Anchoring Perfectionism vs Realities of Soft Mud

[Steve Bedford]

Earlier in this post, it was suggested, "If we could get the manufacturers on board I would happily volunteer my boat and time to do some serious testing in New Orleans. Lake Pontchertrain is actually a good spot to test for mud, because the bottom is uniformly flat, soupy, and has almost no sand/clay. It's also reasonably shallow (12-14' across the entire thing). All I need is a load cell and a bunch of anchors.

I would recommend the manufacturers recommended anchor for a 40' sailboat be the test anchor, regardless of anchor size or weight.

The test boat should be able to break free almost any anchor specced for a 40' boat without trouble (60' power boat with twin 450hp diesels). If it can't... Well that anchor wins."

Super MAX Anchors would welcome that test of performance. There are a lot of excellent anchors out there and Fortress (mentioned repeatedly in this thread) is one of the very best. I, and others, consider the Super MAX Anchor in that same category. As I look back at the original post, it is a disastisfsction with even a small amount of movement after the set in soft mud. There needs to be a distinction between movement and dragging in soft mud and ooze. The Super MAX, like the Fortress, will continue to dig into the soft seabed for hours until it reaches the firmest seabed substrate. This is movement. This movement downward and backward at an angle. It is not uncommon to have the boat move slightly under power or even strong weather conditions until the anchor finds that more solid seabed. That is not dragging because it is not uncommon for a Super MAX and a Fortress to end up 15'-20' below the seabed surface.

The Super MAX Pivoting Arm Anchor has one setting especially for soft mud and ooze. That combined with the ease of setting and the large fluke surface area allows for safe and secure anchoring in softer seabeds. As a friend and customer once said, it is not if an anchor can "beat another anchor" (whatever that means). It is whether or not the anchor can match and beat the forces of Mother Nature.

Enjoy your time on the hook.
Steve Bedford

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Steve Bedford

As a friend and customer once said, it is not if an anchor can "beat another anchor" (whatever that means). It is whether or not the anchor can match and beat the forces of Mother Nature.

Enjoy your time on the hook.
Steve Bedford

Steve,

No need for modesty, that comment can be attributed to Rudy Sechez who represented Sail magazine during the Chesapeake Bay tests. He and his wife Jill are a delightful couple and Rudy was with us during this testing from dinner Monday night until breakfast Saturday morning.

He is a very knowledgeable guy on the topic and here's a shameless plug for his new book:
https://books.google.com/books/about...d=hUxVjgEACAAJ

Safe anchoring,
Brian

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Ever since I switched to NG anchors in about 2001, I have been an uncompromising perfectionist where anchor setting is concerned. If the anchor budges an inch after several minutes of a full power back-down, then it's not set. Pull it up and do it again. This is sometimes tedious, but I haven't dragged anchor even once since, ohh, maybe 2001.

The problem is soft mud. NG anchors don't work well in soft mud -- they clog and refuse to bite, especially if you back down too fast without letting them settle in. My previous Rocna (55kg, 121 pounds) was horrible in soft mud because of this. My present Spade is better, but not dramatically much better. Only a Fortress, among the dozens of anchor types I've used in my cruising life, goes really well in soft mud.


Lately I've found myself lacking the patience to keep doing it over and over again. So on three separate occasions just in the last two weeks, I have lowered my standards and have spent the night with the anchor set only well enough to take a half-power backing down. Ugh. All three times were in very calm weather and with plenty of room so that if I did drag (God forbid), there would not have been dangerous consequences. Once in Kiel Fjord opposite the entrance to the Kiel Canal, once in Dover Harbour, and now here in the Solent in Osborne Bay. In all cases I let out a ton of scope (about 10:1 with heavy 12mm chain) and figured that the anchor wouldn't really be called upon to do anything anyway.


This is a bit like the way I used to manage my old CQR, which wouldn't hold in a full power back down no matter how well I'd set it. But I also dragged regularly with that anchor, sometimes in dangerous situations, and I really don't want to go back to those days.


What to do? I feel like I'm setting myself up for a midnight anchor dragging incident such as happened to me regularly in the '90's. But I'm really sick of spending an hour or even two coaxing the anchor down into the soft mud, letting it settle, pulling just a little, very gently, letting it settle again, etc., ad nauseum, while the crew are wondering whether cocktail hour will ever come. Bleh!

Mrs. Mac says to leave your anchor alone. 1 hour, sometimes 2 hours to anchor? Ridiculous.

Here's my take: The way you've been setting your anchor using full throttle, doesn't factor in the amount of work your chain will be doing. You yank on it so hard, that you've lifted all your chain off the bottom. The scope and the weight of the chain along with an oversized snubber absorb a huge amount of the forces acting against your anchor. Allow these things to work for you instead up yanking up stumps all day.

[gjorgensen]

Here's some first-hand experience. First off, we are not what you would call anchoring experts - we're better at going than stopping. We equipped our boat with a Fortress initially (actually 2) as most racing boats around here do because they're the lightest. Since we quit racing we've continued using the Fortress because it's worked ok for us, and has the advantage of being light which is important on a boat where the windlass is nearly 50 and can be cranky if she's had a long day (someday we might have to buy a mechanical one). We're not hard core cruisers, and if we were we'd get a much better anchoring setup, although to be honest we'd also get a different boat.

That said, we've had plenty of overnights with the Fortress with no problems. I would say there are 3 bottom types we anchor in here regularly - hard sand, a good sand/mud mix, and a terrible soft mud. We switch the anchor between mud and normal settings as needed but leave the mud palms on. The better quality bottoms have all been places where we do see some tidal shift, but no real wind shifts. The wind is mostly on in the day and dead at night. We've never had a problem there, although we also have not been asking the anchor to reset radically. I tend to believe that would be its weakness, as born out by others experiences.

For those that know the area, the terrible soft mud bottom is Ensenada harbor, in which we anchored many times before the new marina was built. I'd describe the bottom as 1/3 soupy mud, 1/3 spilled diesel fuel, and 1/3 some gelatinous stuff that I could best describe as the most foul jello imaginable (yeah, we use heavy duty gloves there). It tends to be a drag fest when the wind is up. In soft mud mode the Fortress has always held. It's hard to say how deep it digs but I have a feeling based on scope it's well below what the depth finder thinks is the bottom. We have put it through tests there, including one day/night where the wind went from nearly 30 out of the W, to dead, to 25-35 out of the NE in a matter of minutes then back again more than once. Our boat also tends to swim badly at anchor, and we did not drag despite the violent 180's. It was a trick getting the anchor up after that one, but it appeared to come up (with about 30 pounds of muck - I pulled that one in) in-line with our current direction which was 180 from how it was set, so I suspect it pivoted under the mud. FYI, the very first time we used the anchor there we forgot to put it into mud mode at first, and the thing set but dragged badly. In mud mode it's been fine.

My personal opinion is that the NG anchors are the right call for general purpose anchoring, but I'd consider the Fortress the best choice in soft mud. Anchoring in soft mud is never going to be a recipe for good sleep, but in that one case I'd actually feel safer with the Fortress. FYI, this is all with an FX-23 on a boat that's 39.25 feet and 16k pounds.

[Fortress]

gjorgensen,

Thank you for your insightful post. By chance, do you have any images of your FX-23 after recovery? It would be interesting to see what was stuck to the anchor in those bottoms you described.

Here's a few from the Chesapeake Bay testing, and I am sure that Chris / ranger 42c can relate!

print screen windows

Before cleaning:

print screen windows

After:

free upload pictures

[ranger58sb]

Naw, those are relatively clean ones.





-Chris

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Fortress

gjorgensen,

Thank you for your insightful post. By chance, do you have any images of your FX-23 after recovery? It would be interesting to see what was stuck to the anchor in those bottoms you described.

Here's a few from the Chesapeake Bay testing, and I am sure that Chris / ranger 42c can relate!

print screen windows

Before cleaning:

print screen windows

After:

free upload pictures

Ah, the other thing about soft mud: the garbage (or in this case, bivalves) in there to help foul the anchor. It would be nice to see other anchors pulled from the muck and how they collect the fouling blob.

[gjorgensen]

Originally Posted by Fortress

gjorgensen,

Thank you for your insightful post. By chance, do you have any images of your FX-23 after recovery? It would be interesting to see what was stuck to the anchor in those bottoms you described.

We do not. It never occurred to me to take photos. The stuff was a lot darker and stickier than the stuff in your photos, although I'd say similar in terms of the amount of much that came up.

BTW, I will say that the anchor appears to be more challenging to set the harder the bottom type. Obviously soft mud mode does not work at all for hard sand, but even in regular mode in hard sand it takes some work to set. One challenge is that the anchor is light enough that it really sails in front of the boat if you're moving in reverse very fast. In hard sand we find it's easiest to drop the anchor while just barely drifting in reverse, just enough to keep the chain from piling on top of the anchor, and get at least 3-4:1 out before reving up in reverse at all. Even then we probably have a failure to set probably 1 out of 3-4 times. Of course, as I said before, we're no expert.

[pdenton]

the FX is an iffy anchor. Seems like it works well for some and others like me have had a hard time with. For starters it kites and so doesn't always hit the bottom where you wanted. since I had a heavy 42 foot trawler, I didn't give it many chances to change its ways because I had several other options. In the mud the super Max, which is designed specifically for mud always worked the best.
While some of you swear by it and others want to give it a try, go to any Marine consignment store where you're sure to find plenty of like new FX-37's. They definitely don't work for everybody.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Ah, the other thing about soft mud: the garbage (or in this case, bivalves) in there to help foul the anchor. It would be nice to see other anchors pulled from the muck and how they collect the fouling blob.

Here's a couple more, the 45 lb (20 kg) Manson Supreme after retrieval:

screenshot windows 7

free image host

We have videos from each of the 4 days of public testing on the following web page which shows the anchors after being retrieved during the 60 pull tests.

Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test

Originally Posted by gjorgensen

BTW, I will say that the anchor appears to be more challenging to set the harder the bottom type. Obviously soft mud mode does not work at all for hard sand, but even in regular mode in hard sand it takes some work to set. One challenge is that the anchor is light enough that it really sails in front of the boat if you're moving in reverse very fast. In hard sand we find it's easiest to drop the anchor while just barely drifting in reverse, just enough to keep the chain from piling on top of the anchor, and get at least 3-4:1 out before reving up in reverse at all. Even then we probably have a failure to set probably 1 out of 3-4 times. Of course, as I said before, we're no expert.

I understand. While your 15 lb (7 kg) FX-23 anchor is sharp, there are some hard bottom types where it helps to have more weight behind the anchor to get it to bite.

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Some thoughts:



• As per Steve / SV Panope's tests, let's say that you load up two anchors of comparable physical size and weight to 3,000 rpm during initial setting. Afterwards, you move the boat over the anchors at 3 knots on a 180° degree angle and pull on the anchors from that direction.

The anchor which performs the best during the initial setting is likely to perform the WORST in this scenario.

Why? Because the anchor which set the best (or deepest) initially has to dislodge from its deeper penetration into the bottom, flip over, and then shed the greater amount of sediment before it can then re-engage the bottom.

Spade Anchor happily accepts that challenge.

Spade Anchor is always open to independent testing. As most know recent testing paid for by manufactures can be misleading, as such Spade Anchor refuses to pay for testing as it creates a bias. The New Orleans challenge sounds fun! If we can get the other companies to join in Spade Anchor will be there.

Side Note: Most of the major Anchor companies will be in Annapolis in Oct, if anyone is near there that could be a great testing area.

[Stumble]

I will reiterate my offer to support an anchor test in New Orleans. The bottom here is mucky, soupy, and almost devoid of bottom contours and anything resembling good holding.

I will happily volunteer all the boat time (58' power boat) as well as a run about (26' center console) to the test. As well as my time, and will try to rustle up some volunteers to help if we need it.

My feeling is a run what you recommend type of test. Specifically the manufacturers recommended anchor for a 40' sailboat of modern conventional vintage. All tested on the chain currently installed on the powerboat (I can't remember what it is off hand).

While I would like to say no manufacturer support for any of it, that's a little impractical since buying all the anchors would be expensive. So to avoid even the appearance of influence, the offer would be open to any and all manufacturers, all of which are invited to send a representative(s), to watch the test. I will also sign, and have any volunteers sign an affidavit stating they received nothing as compensation for their participation.

If there are any direct cost of the testing like renting a load cell, lunch on the boat, or other incidentals. The costs will be totaled, then divided on a per representative basis, with a full notarized affidavit of the expenses incurred and the amount each manufacturer paid. After the recommended size testing I would be happy to test any additional sized anchors using the same protocols used for the earlier ones.

My thoughts on protocols...
1) first a set it, then break it free test in a strait line at 10:1 scope
2) then again at 5:1 scope
3) then a set it, turn 180 degrees and see if it resets. If it does reset then test it until it breaks free at 10:1
4) and again at 5:1

I am guessing this will take at least a couple of days depending on the number of manufacturers that show up. But I will take the time off work to do it.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

As most know recent testing paid for by manufactures can be misleading, as such Spade Anchor refuses to pay for testing as it creates a bias.

I fully agree, and this is why during the 4 day / 60 pull Chesapeake Bay tests that we sponsored, we invited the boating media aboard to witness the testing. We had writers representing boating magazines and web sites with a combined circulation of over 1 million readers, including:

All at Sea
Boats.com
Boat U.S. Seaworthy
Boating
Boating World
Chesapeake Bay
PassageMaker
Sail
Soundings

Boating media who didn't attend, but also wrote stories after reviewing the videos and test results included:

Houseboat
Mysailing.com.au
Ocean Navigator
Practical Sailor
Segeln (Germany)

I believe all of these writers were in full agreement that it was a fair, honest, and fully transparent test, since every anchor was pulled in a fresh, close proximity seabed using the exact same starting scope and for the exact same distance, speed, and time - without exception.

I can also attest to the difficulties and costs involved in such an undertaking. Solomons, MD is just 60 miles south of Annapolis and I know of an 81-ft research vessel ready and waiting for another anchor test!

image free hosting

[Panope]

Greg, very generous offer. I hope some folks/manufactures contribute.

RE: Test Protocal: Try and execute multiple (5 or 10) 180 degree re-set passes as I have found that the anchors will often (roughly 80% of the time for me) rotate in the seabed. If you only do one pass, and the anchor holds, it may not reveal what happens when the anchor does the infamous 'backflip'

When doing this test aboard Panope, I drive up and over the anchor with forward motion, thus achieving great course accuracy. However, there is danger that when the anchor rode comes up tight, the rode will rise and become entangled in the propeller(s). This is not a concern aboard Panope as the mid section of the hull is lower than the propeller and therefore providing protection. I assume that your powerboat will not be the same. If you must do all your pulling in reverse, it may be difficult to execute accurate 180 degree course reversals.

Steve

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Stumble

I will reiterate my offer to support an anchor test in New Orleans. The bottom here is mucky, soupy, and almost devoid of bottom contours and anything resembling good holding.

Greg, thanks for your very generous offer. It sounds like a challenging sea bottom and perfect for a test. Is it in an area that is common for anchoring?

Brian