. Sudden 180 with a tuff gust. My one true drag experience was exactly that sitch, although in the anchor’s defense, I had quickly (bc running from said squall) set in thick grass, so that may have been a factor. I back on my picks, and find that suppresses surprises.

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

Our Delta 35 (30' mono) did not reset under these conditions in Norfolk, VA. Popped out and the boat kept going. While I was ashore watching!

Ouch.  What happened next?

He died.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife sheltered under a pergola with the local homeless people. She was crying a bit and worried. One woman asks her what the problem was. My wife said "My home is being blown away by the wind".  Homeless woman replies "I know the feeling honey"

I ran to our dinghy, fired up the tiny 3.5 HP outboard and got to the boat in time to get the engine started and stop the boat from hitting a seawall.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zonker said:

My wife sheltered under a pergola with the local homeless people. She was crying a bit and worried. One woman asks her what the problem was. My wife said "My home is being blown away by the wind".  Homeless woman replies "I know the feeling honey"

I ran to our dinghy, fired up the tiny 3.5 HP outboard and got to the boat in time to get the engine started and stop the boat from hitting a seawall.

 

Too funny.  That story sounds very familiar.  2019, in the 1000 Islands  we are anchored and some friends finally arrive , on their  first trip.  The first boat anchors and, after checking with them that they are comfortable,  we bring the to our boat for a celebratory drink.  No sooner that they have arrived  and settled down, a big nasty black cloud arrives and a squall hits.  We look astern to see our  friends boat receding downwind.   Our friends wife is very distraught,  at this point.  I jumpmintomour dinghy with our friend.  Thankfully, the "mighty" 3.3 outboard fires right up and we  chase down their boat.  Once, as soon as the engine's running and the anchor is up, he offers me a beer.  That's the moment i realized that he will be ok with the cruising thing

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been watching some of Panope's videos with interest as I still have the CQR that came with the boat as my main anchor. In our first year, I had one bad day of dragging on sand. We arrived at Iona on Scottish West Coast just as the wind picked up and twice dragged as the anchor failed to set. So we headed across to the Bull Hole on Mull, a perfect sheltered anchorage less than a mile away and anchored in a tight spot there.  We took the ferry across to Iona for the day, and in the evening were happily back aboard and eating dinner down below when the GPS anchor alarm started beeping.  Looking out we had dragged a hundred yards through moored boats and were looking at rocks just astern and  approaching fast. Never quite as confident in a CQR since then, though it never dragged again in the succeeding 7 weeks and 2000 miles that year.

One thought on the veering that applies in this part of the world is that many anchorages are tide rode, so it is not wind but 180 degree tidal stream switches that determines the boat's pull. That does not improve the skipper's sleep when the tide turns overnight,  but I always set an anchor alarm.. A modern anchor is certainly on the cards at some point.

BB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that the Fortress Solomon's Island test site that Fortress used is thin soup. I've anchored there and tested there. In anything remotely firm, the standard setting is more reliable. A locally common seabed. The anchor can literally pull >5 feet underground, and you may not get it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This morning, I reviewed the 5 year old Fortress "emergency stop" video, below.  In it, the anchor set and held a very high pull at 3.5 to 1 scope.  This is in stark contrast to the most recent video (above) where the anchor was near useless at 5 to 1 scope (same bottom, same rode).

The only change I can detect is the anodizing being worn away from about 25% of the fluke.  5 years ago the anchor was nearly new and had perfect anodizing.  The hypothesis is that raw aluminum (having very high friction) is causing mud to adhere to, or otherwise not "slide by" the fluke.

I will soon conduct experiments with different surface treatments (polishing, silicone, paint, sand paper glued to fluke, holes in fluke, etc.). 

 

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

As always, thanks.

Boy, I wish we could get you to the Keys. The bottoms here are generally very thin sand over marl. Difficult holding - one just hopes to wedge the pick in a crevice

Max,  

I am planning an epic road trip to the East.  Probably not until the fall of this year.  When and if it happens, It would be great if you could point me in the direction of these difficult seabeds.

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thinwater said:

I can confirm that the Fortress Solomon's Island test site that Fortress used is thin soup. I've anchored there and tested there. In anything remotely firm, the standard setting is more reliable. A locally common seabed. The anchor can literally pull >5 feet underground, and you may not get it back.

Thin, 

As mentioned above, I am planning a trip back East (with a boat and gear), perhaps in the Fall.  The infamous "Chesapeake mud" is on my list of sites.  Any local knowledge of where to find the different seabed types would be great.

Steve 

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

Thin, 

As mentioned above, I am planning a trip back East (with a boat and gear), perhaps in the Fall.  The infamous "Chesapeake mud" is on my list of sites.  Any local knowledge of where to find the different seabed types would be great.

Steve 

Absolutely.  It would be good to repeat some of the areas (Solomon's Island) Fortress used.  Otherwise, it depends on where you are, anything from fine sand that will max out your gear, to flat rock (useless) and oyster rock and cobbles. We don't anchor in healthy weeds for environmental reasons, but there are areas of old dead submerged grass and lumps of clay that are a challenge. Also thin sand over impenetrable clay. But most areas are variable mud, with sticks and oyster shells sometimes problematic. There can be soft mud over a hard layer of shells, which is bad. Sandy mud and loose sand don't really exist, or at least I have never found them. The biggest problem is probably the layering, where soft mud lies over something older and hard, like an old oyster bar.

The down side is that photography will be challenging, to say the least.  In shallow water in the winter the visibility might be acceptable, but in summer, forget it, too much algae. Definitely consider adding a bright light and rigging the camera closer to the anchors. You can kinna see when you dive if you have a flashlight, maybe 2-3 feet. Nobody dives on an anchor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, the Chesapeake is “anchoring for beginners” and the mud provides decent holding and outside of the squalls, nights are mostly calm. If squalls are on the way, you hear about them from NOAA in advance and most (but not all) come through before sunset. 
 

Some places swept by current are hard clay. It takes a heavy anchor to penetrate. A Fortress is generally useless and a Delta or CQR does OK. I’ve had best luck with a tradition Danfoth on those bottoms. Worst is in slack water coves (no current to speak of) where decades of leaf litter give you the silty Chesapeake transition bottom where the water just gets thicker over several feet of increasingly dense silt. Some of those places are hopeless. As the anchor will penetrate nearly forever without ever setting well. I have bailed on those places when a decent set was impossible. The old circular depthfinders would show 2-3 “bottoms” before a solid return. 
 

I have dragged twice in the Bay. Once with a raft on a too small Delta that held my boat fine but dragged as soon as the other boats came alongside. To be fair, it was blowing 20-25 at the time and pushed the conditions  for a Blue Angels air show.

Other time was on a hot dry day with a frontal passage coming. Set behind a point and the bottom was silty but the set was kinda OK. About 0130, the front hit with a 180 degree change the made the point a lee shore. Boat swung and I waited to feel a reset that didn’t come. Anchor alarm went off as I started the engine. SWMBO grabbed the wheel as I headed for the bow and the depth finder read less than 0.5 (I offset to read depth below the keel). Went out to nearly mid channel and reanchored in firm mud. We had a laugh about others perhaps looking out to see 2 naked sailors motoring through the anchorage in a frontal squall. At least we were young and fit back then. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Steve. Impressive all-around performance by the Viking but I have to question the "3" rating on the galvanization. Based on what you showed, I'd call it a "1". What's your reasoning?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IStream said:

Thanks, Steve. Impressive all-around performance by the Viking but I have to question the "3" rating on the galvanization. Based on what you showed, I'd call it a "1". What's your reasoning?

I saved the "1" rating for the 45 pound Spade, because:

1) It has self disintegrating galvanizing due to dissimilar metal (Lead ballast).

2) Because of the lead ballast, the Spade is difficult to re-galvanize.

3) The (45lb) Spade shank is hollow and exposed to sea water.  When rusting occurs on the inside of the shank, not only will this be concealed, but the shank's ultimate failure may result in a boat on the rocks.

Steve

    

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gwilcox said:

Emma rocks

It told her that if this video goes viral, it will not be on account of the anchor test.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Panope said:

I saved the "1" rating for the 45 pound Spade, because:

1) It has self disintegrating galvanizing due to dissimilar metal (Lead ballast).

2) Because of the lead ballast, the Spade is difficult to re-galvanize.

3) The (45lb) Spade shank is hollow and exposed to sea water.  When rusting occurs on the inside of the shank, not only will this be concealed, but the shank's ultimate failure may result in a boat on the rocks.

Steve

    

Thanks for the explanation. Also, +1 on Emma's great closing credits!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2021 at 12:44 PM, Panope said:

Max,  

I am planning an epic road trip to the East.  Probably not until the fall of this year.  When and if it happens, It would be great if you could point me in the direction of these difficult seabeds.

Steve

Holler, and I’ll go get that Brittany for you and you can hang out with us in the Keys

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Max Rockatansky said:

Holler, and I’ll go get that Brittany for you and you can hang out with us in the Keys

Sounds good, Max.

I'll be looking for a "hard sand" seabed. 

Specifically, I want the type of seabed where an anchor like a CQR will lie on it's side, and drag forever. 

If you could point me towards that stuff, and a nearby public launching ramp, I would be very grateful.

Steve

  • Like 1