Jump to content

Anchor Geekdom


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, longy said:

A looong time ago I was involved with upgrading a big, heavy ketch for extended cruising. Already equipped with a hyd windlass, she had a 60 lb plow which had drug a few times cruising along the Baja coast. Bruce anchors were new at this time. So one day as the owner & I were standing on the bow debating going up a size on the plow (75 lbs) or the large jump in Bruce sizing (110 lbs) we looked at the waterline, had one of us leave the bow, & observed that the waterline didn't move much at all - so went with the big Bruce. Over the next 15 yrs of across the Pacific, back, and a lot of Central America, never drug anchor again.  Oh - 3/8" hi-tensile chain, all the time.

Finally remembered: Shannon 50

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When I started the anchor videos, it was just the underwater stuff and on-screen text.  Right away the accusations started flying that I was working for a particular anchor manufacturer.  Understandab

Winch testing commences.

Posted Images

17 minutes ago, Panope said:

Wouldn't it be something if, after all my mucking around with the worlds most advanced anchors, I retired from it all with a big, dumb lump of an anchor?  

i hope that you aren't planning any early retirement from this wonderful testing process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm lucky that I moor on the fresh water side of some locks.  I make a point to dump my A80 Spade anchor and chain in the lake for several days after returning from the sea.  After 6 years there is no noticeable corrosion but I have seen a ~ 15 year old A80 Spade with a lot of corrosion.  IIRC, the lead in the tip added to the problem.

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

Yet again, the Mantus Dinghy Anchor has astonishingly high holding power for its weight.

i am wondering if that is perhaps a consequence of the chain forming a higher proportion of the total chain+anchor weight.

@Panope, have you done any tests without chain to see if that leads to the Mantus Dinghy Anchor showing holding power more in line with its weight?

I have tested that anchor with and without chain, including zero chain. No, the chain has almost nothing to do with hold at reasonable scope (rode near bottom).

I suspect the reason it does not scale up as you would expect is that the Mantus M1 sets very quickly and reliably, but does not typically go deep in firm bottoms. It's an angle thing. Curiously, this is not the case in soft mud.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, estarzinger said:

... Another thought/suggestion for you - if you do get out anchoring behind that spit in wind - looking at loads anchoring by the stern rather than by the bow.  There is theory that by the stern will result in lower peak loads because of lower yawing.  Your boat may not be the perfect test bed for that because I guess you dont yaw as much as a modern lightweight sloop, but it still would be interesting to see data.

 

I tried that in open water with my f-24. The load was ~ 10% greater by the stern in light winds, and 15-20% more by 15 knots. I stopped then because I have an open transom!  In both cases there was very little yawing (wide bridle). So, unsurprisingly, there is slightly more windage and wave resistance. Not much.

Yes, anchoring by the transom reduces yawing. I tried both with no bridle. But the livability issues and motion of the boat (I've tried this cruising with my PDQ catamaran as well) are so much worse I always abandon it in favor of conventional bow anchoring within an hour of two. Even the ventilation was worse, since the boat is not designed for it.

I lost interest in further testing because it was never better for my boats. If you can find no other way to control yawing, it might be worth a look. But I'd find another way first.

Just my experience.

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

I have tested that anchor with and without chain, including zero chain. No, the chain has almost nothing to do with hold at reasonable scope (rode near bottom).

I suspect the reason it does not scale up as you would expect is that the Mantus M1 sets very quickly and reliably, but does not typically go deep in firm bottoms. It's an angle thing. Curiously, this is not the case in soft mud.

I also tried the M1 with no roll bar, to see if that was limiting diving. There was no statistically significant difference in holding capacity in firm sand.

 

Note: I did not use a truck on the beach. I anchored a cruising cat in close to the beach with big anchors, and tested the anchors in about 4-5 feet, pulling with the primaries (I rigged 2:1 purchase for larger anchors).

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

Thanks Max,

Is that a crack, just above the ruler?

Steve

Yes. I think it’s probably a weld, and that as the corrosion expanded the ballast inside, it split the weld there.

When the signs began to appear, I did some Googling and found the below:

http://www.trimaran-naga.com/equipment/spade-anchor.htm

If I had access to my friends in Louisiana ergo machine and fabrication shops, I could fix it. Being here in Floriduh, not so much. BC I gat the anchor with the boat, Spade wanted proof of purchase which I could not provide. I was considering buying another but even with the discount Spade offered I could buy two Vikings for the same price 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2021 at 3:08 PM, thinwater said:

I have tested that anchor with and without chain, including zero chain. No, the chain has almost nothing to do with hold at reasonable scope (rode near bottom).

I suspect the reason it does not scale up as you would expect is that the Mantus M1 sets very quickly and reliably, but does not typically go deep in firm bottoms. It's an angle thing. Curiously, this is not the case in soft mud.

It is very difficult to precisely scale anchors.  Check the shank thickness of the steel plate and the plate used for the fluke itself - does it scale exactly - if not the balance will change.

With bigger anchors it is easier to scale

 

The Mantus M1 is simply like a Bugel, with a different fluke geometry.  Its a Danforth, with the shank welded to the (differently defined) fluke geometry.  It engages reliably but sets shallow - now where was that said before.....?

 

This is an independently derived graph of anchors which set at different angles in sand (not soft mud) - guess how the hold relates to setting angle.  I believe that all the images of a Mantus M1 show the fluke at 16 degrees (unless you are a purist that's as similar as makes no difference to 17 degrees.

The truth cuts hard.

I wonder why Mantus have never published anchor hold data.

IMG_5189.thumb.JPG.a7f2948f6a4fe7bc8629a0fa845d22d3.JPG

 

 

Instead of shooting the messenger - open your minds and question why Mantus has not published hold data - once you have independent hold data - then shoot the messenger.  Until then

- all talk and no trousers

Now why does it perform predictably in soft mud - its a fluke anchor, like a Danforth.  Check the maths - it does as predicted - no more, no less.

 

Have a great day!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2021 at 12:43 PM, IStream said:

That wheel is fever dream material...In a good way. 

I'm impressed by how consistent the Mantus M1 is across the three bottom types. It'll be interesting to see how that holds up as you find new bottoms.

My thoughts exactly.  I have new M1 and am thinking that if I add an M2, I'll have the proper anchor for any bottom in the world other than pavement or axle grease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I switched over from an 85lb M1 to a 60lb M2 strictly because of fit issues on my bow. I don't have much experience with the M2 yet but so far my impression is that it sets more aggressively than the M1, and I was never dissatisfied with how my M1 set. With the M2, I pay more attention to my speed when backing because it really snatches the bow. All my experience so far is in the Salish Sea, which is predominantly sandy mud, at least where I tend to go.

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

It is very difficult to precisely scale anchors.  Check the shank thickness of the steel plate and the plate used for the fluke itself - does it scale exactly - if not the balance will change.

With bigger anchors it is easier to scale

 

The Mantus M1 is simply like a Bugel, with a different fluke geometry.  Its a Danforth, with the shank welded to the (differently defined) fluke geometry.  It engages reliably but sets shallow - now where was that said before.....?

 

This is an independently derived graph of anchors which set at different angles in sand (not soft mud) - guess how the hold relates to setting angle.  I believe that all the images of a Mantus M1 show the fluke at 16 degrees (unless you are a purist that's as similar as makes no difference to 17 degrees.

The truth cuts hard.

I wonder why Mantus have never published anchor hold data.

IMG_5189.thumb.JPG.a7f2948f6a4fe7bc8629a0fa845d22d3.JPG

 

 

Instead of shooting the messenger - open your minds and question why Mantus has not published hold data - once you have independent hold data - then shoot the messenger.  Until then

- all talk and no trousers

Now why does it perform predictably in soft mud - its a fluke anchor, like a Danforth.  Check the maths - it does as predicted - no more, no less.

 

Have a great day!

 

 

So explain the Mantus Dinghy Anchor performance (>100 x multiplier). I'm just an engineer, have tested many anchors, and have read much of the literature, so use small words. I do understand the graph, but the data seem to say something different, and I find that interesting. Not all things are equal, so perhaps it's not all about the angle.

I would not use the phrase "all talk and no trousers" at this time. At present, I see confusing data, not definitive data.

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

Not all things are equal, so perhaps it's not all about the angle.

I agree.

In one particular seabed, I found the holding power of an anchor to increase substantially by simply drilling holes in the fluke.

I reckon the mechanics/physics of soils passing by a complicated shape (like an anchor) are incredibly complicated.  Far more complicated (and more difficult to study) than fluid dynamics.

Take aeronautics.  There is only one medium - air, compared to perhaps dozens of seabed types that have unique/distinct characteristics. 

The aeronautical engineer also has the opportunity to attach velocity and pressure sensing equipment to any and all locations of aircraft structures.  By comparisons, we (anchor researchers) have almost no data regarding pressure differential and movement of seabed across an anchor.

I believe that successful (small boat) anchor designs are a result of 3 things.

-Copying concepts that that have been proven in the field.

-Experimentation/Trial and error. 

-Luck.

Steve

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2021 at 3:49 AM, Panope said:

 

I believe that successful (small boat) anchor designs are a result of 3 things.

-Copying concepts that that have been proven in the field.

-Experimentation/Trial and error. 

-Luck.

Steve

Interestingly the SARCA, the ultimate perforated anchor, was introduced in the 1990s and the Excel (also perforated) in around 2010.  No-one took any notice.  

The Knox anchor is not perforated but has a slot between the 2 halves of the fluke, - they found if they closed the slot the anchor clogged more easily.

 

Odd - you are commending people who copy - strangely if some people produce an anchor that is deemed a copy - many on here condemn such action.  Peter Smith condemned Manson, as a copy?, when they introduced the Supreme - he had a whole treatise on copying on his website.  It was a bit like the kettle calling the pot black as Rocna is a copy of a Spade - and then compare Vulcan with Spade.

Anchor development has always been about 'copying' but its no good copying if you do not understand the fundamentals

 

Such as 30 degree fluke angle for sand and 45 degrees for mud, having a shank strong enough etc

 

And as an aside Peter Bruce formally trained as an aeronautic engineer and applied those skills directly to the Bruce anchor.  If the Bruce sets in mud with one fluke preferentially buried it will self right based on 'lift' from the more deeply buried fluke (if made correctly).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Prior to my recent 10kg Bruce, Claw, and Delta testing, there was not much reason to add the "Clean Sand Hld/wt" numbers to the graph because all but just two anchors (Rocna, Mantus M1) could hold the max thrust of the test boat (in that seabed).   But, we now have enough variation, in my opionion, to make the addition of this information worthwhile.

As can be seen, 8 of these anchors have an arrow pointing upward for the 'Clean Sand' data.  This indicates that the anchor was holding with little or no motion at the maximum thrust of the test vessel.

Also, I added the "Cobblestone" numbers to the graph (in red).  The very low values and lack a of variation makes for uninteresting data, but at least we have a handy visual reminder that larger cobble and 10kg. anchors do not really mix.

Note: 10kg Bruce testing is in progress and no video has been produced yet.

Steve

KnulkFK.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little unsolicited data presentation advice:

1. the Y-axis should be labeled to indicate what those numbers represent

2. if all the anchors with arrows held at max thrust, all those arrows should be the same height

3. the height of the arrows should be equal to the max thrust unless that value exceeds the max value on the Y axis, in which case they should be equal to the max value so the arrowhead indicates that they exceed it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, IStream said:

Just a little unsolicited data presentation advice:

1. the Y-axis should be labeled to indicate what those numbers represent

2. if all the anchors with arrows held at max thrust, all those arrows should be the same height

3. the height of the arrows should be equal to the max thrust unless that value exceeds the max value on the Y axis, in which case they should be equal to the max value so the arrowhead indicates that they exceed it.

Stream,

1.  The Y-axis is equal to the the Holding or Resistance divided by the weight of the anchor.  I should have mad that more clear.  Thank you for bringing that up.

2.  Arrows are at different heights because the anchors have different weights (also, two different test boats, with slightly different bollard pull, were used).

3.  I re-read this point at least 5 times and cannot fully grasp what it is you are saying.  But, I think my answer to #2 applies here as well.

 

I made this graph (and all other graphs) with the mindset that it would be presented within a video whereby I give a voice over explanation. 

My mistake for releasing it early.

Steve

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Steve, I don't ever want to discourage you from releasing your data. That said, I would argue that a graph should be able to stand alone and still be somewhat understandable.

Regarding points 2 and 3, what I'm essentially saying is that if the resistance/weight ratio for any given anchor exceeds the largest value on the Y axis, the line for that anchor should go up to the max Y value and have an arrowhead indicating that it's off-scale by an indeterminant amount (because the boat couldn't pull it out).

Having the arrows both on-scale and at different heights is a bit contradictory because you're simultaneously saying you couldn't pull hard enough to assess performance (indicated by the arrowhead) but also implying better or worse relative performance based on the height of the line. Add in the fact that with the M2, Viking, Vulcan, and Spade the clean sand arrow isn't even the tallest line for each anchor and you're implying that there was more bollard pull available than was used in the clean sand test, because those same anchors had higher resistance/weight values in other bottoms.

Clear as mud (or clean sand)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, IStream said:

Sorry, Steve, I don't ever want to discourage you from releasing your data. That said, I would argue that a graph should be able to stand alone and still be somewhat understandable.

I agree 100%

I strongly believe that when communication fails, the burden is on the speaker.  I'll take responsibility for any confusion. 

Regarding points 2 and 3, what I'm essentially saying is that if the resistance/weight ratio for any given anchor exceeds the largest value on the Y axis, the line for that anchor should go up to the max Y value and have an arrowhead indicating that it's off-scale by an indeterminant amount (because the boat couldn't pull it out).  We do not know whether or not any value exceeds the max Y value of the graph.  All we know is that the anchor reached the top of the arrow.

Having the arrows both on-scale and at different heights is a bit contradictory because you're simultaneously saying you couldn't pull hard enough to assess performance (indicated by the arrowhead) but also implying better or worse relative performance based on the height of the line.  Nature of the beast, There is no way to fix that problem without creating another.  Add in the fact that with the M2, Viking, Vulcan, and Spade the clean sand arrow isn't even the tallest line for each anchor and you're implying that there was more bollard pull available than was used in the clean sand test, because those same anchors had higher resistance/weight values in other bottoms.  I am not just "implying", there was more pull available - there was!  Those tests were conducted with a the winch.

Clear as mud (or clean sand)?  I understand everything you are saying. 

Unfortunately, there is no way to present this graph without being either inherently confusing or contradicting the data.  I chose to go with the data.  

Steve

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so now I'm thoroughly confused. Rather than go back and forth, I'll wait for your video that explains your methodology and then come back if I'm still:

1. confused

2. dissatisfied with your graph

3. both

Looking forward to your vid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems logical to me. Height of arrow is the value that the hold was greater than, which is variable because the force was constant but the weight of the anchors varied. As a practical matter, a properly sized anchor that achieves a 60x multiplier, will hold.

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

......a properly sized anchor that achieves a 60x multiplier, will hold.

Exactly.

One could argue that further testing of the "arrows" with the winch (or a stronger boat) is not even necessary.  

Certainly, I have more important tests to conduct first. 

Also, testing with the winch in that location (Clean Sand site) is significantly more difficult/dangerous than the other areas due to being exposed to:

-Current 

-Container Ship wake.

-More boat traffic that may snag the deadman  anchor rode. 

Note: The preceding is not a complaint.  I enjoy the technical challenges and effort involved with all of this madness.

Steve

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think hold is important if it relates to other important properties, and we will likely see that it does, but I have no reason to believe it is a 1:1 relationship; the best holding anchor may not be the best in yawing in a given bottom. Or, excluding Fortress, it may be.

I also wonder about yawing at lower pull. My hunch is that they behave differently if they are not being pulled hard at the same time, and that more anchors will trip at lower load than at high load. At least, I'm pretty sure the Fortress-type will. In fact, most wind direction changes and tide changes happen far below the holding limit. So this would be something between the yawing and reset testing.

Which suggests a simpler test first. Take a typical good anchor, and do a veering test in a relatively clean bottom at 10, 20, 40, and 60% of maximum holding capacity. Just one anchor. This test might suggest something about how and when anchors reset in the range of real conditions.  Power set to ~ 20% of holding capacity first in the 10% case, for realism. I played with this some, related to the rigging of V-tandems, but I did not document it in this context.

Just ideas. You've done enough.

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

 Which suggests a simpler test first. Take a typical good anchor, and do a veering test in a relatively clean bottom at 10, 20, 40, and 60% of maximum holding capacity. Just one anchor. This test might suggest something about how and when anchors reset in the range of real conditions.  Power set to ~ 20% of holding capacity first in the 10% case, for realism. I played with this some, related to the rigging of V-tandems, but I did not document it in this context.

Just ideas. You've done enough.

I like it.  It is on the "list of future tests".

Another test that I really want to do, is a "90 Degree - Slack Rode Veer" where (all) the anchors are initially set at a value similar to a typical axillary sailboat "power set".  Then, reposition the boat (with zero rode tension) 90 degrees to the anchor, and then give'er hell.

This would simulate a situation where someone sets their anchor in calm conditions.  Then, wind pipes up from a direction other than the direction of the set.

Steve

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

I like it.  It is on the "list of future tests".

Another test that I really want to do, is a "90 Degree - Slack Rode Veer" where (all) the anchors are initially set at a value similar to a typical axillary sailboat "power set".  Then, reposition the boat (with zero rode tension) 90 degrees to the anchor, and then give'er hell.

This would simulate a situation where someone sets their anchor in calm conditions.  Then, wind pipes up from a direction other than the direction of the set.

Steve

OK. The question is how fast to "give it hell." Realistically, I'm thinking a 90 degree veer low throttle, to simulate the 5 minutes of moderate to light cool puffs that precede a thunderstorm. Then give it hell, up to full throttle (a fixed multiplier of mass, you chose, but maybe in the range of 20-25x) in a matter of a minute or so.

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

OK. The question is how fast to "give it hell." Realistically, I'm thinking a 90 degree veer low throttle, to simulate the 5 minutes of moderate to light cool puffs that precede a thunderstorm. Then give it hell, up to full throttle (a fixed multiplier of mass, you chose, but maybe in the range of 20-25x) in a matter of a minute or so.

A 5 minute, low power pause would be no problem.

My standard power "ramp up" is to start just above idle and increase at 200 rpm increments, holding each for 10 seconds.  I don't have any sort of "theory" behind that profile.  It is just what I have always done and is easily repeat.

The PNW does not experience significant T-storm activity, so thanks for that insight.  I've never seen a 'real' T-storm.

Steve

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

 I've never seen a 'real' T-storm.

Steve

I take that back. I've been in one.

Florida Panhandle.  Inland.

Flying a small plane, Westbound into an advancing (eastbound) line of those fuckers.  

I figured I would "stick my nose in it" and see what all the fuss was about.  Got my ass handed to me before I got near it.  Landed at a dirt strip just as the rain came pouring down.  Plane COVERED in mud. 

Remained in inside plane (parked) while the storm passed overhead.  An hour later, and I was on my again under blue skies.

Not sure what you I would do if trying to go in the same direction as the line.  A hotel room would work.

Fun times.

Steve

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

I take that back. I've been in one.

Florida Panhandle.  Inland.

Flying a small plane, Westbound into an advancing (eastbound) line of those fuckers.  

I figured I would "stick my nose in it" and see what all the fuss was about.  Got my ass handed to me before I got near it.  Landed at a dirt strip just as the rain came pouring down.  Plane COVERED in mud. 

Remained in inside plane (parked) while the storm passed overhead.  An hour later, and I was on my again under blue skies.

Not sure what you I would do if trying to go in the same direction as the line.  A hotel room would work.

Fun times.

Steve

They vary from squalls with 25-35 knots, to hail storms with many gusts to 70 and dericho bursts to over 100. The damage can resemble a twister, with trees blown flat in streaks. You don't do ANYTHING with your anchor during the peak, you just hold on and hope you've done enough, since going on deck can be unsafe and you can't do anything anyway. The most intense portion is normally only 10-30 minutes, but it can stay nasty for hours.

However, they do not generally go zero-to-lots instantly. There is nearly always a period of 3-10 minutes of light to moderate cool breezes preceding them, the beginnings of the down draft. These are tall storms, with ice at the top. It's not that weird for the temp to go from 100F to 60F in 10 minutes, with an inch of ice on the ground. Nearly always, the boat will rotate before the blasts hit, but without enough load on the anchor to set it in the new direction.

Mostly, 35-50 knots is common. You are unlike to experience more than 1-2 really nasty one is a full season. But the detail weather forecast is not dependable; if the forecast is for thunderstorms, it could be either sort. If the storm is tall and dark, with cold breezes, smart sailors haul down ALL sail. It's not worth guessing.

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

Seems logical to me. Height of arrow is the value that the hold was greater than, which is variable because the force was constant but the weight of the anchors varied. As a practical matter, a properly sized anchor that achieves a 60x multiplier, will hold.

Makes no sense - many, thousands, use a Rocna (which has a multiplier from the speadsheet of, averaging all seabeds - about 30 and is a max of 40 if you anchor on the surf line).  How many Rocna owners complain their anchor dragged!  Either the multiplier for Rocna is wrong or the 60 is wrong.  Many owners use a genuine Bruce and have used one for decades, the original Bruce is a highly respected anchor. It has a multiplier of, again averaging, less than 20.  The owners and their yachts should have been wrecked on beaches - where is the evidence.

 

The seabeds being used for testing may not be typical when compared with the seabeds in which the thousands of Rocna owners use their anchors, equally all Rocna owners may use oversized anchors (but I doubt it - some do, but many use the recommended size).

 

Similarly if a multiplier of 60 of an anchor and use of one of the recommended size is safe - then there is simply no need to test anchors with multipliers above 60.  I'd like to see the data that confirms a 60 multiplier is 'safe' (as both Rocna and Bruce seem 'safe').

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

Makes no sense - many, thousands, use a Rocna (which has a multiplier from the speadsheet of, averaging all seabeds - about 30 and is a max of 40 if you anchor on the surf line).  How many Rocna owners complain their anchor dragged!  Either the multiplier for Rocna is wrong or the 60 is wrong.  Many owners use a genuine Bruce and have used one for decades, the original Bruce is a highly respected anchor. It has a multiplier of, again averaging, less than 20.  The owners and their yachts should have been wrecked on beaches - where is the evidence.

 

The seabeds being used for testing may not be typical when compared with the seabeds in which the thousands of Rocna owners use their anchors, equally all Rocna owners may use oversized anchors (but I doubt it - some do, but many use the recommended size).

 

Similarly if a multiplier of 60 of an anchor and use of one of the recommended size is safe - then there is simply no need to test anchors with multipliers above 60.  I'd like to see the data that confirms a 60 multiplier is 'safe' (as both Rocna and Bruce seem 'safe').

I'm one of those people who've used a rocna for quite some time.  I like it, and don't plan to run out and replace it right away.  But most of my anchoring has been fair-weather anchoring, as is true for a great many coastal cruisers, who head for home/a dock/a mooring when the forecast is bad.

So no, it hasn't dragged (except for the one time I dropped it into weeds without thinking, and promptly clogged it, but moving over 100 yards fixed that).  But I'm glad to know where its Achilles' heel is, so I can be on the lookout for those conditions and take appropriate mitigation. 

I can think of one Youtuber (Sailing Jib-sea, I think) who look like they dragged their Rocna under circumstances that could well be what Steve has described.

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

I take that back. I've been in one.

Florida Panhandle.  Inland.

Flying a small plane, Westbound into an advancing (eastbound) line of those fuckers.  

I figured I would "stick my nose in it" and see what all the fuss was about.  Got my ass handed to me before I got near it.  Landed at a dirt strip just as the rain came pouring down.  Plane COVERED in mud. 

Remained in inside plane (parked) while the storm passed overhead.  An hour later, and I was on my again under blue skies.

Not sure what you I would do if trying to go in the same direction as the line.  A hotel room would work.

Fun times.

Steve

Yessiree... spring storms are fun. If you find yourself with some time, Google the 2015 Dauphin Island Race, in which a derecho squall blew 70kt and people were killed. I got off lucky with 15K in damages. Of course the nice thing about the N GOM is its very good holding. For the most part; the 15K was bc a shithead (not) laying to a Bruce dragged into me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Manson Supreme, in 1000s of instances from N GOM to S Bahamas, dragged only once. I have outlined that experience here IIRC. After listening to Steve and contemplating my own experience, I think that the roll bar anchors' Achilles' Heel is indeed fouling/not clearing / fouled anchor doesn't reset.

I am in hopes that someone -ahem-cough- can get down here to the Keys and test these marl-with-thin-sand-over bottoms and see what works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was only commenting on the way the data was presented on the graph, and that multipliers greater than 60 are not vital because an anchor that is well sized is providing over one ton of hold at that point. I was not commenting on the data, what that multiplier should be, or Rocna.

I can probably tell you a story about dragging with every anchor made, including some friends that lost a boat that was anchored with a conservatively sized Rocna. Any anchor can fail to hold occasionally. Never say never. Thin cover of hard pan is a good example, because it is often hard to spot and the anchor will seem to hold when power set.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Guvacine said:

Steve,

Can you explain why you don't include the fortress in your graphs? It might have odd numbers but it is a popular/common anchor.

Thanks.

Absolutely.

First, I would like very much to have the Fortress (and Danforth) on the "Holding, Resistance/Wt." graphs.  At some point I probably will.  Here are some of the reasons for the omission:

1) In several seabeds, the bollard power of the test boat is nowhere near enough to reach the holding power of even my smallest Fortress (I have three).  As can be seen above, in this thread, my use of "arrows" on the graph is a great source of confusion.

2) For the (few) tests that I have conducted with the winch (it does pull hard enough to test the Fortress), the results are so large, that the scale of the graph would need to be greatly increased.  This will tend to visually "compress" the data for all the other anchors, and make comparisons between those anchors more difficult/less accurate.  For example I recently tested a Fortress (with the winch) in the "Surf Sand". It's resistance/Wt. was more than 3 times that of the best "non-pivoting fluke" anchors. 

3) Although some folks consider (and use) Fortress/Danforth anchors as "Primary"/"Bower"/"Stand Alone" anchors (and I respect that), it is my personal opinion  these are "specialty" anchors are not really in the same category as the "single tooth"/ "non-pivoting fluke" anchors that are the primary focus of my tests.

4) In at least one seabed (Sandy Mud) the Fortress was able to penetrate properly only about 50% of the time (more than a dozen attempts) at the 5:1 scope that I normally test.  It really needed 6:1 scope to function properly, and that would be problematic if I included on a 5:1 graph.

The whole business of charting and graphing anchor performance is at its heart, just a big mess.  There will always be confusion, ommisions, and misunderstandings. Charting/Graphing is just one more challenge that I am trying to learn to do properly.  I appreciate those that have the patience to bear with me as I muddle along.

Thank you Guvacine, for asking this very good question.

Steve

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

I was only commenting on the way the data was presented on the graph, and that multipliers greater than 60 are not vital because an anchor that is well sized is providing over one ton of hold at that point. I was not commenting on the data, what that multiplier should be, or Rocna.

If you check dragging history and its results on anchor buying practice you will find the CQR, Delta and Bruce are considered of much higher risk of dragging than, lets call them, new gen anchors.  In fact it s difficult to find reports of new gen anchors dragging but, sadly, easy to find reports of old gen anchors dragging - and this latter results in people dumping old gen anchors (they have no second hand value) and replacing with a new gen.

 

Historically old gen anchors have multiplier of around 60 new gen anchors have a multiplier of double that.  Or old gen anchors are certificated as HHP anchors and new gen anchors are certificated as SHHP anchors and the difference between HHP and SHHP is a factor of 2 for hold.  

 

A simplistic conclusion is that higher hold, in fact double hold results in a more dependable anchor.  As the old gen anchors have a hold of around 60 - I have to question your recommendation.

 

A hold of 1 ton (this must be a 15 kg anchor) is well beyond the tension you will experience sitting at anchor in a yacht whose anchor would be recommended at 15kg.  But the 1 ton is in a straight line pull, no chop, no wind shear - introduce real weather and your 1 ton 'holding capacity' will no longer be relevant, I'm sure there have been articles in Practical Sailor documenting same - frankly I'd rather a 2t hold (the hold of a SHHP anchor in nice clean sand) and knowledge that new gen anchors have little report of dragging - whatever the condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the ubiquitous Shrimp Boat Anchor seen in commercial fish in the northern Gulf of Mexico. I’ve seen these guys laying to these in open roadsteads in fairly crap wx. That said, y’all may recall the ‘good holding’ comment from above.

http://sscbiloxi.com/Shrimp-Boat-Big-Anchor-385-Lbs-Steel_p_332.html

00CC033C-B065-4147-967A-A85388485720.jpeg
 

I am reminded of a couple things I wanted to say about the Manson:

—during the DI race storm, I had initially set and when my wife looked up and saw the guy who eventually hit us begin to drag, we paid out and backed/tied onto a nearby bulkhead to attempt to avoid. The bottom is a soupy mud, and the Manson had took and held immediately whereat the dragging Bruce had been there all day. AFAIC, that ‘soaking’ thing is a myth.

The other tale is in regards an outing later in the same year. We had taken friends out to Ship Island to see the 4th fireworks and the old fort. Another line squall built up (it was a ruff year) and we rode it out there. Estimated 60kt. Water pretty flat but open to wind. 12x6m 2d gen Catana catamaran. 7:1 scope or so. No noticeable dragging. Bottom there is a slightly muddy sand.

FWIW if I can’t get a minimum 5:1 I move. I avoid crowded anchorage, partially for that reason. But I’ve only dragged once so maybe there is something innit

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

This is the ubiquitous Shrimp Boat Anchor seen in commercial fish in the northern Gulf of Mexico. I’ve seen these guys laying to these in open roadsteads in fairly crap wx. That said, y’all may recall the ‘good holding’ comment from above.

http://sscbiloxi.com/Shrimp-Boat-Big-Anchor-385-Lbs-Steel_p_332.html

00CC033C-B065-4147-967A-A85388485720.jpeg
 

 

Looks like a northill. Which didn’t test that well. Fisherman often have poor anchors and do things like use an all wire rode with no snubber….nothing of the things that cruising sailboats do. 

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

Looks like a northill. Which didn’t test that well. Fisherman often have poor anchors and do things like use an all wire rode with no snubber….nothing of the things that cruising sailboats do. 

I don't agree. I had forgotten that Steve tested it, and I forgot the name (thank you.) I looked at the video. Not bad.

Northill Anchor Setting Test 3.5 to 1 scope. Video #16 of an ongoing anchoring series. - YouTube

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

I don't agree. I had forgotten that Steve tested it, and I forgot the name (thank you.) I looked at the video. Not bad.

Northill Anchor Setting Test 3.5 to 1 scope. Video #16 of an ongoing anchoring series. - YouTube

I have a 35lb northill as a backup anchor. I’ll have to re-watch. I remember being disappointed vs the new gen anchors. Maybe it’d be better to have a new-gen alu anchor that bolted together. 

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

 ... AFAIC, that ‘soaking’ thing is a myth....

 

And depending on what you mean, you would be at least partially wrong.

I have done test pulls with anchors from 2.5 to 45 pounds, both fluke and scoop, with various soaking/impulse cycles and measured increases in holding of 25-150%, depending on the bottom type. Makers of large anchors and platform anchors have done similar studies and reached proportional conclusions.

  • The increase is greater in soft mud than sand. In some bottoms there is very little change, in some it it huge.
  • The larger the anchor, the less the change. 30-60% in soft mud would be expected by a cruiser-size anchor.
  • This is not just soaking. There must be repeated "impulse" loads that encourage deeper setting. For example, either gentle power setting at intervals or cyclical wind gusts.

But (a) this is not going to save a poor set or poor anchor, and (b) if the anchor is forced to rotate or reset in the face of a wind direction change (I'm sure there was one with the storm hit) then the clock is reset. Thus, the actual improvement is probably no more than 20-30% in most cases, unless multiple anchor were set, or the anchor just happened to be set in the correct direction (you can set the anchor in the direction of the anticipated wind).

This is a known and proven thing. Just not a miracle.

33. holding capacity improvment in mud.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

I simply do not understand the results you generate with the Rocna.

 

At least two Classification Societies have tested Rocna, RINA and Lloyds and they give it a SHHP rating - meaning it has twice the hold of a HHP anchor, say CQR or Delta (and it would have a hold similar to Excel and Spade, also SHHP anchors) - in a number of different seabeds, (I think three different seabeds) and the anchor tested 3 times.  Virtually every magazine reported anchor test has Rocna at the top of the heap, the Yachting Monthly/West Marine test in 2006 and the Voile tests also reported in Yachting Monthly and/or Yachting World (and a host of other tests).  Every one, with one or two exceptions, who use a Rocna report on its tenacious hold and if you ask - no-one admits to their Rocna dragging.  Rocna is possibly the most popular 'new gen ' anchor - and if it had the hold you define - no-one would touch it with a barge pole.  Rocna was chosen by Morgans Cloud as their anchor of choice until some dragging incidents were reported due to a clogged fluke - but since those reports - there have been minimal negative reports.  Your testing is for hold and Mornags Cloud report is as a result of clogging - not a straight line hold

 

Either you have a duff Rocna or there is something very peculiar about your seabeds and/or protocol.  If there is something peculiar about your seabeds or protocol then all your results are equally invalid.

 

If you think there is something wrong with your results for Rocna and do not have an explanation for the contradiction and your seabeds and protocol are valid - then the Rocna results demand an explanation or it might be said you have some grudge against Rocna. 

 

It is quite common to have a short footnote at the bottom of a table of results - add it!

 

To me the contradiction raised by Rocna is simply too large to ignore, especially as many are going to look at the summaries and not look at 100 videos.  If you are happy that some might question your methodology or ignore what you do (because their experience with a Rocna is at odds with yours) just think what they might think .........  If I were Rocna or CMP - I might be sufficiently well entrenched in the market to think I can ignore you - I might also think to consider doing something about the anomaly - and then you might be looking for subscriptions for costs other than testing.  Americans can be very litigious.

  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add - controversy is a marvellous tool if used with care.  The Rocna bendy shank saga did them no harm at all.  A bit of controversy over your tests or Rocna would lift ones score when anyone does a Google search.

 

I'm not suggesting, at all, that you were seeking controversy - but CMP have benefited in the past - they might prefer to let it run - they are already in a dominant position

 

Wat me, worry?

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Saw Q said:

Steve,

 

I simply do not understand the results you generate with the Rocna.

 

At least two Classification Societies have tested Rocna, RINA and Lloyds and they give it a SHHP rating - meaning it has twice the hold of a HHP anchor, say CQR or Delta (and it would have a hold similar to Excel and Spade, also SHHP anchors) - in a number of different seabeds, (I think three different seabeds) and the anchor tested 3 times.  Virtually every magazine reported anchor test has Rocna at the top of the heap, the Yachting Monthly/West Marine test in 2006 and the Voile tests also reported in Yachting Monthly and/or Yachting World (and a host of other tests).  Every one, with one or two exceptions, who use a Rocna report on its tenacious hold and if you ask - no-one admits to their Rocna dragging.  Rocna is possibly the most popular 'new gen ' anchor - and if it had the hold you define - no-one would touch it with a barge pole.  Rocna was chosen by Morgans Cloud as their anchor of choice until some dragging incidents were reported due to a clogged fluke - but since those reports - there have been minimal negative reports.  Your testing is for hold and Mornags Cloud report is as a result of clogging - not a straight line hold

 

Either you have a duff Rocna or there is something very peculiar about your seabeds and/or protocol.  If there is something peculiar about your seabeds or protocol then all your results are equally invalid.

 

If you think there is something wrong with your results for Rocna and do not have an explanation for the contradiction and your seabeds and protocol are valid - then the Rocna results demand an explanation or it might be said you have some grudge against Rocna. 

 

It is quite common to have a short footnote at the bottom of a table of results - add it!

 

To me the contradiction raised by Rocna is simply too large to ignore, especially as many are going to look at the summaries and not look at 100 videos.  If you are happy that some might question your methodology or ignore what you do (because their experience with a Rocna is at odds with yours) just think what they might think .........  If I were Rocna or CMP - I might be sufficiently well entrenched in the market to think I can ignore you - I might also think to consider doing something about the anomaly - and then you might be looking for subscriptions for costs other than testing.  Americans can be very litigious.

Steve has tested two different Rocnas and they occupy the same position in the results tables for their weight class, which suggests to me that there is some support for that position . To suggest that Steve is fudging the results because of some grudge is pure bullshit. To start talking about lawyers is even more bullshit, and makes me wonder exactly who you represent.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to see people take notice

Who said Steve was fudging the results - he will come along later and define exactly why Rocna is not good and everyone has bought a lemon.

Fine ignore the contradictions.

Ignore the fact that every other test had Rocna top of the tree.....

So look at the rest of the results:

CQR is stellar.

Mantus M1 has a holding capacity not much different to Delta - now I wonder who has been saying that consistently (and been damned for saying so) for about 12 months (or more?).

Yup - ignore the difficult questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

exactly who you represent.

Maybe those who own a Rocna?  Those who bought a Rocna on the basis of almost every anchor test in the last, almost, 2 decades, who bought on the basis of a Classification Society test regime, who bought on the basis of recommendation over the last 15 years.

Its pretty simple why was everyone so wrong.

What anchor do you use - a Rocna that has never failed you (like most owners)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get some of the other questions on the table - then you can vent your spleen all at once.

 

Steve seems to consider that an anchor that is moving is 'set' and he uses the tension of the moving anchor as his measurement for hold.

If an anchor is moving -

It is dragging.  If it is dragging it may catch a contaminant - and then surface and drag big time.

A sent anchor does not move - or you may arrive on a beach or rock.  

Now if Steve want to determine a new meaning of the word 'set' that's fine - but should be made very clear as everyone else, without exception, considers 'set' to mean the maximum hold, tension in the rode, the anchor develops when stationary.

A moving anchor will collect seabed, clog - and it will then not be the anchor 'as designed'.  Some will clog more than others.  The more an anchor collects the faster the drag or lower tension needed to drag the anchor.

 

Now of course you may all be happy with a moving anchor - but you would be fairly exceptional.

 

 

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

I have a 35lb northill as a backup anchor. I’ll have to re-watch. I remember being disappointed vs the new gen anchors. Maybe it’d be better to have a new-gen alu anchor that bolted together. 

Yes, I am with you on the ‘vs new-gen’ but I was surprised that it did as well as it did.

Also with you on the ‘new gen bolt together.’ That’s one reason why I gat a Viking to replace the (dying) Al Spade

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2021 at 8:07 AM, Elegua said:

I have a 35lb northill as a backup anchor. I’ll have to re-watch. I remember being disappointed vs the new gen anchors. Maybe it’d be better to have a new-gen alu anchor that bolted together. 

Actually, I would suggest testing it where you are. This is one of the anchors, like Rocna and CQR, where Panope's results and the rest of the world seem to differ by a considerable margin. Like the CQR, it was developed for seaplanes, but the British were focused on mud while the US was more interested in weed and sand (a difference in where they were testing).

  • I've tested the 12-pound utility version vs. NG anchors on the east coast, and while the multiplier is somewhat lower than the best, it is well up in the pack on firm bottoms, trashy bottoms, weed and rock (not cobble--everything sucks there).
  • I have found it to be one of the most reliable engaging anchors there is. My 12-pound Northill easily outperformed the 25-pound Delta on hard sand and rock.
  • It is vulnerable to fluke fouling if the tide rotates. No helping that.
  • I have used the 12-pound utility on and off for 30 years. the results are not a "fluke." In actual use (cruising 24- to 27-foot sailboats), it never failed to set and hold on anything other than the worst bottoms that wouldn't hold anything else I tried either. It never dragged. The only time I would back it up was on super soft mud (no 12-pound anchor would hold enough) and where there was a swinging tide (I set an opposing Danforth).
  • IIRC, Panope's results for the "utility" version were good for the size, but the folding version did less well per size. Not sure why. But this reasonably killed Panope's interest, because the "utility" version is only available up to 12 pounds, too small for cruising boats.

I have not tested the folding version.

All that said, if the basic design was terribly flawed, it would not remain the most copied anchor on the commercial fishing fleet, world-wide. That is sincere flattery.

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

All that said, if the basic design was terribly flawed, it would not remain the most copied anchor on the commercial fishing fleet, world-wide. That is sincere flattery.

It could also be because it's easily fabricated by any Joe Sixpack with access to some flat and bar stock and a stick welder, which includes 100% of the commercial fishing fleet...

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

Maybe those who own a Rocna?  Those who bought a Rocna on the basis of almost every anchor test in the last, almost, 2 decades, who bought on the basis of a Classification Society test regime, who bought on the basis of recommendation over the last 15 years.

Its pretty simple why was everyone so wrong.

What anchor do you use - a Rocna that has never failed you (like most owners)

 

I use a Delta, and it has dragged. I think my next anchor will be an Excel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting info for this thread - just appeared on Webb Chiles’ journal site today - all of the details of his anchoring set up and technique.  Lots of details:  https://self-portraitinthepresentseajournal.blogspot.com/2021/10/hilton-head-island-anchoring-essential.html?m=1

His opening salvo is good :-) :

On RESURGAM my primary anchor was a 33 pound Bruce.  On THE HAWKE OF TUONELA it was a 26 pound aluminum Spade.  I have read some anchor tests in which Bruces do not do well.  Neither do CQR Plow anchors.  Because I have used both for multiple circumnavigations without problems this causes me to suspect the anchor tests, not the anchors.

On GANNET my primary anchor is a 10 pound aluminum Spade.  I think I read that Spade advises that for heavy use you should use a steel version. I have not found that necessary and the weight difference makes anchoring with the aluminum versions dramatically easier.

There are some newer anchors which may be good.  I have no experience with them and cannot say.”

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

It could also be because it's easily fabricated by any Joe Sixpack with access to some flat and bar stock and a stick welder, which includes 100% of the commercial fishing fleet...

... And we could say that of many designs. More than a few have knocked off Rocnas and Bugels. Not hard.

I think more to the point, it is a design that it relatively forgiving of minor changes in geometry. Panope has demonstrated that many designs become non-functional if slightly bent or one angle is changed just a little bit. It is a more robust geometry. Kink any NG anchor shank and it becomes a big paperweight.

Why do we not see NG anchors on commercial boats, for the most part? I don't think it is fabrication, availability, or money. Just interesting.

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

 ..........Because I have used both for multiple circumnavigations without problems this causes me to suspect the anchor tests, not the anchors........................

 

Thanks for posting that, Jud.  I'll take advice from Webb, any day.

My second ever experience with anchoring, nearly ended in disaster.  I was just a boy, on a friend's engineless schooner.  Lee Shore. 25kts.  Full canvas and suddenly out of control (don't ask me what the fuck we were doing there in the first place).  Skipper sprang forward and let go a monster Fisherman anchor (at painfully short scope) that brought us to a halt just before wrecking into a wharf.

I am sure this experience has shaped my philosophy toward my anchor tests.  Specifically, I have generally approached the testing from a worst case or emergency scenario, rather than a "normal use" case.  Sort of like an automobile crash dummy test as opposed to a "Car and Driver" review.

It is why I have tended to use:

-Short scopes 

-Haphazard deployment (dump and hope)

-High setting speeds (boat headed for the bricks)

-No soak time.

-High speed re-sets 

 

Webb is so goddam good, he could make anything work.

Steve 

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

Thanks for posting that, Jud.  I'll take advice from Webb, any day.

My second ever experience with anchoring, nearly ended in disaster.  I was just a boy, on a friend's engineless schooner.  Lee Shore. 25kts.  Full canvas and suddenly out of control (don't ask me what the fuck we were doing there in the first place).  Skipper sprang forward and let go a monster Fisherman anchor (at painfully short scope) that brought us to a halt just before wrecking into a wharf.

I am sure this experience has shaped my philosophy toward my anchor tests.  Specifically, I have generally approached the testing from a worst case or emergency scenario, rather than a "normal use" case.  Sort of like an automobile crash dummy test as opposed to a "Car and Driver" review.

It is why I have tended to use:

-Short scopes 

-Haphazard deployment (dump and hope)

-High setting speeds (boat headed for the bricks)

-No soak time.

-High speed re-sets 

 

Webb is so goddam good, he could make anything work.

Steve 

Hey Steve - Ha!  That’s very true. If you’ve ever read “Storm Passage”, where Webb bails for literally months on end while on a Southern Ocean nonstop RTW attempt...

BTW, my posting that wasn’t meant as any sort of commentary - his note that he “suspects” the tests rather than the anchors.  I’ve no idea.  But I think your approach is good - worst case scenario use/conditions.

I was slightly blown away that he uses a dinky little 10 lb. Spade his boat - and aluminum, not even a heavier/tougher steel one.  I couldn’t sleep at night :-)

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

Why do we not see NG anchors on commercial boats, for the most part? I don't think it is fabrication, availability, or money. Just interesting.

Around these parts, the fishermen that I have spoken to, keep their old school ground tackle (mostly Forfjord, Stockless) because they don't bend in boulders and also, because that is what fits in Hawse pipes or centerline rollers that have zero overhang. 

Also, I suspect that the knowledge of these people's trade, was passed down from many generations, and they are not likely to use sailing forums, Cruising World magazine, or some ridiculous anchor test, as a source of information. 

"We've always done it this way"

3bVuBKT.png

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

Actually, I would suggest testing it where you are. .

Where I am will be a variable. I've used it as a kedge but never really loaded it up. It's folding SS one. 

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

This is interesting info for this thread - just appeared on Webb Chiles’ journal site today - all of the details of his anchoring set up and technique.  Lots of details:  https://self-portraitinthepresentseajournal.blogspot.com/2021/10/hilton-head-island-anchoring-essential.html?m=1

His opening salvo is good :-) :

On RESURGAM my primary anchor was a 33 pound Bruce.  On THE HAWKE OF TUONELA it was a 26 pound aluminum Spade.  I have read some anchor tests in which Bruces do not do well.  Neither do CQR Plow anchors.  Because I have used both for multiple circumnavigations without problems this causes me to suspect the anchor tests, not the anchors.

On GANNET my primary anchor is a 10 pound aluminum Spade.  I think I read that Spade advises that for heavy use you should use a steel version. I have not found that necessary and the weight difference makes anchoring with the aluminum versions dramatically easier.

There are some newer anchors which may be good.  I have no experience with them and cannot say.”

 

You are in good company - a select few, maybe many, use an aluminium Spade and the newer aluminium Excel - its design not weight.  Viking have taken this a step further and offer a high tensile steel anchor  thus also saving weight and rating high on the Panope charts - its design not weight.

 

But anchors are sold by weight, not on lack of weight - there is huge resistance to the idea that a light anchor might actually be perfectly safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Old Gen' anchors may not rate highly on anchor tests but that does not mean they were unsafe.  CQR, Northhill and Danforth design are almost 100 years old, Bruce maybe nearly 50 years old and Delta bit younger.  Many people still use them with success.  But many people still drive old cars - they are all perfectly adequate.

But there are newer designs that are better, some incorporate materials or manufacturing processes that were not available in the 1930s.  A genuine CQR was expensive to make in the 21st Century - why buy a 100 year old design, seabed specific that needed skill and patience to deploy, engage and set when you can buy a cheaper design that you can chuck, forget and be reliable

New gen anchors are much more forgiving of novice owners and tend to be less seabed specific, they can be much lighter for their hold - its not that old gen anchors were bad - its that new gen anchors are cheaper to make, available world wide, idiot proof (or almost so) and though none are perfect they offer reliability in a number of seabeds - and many have twice the hold of the old gen anchors.

Of course the 'twice the hold' has been lost in the fear mongering rhetoric demanding you must carry an anchor so big people will laugh, and big means heavy - so the idea of a lightweight reliable anchor gets hit on the head at every turn.  How many aluminium Spades or Excels are sold - does anyone one see a Fortress being used outside America (and Viking are on a hiding to nothing).  How many people were persuaded to buy a new gen anchor and bought one smaller than the old gen anchor they were going to retire, very few - it makes no sense - but they all buy bigger, its a better product and but they bought bigger (and aping much more than they needed to.

Old gen anchors have a multiplier of 60, which Thinwater says is adequate.  This means if you buy a new gen anchor (which might have a multiplier of 130) you would be safe with one half the size of that old gen ( x 60) - but no - they buy bigger.  

 

I don't agree with Thinwater's 60 but I also don't agree with buying a new gen that is bigger - I prefer somewhere in between, buy a smaller new gen, but as it has a multiplier of 130 - you also can still increase your safety factor (and still save weight if you go for the lightweight route (aluminium or HT steel).

.

 

 

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

'Old Gen' anchors may not rate highly on anchor tests but that does not mean they were unsafe.  CQR, Northhill and Danforth design are almost 100 years old, Bruce maybe nearly 50 years old and Delta bit younger.  Many people still use them with success.  But many people still drive old cars - they are all perfectly adequate.

But there are newer designs that are better, some incorporate materials or manufacturing processes that were not available in the 1930s.  A genuine CQR was expensive to make in the 21st Century - why buy a 100 year old design, seabed specific that needed skill and patience to deploy, engage and set when you can buy a cheaper design that you can chuck, forget and be reliable

New gen anchors are much more forgiving of novice owners and tend to be less seabed specific, they can be much lighter for their hold - its not that old gen anchors were bad - its that new gen anchors are cheaper to make, available world wide, idiot proof (or almost so) and though none are perfect they offer reliability in a number of seabeds - and many have twice the hold of the old gen anchors.

Of course the 'twice the hold' has been lost in the fear mongering rhetoric demanding you must carry an anchor so big people will laugh, and big means heavy - so the idea of a lightweight reliable anchor gets hit on the head at every turn.  How many aluminium Spades or Excels are sold - does anyone one see a Fortress being used outside America (and Viking are on a hiding to nothing).  How many people were persuaded to buy a new gen anchor and bought one smaller than the old gen anchor they were going to retire, very few - it makes no sense - but they all buy bigger, its a better product and but they bought bigger (and aping much more than they needed to.

Old gen anchors have a multiplier of 60, which Thinwater says is adequate.  This means if you buy a new gen anchor (which might have a multiplier of 130) you would be safe with one half the size of that old gen ( x 60) - but no - they buy bigger.  

 

I don't agree with Thinwater's 60 but I also don't agree with buying a new gen that is bigger - I prefer somewhere in between, buy a smaller new gen, but as it has a multiplier of 130 - you also can still increase your safety factor (and still save weight if you go for the lightweight route (aluminium or HT steel).

This!

My only problem with my little old CQR Plow in the Wadden Sea (muddy sand) for many years was that it worked too well. After a real blow I could not get it to release from the seabed. Had to wait for another low tide, walk to shore, find a farm, borrow a spade and a shovel, walk back to the boat and put in two hours of hard labour to find and free my anchor.

Our new boat came with an anchor from Ultramarine. While the boat has 3 times the displacement the ultramarine is still lighterless weight and works beautifully. That's grand on a multihull.

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

This!

My only problem with my little old CQR Plow in the Wadden Sea (muddy sand) for many years was that it worked too well. After a real blow I could not get it to release from the seabed. Had to wait for another low tide, walk to shore, find a farm, borrow a spade and a shovel, walk back to the boat and put in two hours of hard labour to find and free my anchor.

Our new boat came with an anchor from Ultramarine. While the boat has 3 times the displacement the ultramarine is still lighterless weight and works beautifully. That's grand on a multihull.

For a yacht that responds to saving weight, performance cruiser/mulltihull, the combination of a lighter anchor of modern design, aluminium Spade, Excel or the high tensile steel Viking + HT steel, downsized, chain (G70) and a decent snubber/bridle is unbeatable.  You save weight (mostly from the chain) need a smaller locker (or reduce towering), maybe a smaller windlass and need less power to drive the windlass.  Not much of a downside - except you need to reject catenary (replaced with elasticity) and the idea that an anchor has to be heavy.  This is best done when you buy a new yacht or when the chain or windlass needs to be replaced.  Chain wheels are surprisingly expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2021 at 7:06 AM, Panope said:

Around these parts, the fishermen that I have spoken to, keep their old school ground tackle (mostly Forfjord, Stockless) because they don't bend in boulders and also, because that is what fits in Hawse pipes or centerline rollers that have zero overhang. ..................Also, I suspect that the knowledge of these people's trade, was passed down from many generations, and they are not likely to use sailing forums, Cruising World magazine, or some ridiculous anchor test, as a source of information. 

Here the commercial Crayfish boats go out for several days, if they are not dropping or hauling their pots then they are anchored,  often in marginal exposed anchorages with swell and wind. All anchors of similar pattern to the one you showed are a lot larger on those boats. Several have modern oversize HHP anchors for sand as well as stockless onboard and large powerful hydraulic anchor windlasses.

Stockless anchors like the dreadnought shown below are  popular and are good anchors for most conditions. Their advantage is moderate holding and a well mannered controlled drag in any bottom you drop it on,  in thick weed and rocky or shallow sand over rock shelves they excel . 

Larger boats with large slow turning screws also have the bollard pull astern to fully test the set of an anchor. So their observations of what works is relevant and immediate for non veering loads at any rate.  

 

dreadnought_no_10_anchor.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2021 at 3:23 PM, Panope said:

Thanks for posting that, Jud.  I'll take advice from Webb, any day.

My second ever experience with anchoring, nearly ended in disaster.  I was just a boy, on a friend's engineless schooner.  Lee Shore. 25kts.  Full canvas and suddenly out of control (don't ask me what the fuck we were doing there in the first place).  Skipper sprang forward and let go a monster Fisherman anchor (at painfully short scope) that brought us to a halt just before wrecking into a wharf.

I am sure this experience has shaped my philosophy toward my anchor tests.  Specifically, I have generally approached the testing from a worst case or emergency scenario, rather than a "normal use" case.  Sort of like an automobile crash dummy test as opposed to a "Car and Driver" review.

It is why I have tended to use:

-Short scopes 

-Haphazard deployment (dump and hope)

-High setting speeds (boat headed for the bricks)

-No soak time.

-High speed re-sets 

 

Webb is so goddam good, he could make anything work.

Steve 

While not wanting to get into a specific debate, you need to be very careful when exaggerating test conditions to separate products. I tested engine oils, engine coolants, and fuels in my day job for decades, and one of the most difficult challenges was accelerating aging and adding stress without creating failures that do not actually happen. For example, if you increase the oxygen level in any corrosion test (not pure oxygen, just more), for example, you get types of chemical reactions that don't actually occur in the field. The same with temperature and unrealistic levels of corrosive agents. Exaggerated anchor tests save time, but they can create false failures and false passes.

-Short scopes. I've tested anchors at variable scope (no chain so that the ground angle was known), and with the exception of pivoting fluke anchors, they all drop off rapidly on a similar curve. Below 5:1 true bottom scope the numbers become very erratic. Not just my testing. Short scope with chain rode is a different thing, since in most of the tests the chain is still on or very near the bottom, so not really short scope (anchor drags before chain lifts). IMO, testing at 3:1 scope is more of a tests of chain rode than the anchor. Also, when chain is used, scope alone means very little. It is really scope + depth (amount of chain deployed) that matters, making things complicated. I see no benefit in testing at less than 5:1 and the potential for introducing errors. If you want to test the effect of scope separately, use zero chain.

-Haphazard deployment (dump and hope). Nope, a very bad habit and no reason this should ever happen.  I always wait until the boat is moving backwards, lower until it touches and then tip, before releasing more rode. If nothing else, you can load the anchor shackle cross wise. Yes, I anchor single handed most of the time. Larger boats are almost easier, because everything happens slower. But I accept "dump and pray" for testing since specific anchors can tangle more than others. But such a result must be a side note and recorded separately from load results. You have done this, as I recall, retesting after tangles.

-High setting speeds (boat headed for the bricks). Nope, no reason this should happen. Favors specific setting traits. Unless  the eye of a huricane passes over you, there is no realistic scenario. Yes, I have deployed anchors twice when the boat was drifting rapidly into a hazard in a harbor (rocks) or channel (expensive boats). I used the momentum I had to move to a safer location and make some space, lowered the anchor without "dump and hope," paid out enough scope (channels and harbors are not very deep as a rule, and you need it to set the first time), and then eased it in by making a light set before full scope, and then letting the rode slip a little at full scope (did not snub hard).

That said, it can be a factor in some resets, but that will be covered in the yawing tests, where it is important and realistic. Could be a separate test, but not a basic method.

-No soak time. Agree. I find the effect of soaking interesting, and important to understand if you live in a super soft mud area, but you won't always have it and you won't have it after a reset. A separate subject.

-High speed re-sets. Part of yawing test and may be unrealistic. But if we want to do this (for anchors that do not reset during yawing), the speed should be quite low, no more than 2 knots since that is about the highest speed a boat will drift, beam to wind, after a break-out.

The yawing tests I like. However, since the Fortress does well, and we know it does not, we need another scenario, which is to rotate under light load (weather was light from the south, and then rotated east slowly overnight before really blowing) and then build. Normally this takes hours, but a few minutes will just have to do for practicality. However, this means the test will lack realism.

In fact, most anchor testing and most oil and most lab oil and engine coolant testing lacks realism. This is why ALL major manufacturers consider lab tests to be only qualifying tests, after which the candidates are subjected to fleet testing, and even that often fails to reveal weaknesses, because the fleets are chosen to be high mileage and busy (deliveries and cabs) rather than normal use. There must be both and the product must pass both. Dexcool is an example of a product that passed both lab and fleet tests perfectly, and then failed in the field, because the testing protocols missed several important "realism" factors. (a) Dexcool was never tested mixed with traces of other coolants, because protocols always required good cleaning, but in the real world it is common, and (b) they did not test all metalurgies and all hose materials. The Dexcool that is on the market now was reformulated to solve these problems, is not the original formula, and is versatile and dependable in a wide range of engines.

But without lab testing, long-life engine coolants and oils would never have been developed. Exaggerated tests are part of that. It's where you start.

Anchor testing is very necessary but it sucks. It really does. None of the above should be taken as a criticism of Panope. It's hard.

 

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

While not wanting to get into a specific debate, you need to be very careful when exaggerating test conditions to separate products. I tested engine oils, engine coolants, and fuels in my day job for decades, and one of the most difficult challenges was accelerating aging and adding stress without creating failures that do not actually happen. For example, if you increase the oxygen level in any corrosion test (not pure oxygen, just more), for example, you get types of chemical reactions that don't actually occur in the field. The same with temperature and unrealistic levels of corrosive agents. Exaggerated anchor tests save time, but they can create false failures and false passes.

-Short scopes. I've tested anchors at variable scope (no chain so that the ground angle was known), and with the exception of pivoting fluke anchors, they all drop off rapidly on a similar curve. Below 5:1 true bottom scope the numbers become very erratic. Not just my testing. Short scope with chain rode is a different thing, since in most of the tests the chain is still on or very near the bottom, so not really short scope (anchor drags before chain lifts). IMO, testing at 3:1 scope is more of a tests of chain rode than the anchor. Also, when chain is used, scope alone means very little. It is really scope + depth (amount of chain deployed) that matters, making things complicated. I see no benefit in testing at less than 5:1 and the potential for introducing errors. If you want to test the effect of scope separately, use zero chain.

Agree with all that.  I do all my holding power tests at 5:1 or above.  If it is really blowing, I consider 5:1 "short(ish) scope.

-Haphazard deployment (dump and hope). Nope, a very bad habit and no reason this should ever happen.  I always wait until the boat is moving backwards, lower until it touches and then tip, before releasing more rode. If nothing else, you can load the anchor shackle cross wise. Yes, I anchor single handed most of the time. Larger boats are almost easier, because everything happens slower. But I accept "dump and pray" for testing since specific anchors can tangle more than others. But such a result must be a side note and recorded separately from load results. You have done this, as I recall, retesting after tangles.

Unknown current causes boat to drift over anchor during deployment, Someone fumbles the chain brake, in a hurry (dangerous pitching foredeck), Panic, or just plain laziness.  Yes, should not happen but does.  

-High setting speeds (boat headed for the bricks). Nope, no reason this should happen. Favors specific setting traits. Unless  the eye of a huricane passes over you, there is no realistic scenario. Yes, I have deployed anchors twice when the boat was drifting rapidly into a hazard in a harbor (rocks) or channel (expensive boats). I used the momentum I had to move to a safer location and make some space, lowered the anchor without "dump and hope," paid out enough scope (channels and harbors are not very deep as a rule, and you need it to set the first time), and then eased it in by making a light set before full scope, and then letting the rode slip a little at full scope (did not snub hard).

Loss of steerage prevents rounding up - happened to me (in my example above).  A friend recently described 2 events on race boats following dismastings (out of control) where they had to rely on an anchor to keep them out of the breakers. Engineless boat  has primary anchor drag (second anchor needs to set while drifting back uncontrolled),  Engine quits in close quarters (in marina).

That said, it can be a factor in some resets, but that will be covered in the yawing tests, where it is important and realistic. Could be a separate test, but not a basic method.

-No soak time. Agree. I find the effect of soaking interesting, and important to understand if you live in a super soft mud area, but you won't always have it and you won't have it after a reset. A separate subject.

-High speed re-sets. Part of yawing test and may be unrealistic. But if we want to do this (for anchors that do not reset during yawing), the speed should be quite low, no more than 2 knots since that is about the highest speed a boat will drift, beam to wind, after a break-out.

Yes, my high speed "3.5" knots was chosen (in part) to ampliphy results.  I have since had several unsolicited people tell me that they had that exact event happen to them at an even higher speed (I have no details).  In any case, if an anchor does not set (at 3+ knots) I slow down untill it does (and note).  Doesn't an anchor that can reset reliably at ridiculous speed just HAVE to be better than one that cannot?  It certainly cannot be worse. 

The yawing tests I like. However, since the Fortress does well, and we know it does not, we need another scenario, which is to rotate under light load (weather was light from the south, and then rotated east slowly overnight before really blowing) and then build. Normally this takes hours, but a few minutes will just have to do for practicality. However, this means the test will lack realism.

Yes. I'll be adding that test when I have time.

 

1 hour ago, thinwater said:

 

Anchor testing is very necessary but it sucks. It really does. None of the above should be taken as a criticism of Panope. It's hard.

I love testing anchors. 

Talking and writing about it, not so much!

I would be happy as a clam just being the guy on the water or in the shop solving the nuts and bolts problems of conducting the tests, inventing the apparatuses, gathering data, and capturing the video footage.

Best part is coming home dead-dog-tired reviewing footage and finding the occasional surprise.

It would be fine by me if someone else took over the presentation of all this.

Steve

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

would be happy as a clam just being the guy on the water or in the shop solving the nuts and bolts problems of conducting the tests, inventing the apparatuses, gathering data, and capturing the video footage.

Best part is coming home dead-dog-tired reviewing footage and finding the occasional surprise.

It would be fine by me if someone else took over the presentation of all this.

Steve

Boy do I relate to what you said. it's not just the public part, but fending off criticism really sucks. 

I'm still a huge fan of what you are doing and I get it that nothing is ever perfect.

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

Boy do I relate to what you said. it's not just the public part, but fending off criticism really sucks. 

I'm still a huge fan of what you are doing and I get it that nothing is ever perfect.

When I started the anchor videos, it was just the underwater stuff and on-screen text.  Right away the accusations started flying that I was working for a particular anchor manufacturer.  Understandably, a lot of people could not believe that I would be doing all this "just for the hell of it".  I felt that the best way to convey "who I am" was to simply show them - hence the on screen head shots.

I don't mind genuine, constructive criticism.  It's a good thing.  

But the occasional disingenuous troll types are a real pain. 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Panope said:

When I started the anchor videos, it was just the underwater stuff and on-screen text.  Right away the accusations started flying that I was working for a particular anchor manufacturer.  Understandably, a lot of people could not believe that I would be doing all this "just for the hell of it".  I felt that the best way to convey "who I am" was to simply show them - hence the on screen head shots.

I don't mind genuine, constructive criticism.  It's a good thing.  

But the occasional disingenuous troll types are a real pain. 

 

 

I am more than happy to be called a troll as long as the definition of 'set' is a moving anchor - to me and and much more important - every other testing regime defines 'set' as an anchor that is not moving.  I'm also happy to be considered a troll when a reasonable explanation is not forthcoming on why Rocna does so badly - when in every other test it has done so well (Fortress and soupy mud results excepted) in clean sand.  I'm also happy to be called a troll because I have pointed out that Mantus has a hold similar to a Delta in sand - underlined by the results Steve has produced (does this make Steve a troll? :) ).

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

When I started the anchor videos, it was just the underwater stuff and on-screen text.  Right away the accusations started flying that I was working for a particular anchor manufacturer.  Understandably, a lot of people could not believe that I would be doing all this "just for the hell of it".  I felt that the best way to convey "who I am" was to simply show them - hence the on screen head shots.

I don't mind genuine, constructive criticism.  It's a good thing.  

But the occasional disingenuous troll types are a real pain. 

 

The ‘ignore’ feature works a treat.

I know there are two in this thread who are unapologetic attention whores and just seem bent on doing their best to hijack your stuff. 

nolite te bastardes carborundum, Steve. You be you, and we are grateful. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Saw Q said:

Burning books was not a good idea either.

That’s a poor analogy. The ignore function is more like leaving a book on the shelf unread. Nothing is destroyed and others can read it if they want. 

That analogy does however hint you may tend to hyperbole and bending the facts. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saw Q said:

 

I am more than happy to be called a troll as long as the definition of 'set' is a moving anchor - to me and and much more important - every other testing regime defines 'set' as an anchor that is not moving.  I'm also happy to be considered a troll when a reasonable explanation is not forthcoming on why Rocna does so badly - when in every other test it has done so well (Fortress and soupy mud results excepted) in clean sand.  I'm also happy to be called a troll because I have pointed out that Mantus has a hold similar to a Delta in sand - underlined by the results Steve has produced (does this make Steve a troll? :) ).

Looking at Steve's results, in surf sand, the Mantus M1 has similar results to the Excel and Rocna and better than the Spade, so yes a troll.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering out loud. (The crinkling sound you will hear is my tin foil hat.)

Is there a need and/or way for Steve to protect his work from someone that would co-opt it by saying he was involved in the research by posting in the thread a few times?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites