Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[sabray]

What anchor is not tested to hold massive balls of fish net? My cqr failed when it stuck a soda bottle right up its cone. I didn't blame the hook them.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by downunder

Certainly Nolex’s octopus thread photo slows a poorly set anchor. Pure weight doing the job in the winds in that situation.

The anchor was well set (better than average) before my little friend had a go. You can see the shank half burried and the fluke was completely covered before the octopus dug it out. (Have a look at the circle of sand hollowed out) That is as good as you will see under engine power alone in this sort of substrate.

[sabray]

Looks like a poly prop line wrapped or set for a bouy is tensioned on the forward edge of the picture.Can't see the anchor chain. Pretty surprised that's called a set anchor. Missing rhode anchor chain in the picture. If that's as good as you get and can't tell that your anchor is only a hope then practice anchoring and photography a bit more.
Or explain what we are looking at.

[noelex 77]

The anchor is connected to the chain normally. The line is just a couple of meters long (6 feet) with a small float attached.
It shows where the anchor's location when it is completely buried. It also means you have to dive down a couple of meters less if you want to pull the anchor out backwards if its caught. Extending your free diving depth when retrieving a snagged anchor (it's also much easier to attach the retrieval line to the large loop)

It is a great idea (not mine). Every anchor should have one. Just make sure you tie it back if anchoring in shallow water where there is any danger of it catching on props. (or use a shorter rope if you regularly anchor in shallow water).

I will try to practice the anchoring a bit more

[JonJo]

We caught a 4.5kg, 10lb, gas cylinder (toe through the handle) once. cannot say I could blame the anchor maker for that either.

But the message was - set one big anchor and you are set for anything nature can throw at you - not so, you would have been better setting 2 anchors (if nature is going to throw everything she can) as you do not have all your insurance in one policy.

Jonathan

[JonJo]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The anchor is connected to the chain normally. The line is just a couple of meters long (6 feet) with a small float attached.
It shows where the anchor's location when it is completely buried. It also means you have to dive down a couple of meters less if you want to pull the anchor out backwards if its caught. Extending your free diving depth when retrieving a snagged anchor (it's also much easier to attach the retrieval line to the large loop)

It is a great idea (not mine). Every anchor should have one. Just make sure you tie it back if anchoring in shallow water where there is any danger of it catching on props. (or use a shorter rope if you regularly anchor in shallow water).

Its good practice and if you mark the tether you know exactly (well almost) how deep the anchor is set, but marking the chain helps with that too.

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Maybe despite our ability to have space age technology we are more conservative than our forefathers - and less cavalier.

My impression mixing with with many full time cruising folk that anchor nearly full time is that most are unhappy, or at least seeking to find a better anchor.

Even one episode of dragging at 3am in a storm is enough to convince most that a better anchor would be worth a lot in terms of safety. Sadly some elect to shelter in marinas when stronger winds are forecast, or avoid cruising at the time of year when bad weather is predominant (of course some elect to do this for other reasons as well). In this day and age we should have anchors that are reliable in these adverse conditions. We are close, but not quite there yet.

There is also often an increasing desire as people cruise more to explore more difficult anchorages where the holding is poor, or the protection is less which also often feeds the desire for better anchors.

Experienced cruisers have better anchoring gear and techniques, but in many ways this exacerbates the problem, they don't drag in 35 knots when recovery is relatively easy. It happens in stronger wind were the whole experience can be quite frightening. Even cruisers on tight budgets will often spend a lot of money on the best anchoring gear.

Crusing sailors are a diverse lot, sometimes making do (and enjoying themselves) with the most unsuitable equipment (and not just anchoring gear), so the above comments should be taken with this in mind. I would also encourage people to get out and cruise now, even if your gear is not what I, or other people are recommending. It can always be upgraded later.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

We caught a 4.5kg, 10lb, gas cylinder (toe through the handle) once. cannot say I could blame the anchor maker for that either.

But the message was - set one big anchor and you are set for anything nature can throw at you - not so, you would have been better setting 2 anchors (if nature is going to throw everything she can) as you do not have all your insurance in one policy.

Jonathan

It is a bit like feeling safer in a twin engine plane. Great if the plane can fly on one engine, but if it relies on the power from both engines to sustain level flight, or climb, it can in circumstances such as take off, or long flights over water have twice the chance of crashing from an engine failure.
The solution is to make sure it can at least sustain level flight on one engine. Thankfully most will.

The anchoring equivalent is to set two BIB anchors in bad weather (which is difficult to do and I think is overkill). Two small anchors, where both are necessary, doubles your chance of problems.

Be careful interpreting the posts about dragging due to landing on, or catching debris. This often does happen, but a dragging anchor will catch a lot of debris, so when pulling up an anchor that has dragged it is often impossible to know if the debris caused the drag, or if it was picked up while dragging. Occasionally the opposite happens and the debris falls off as you lift the anchor leaving you to wonder why the anchor did not set. If my anchor does not set first time I try to dive and find the drag marks to discover why.

[JonJo]

There is still no data to show that certain correctly sized anchors are not adequate through the anticipated wind range. There is enough information to suggest that certain adequately sized anchors have no compression and if they 'bottom out' will simply slip through the seabed until they hit a foreign object and then surface and drag (I've tried it, the slipping though the seabed part - works a treat). There is further information suggesting that some anchors with compression will clog and then simply become deadweight and breakout because they can develop no further load.

A bigger anchor will dive deeper before bottoming out, but that's design. A bigger anchor might not clog, because the area between upturn of the fluke and roll bar is bigger - but that is again simply design. But neither seem like good design. Better with a wedge that develops compression ahead of the anchor and that compression has no-where to go except further compress seabed (which is pretty incompressible). But you would not believe any of the latter (though thousands do - you think they are all nuts).

I'd rather have 2 adequately sized anchors whose inventor does not need to insist that the fluke be cleaned free of mud before resetting. Maybe read El Pinguino above. I'd rather set 2 good anchors than one anchor which might pick up a foreign object and drag - We carry our eggs in 2 baskets.

Load a 15kg compressive roll bar anchor to 1,000kg (maybe half its potential) in a hard, clay seabed and lift it up and you have a 30kg lump. Load other anchors, Spade, Excel (have not tried a 15kg Ultra - but the 5kg model, lower load, comes up clean) to the same load and they come up clean (as a whistle).

Which would you rather have? Stupid question really as I can guess your answer.

I have tried a 15kg Mantus, 15kg Rocna, 15kg Spade (2 variants, steel alloy), 15kg Excel (2 variants steel, alloy) 8.5kg Fortress + smaller Ultra, Kobra, Supreme in a variety of seabeds - which ones have you tried? I don't include the others I have tried Claw, Ray, Delta, CQR, Plough. All of the 15kg models (and the Fortress) I have used as primary anchors in multiple locations.

I carry and would not be without Spade, Excel, Fortress (I would not carry a 15kg Ultra - I'm a Scot).

Maybe if you come back to Oz in the near future you should buy the alloy Excel, you could get a 25kg version in your luggage (as its demountable you can split between 2 suitcase). Then you could try it and speak apologetically and from a position of knowledge (instead of using your imagination). Similarly you are not far from Turkey, take a trip and I am sure a deal could be done on an Ultra - again I am sure you will be suitably impressed. No-one will knock you for changing you mind - in fact you will create a very good impression.

Jonathan

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Which would you rather have? Stupid question really as I can guess your answer.

I would not feel comfortable with a 15kg (steel) anchor holding a 38 foot cat in strong wind. I am not convinced two anchors set in a V increases the holding much so I would not feel much better with two out.

Did you guess right

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by JonJo

I have tried a 15kg Mantus, 15kg Rocna, 15kg Spade (2 variants, steel alloy), 15kg Excel (2 variants steel, alloy) 8.5kg Fortress + smaller Ultra, Kobra, Supreme in a variety of seabeds - which ones have you tried? I don't include the others I have tried Claw, Ray, Delta, CQR, Plough. All of the 15kg models (and the Fortress) I have used as primary anchors in multiple locations.

I carry and would not be without Spade, Excel, Fortress (I would not carry a 15kg Ultra - I'm a Scot).

Funny I have used and own most all the above mentioned anchors except the Excel, Ultra & Kobra. I do my own testing for my own waters and own a digital load cell so I can see what is happening when I apply 500HP to the rode. I have no interest in publishing any of this due to threads like this. It is for my eyes and piece of mind only because I DO NOT TRUST ANCHOR MANUFACTURERS OR PUBLISHED ANCHOR TESTS.

I have the data-behind-the-data for the Sail Mag tests (the entire data collection spread sheets) and that data could not have been more misrepresented and poorly published. Go figure.

I test all the anchors I own in an attempt to find one that will perform best in my home waters. I have no bias because I am not publishing anything, not paid by a manufacturer, not friends with a manufacturer and I OWN all my anchors outright.

Well okay, I do have a slight bias AGAINST Rocna for their previous behavior, yet I still have one on my bow. I have not let my bias affect the sheer performance I see.

None of my anchors are for sale, because I keep them for comparison and testing sake, so they owe me nothing.

I put on the bow what performs best in my home waters and under the test conditions I feel represent how and where I will be anchoring.

This is 99.9% more thorough testing, using actual measurable loads, than what most any boat owner I know of has ever done.

This was getting set up to monitor mooring rode loads in a predicted 35 knot blow in a protected cove with no fetch. I was messing around with load cell placement..


Forget using or owning all those anchors how many boat owners own a load cell that allows one to see and record loads..?

Over the last 10-12 years I have lots of time invested in testing using real boats (500HP, 200HP and 330HP), not just my beach videos, which are only representative of the ability to "bite" and begin to dig in.

I understand that what works here may not work in other substrates around the world. This is why I test, for myself....

I have never had anything clog up the hoop anchors to the point they unset and this is with piles and piles of pulls in clay, thick black mud, soft mud etc. from 1000 - 4400 pounds.

Anyone who thinks a Spade does not load up with clay...? Really???? Alain once told me that slick yellow sticker was less for vis and more for trying to prevent clay sticking to the anchor. Still, it does not prevent it and I very often pull up the Spade with a large ball of clay.

I don't want to pull at higher loads because the boats are not designed for that regularly and they are not my boats (family, but still).. These loads have exceeded what my boat can replicate in any storm I would be anchored in.

All the new gen hoops can do it, Mantus, Manson & Rocna as can the Spade & Fortress. Other "new gens" like the Supermax and Ocean/Sword fail miserably when compared to the other new gens... The rest of my herd, well not so much but my old Delta was far better than either of my two genuine CQR's.....

Interestingly my 25 pound CQR has less than a seasons use yet sets no better on that hard intertidal zone that the "worn" (per Congo) CQR 35 pound model? I suspect this wear is less of a real concern having had two side by side with differing wear..?

Despite owning a Spade (two actually both a S-80 and A-80 long story about Alain in there somewhere) the Spade is not what I currently choose as a primary.

Unfortunately I can't get my hands on an Excel (are you listening Congo?) so all the great talk about an Excel does those of us in the US no good.... I don't doubt the performance of it one bit as I have seen BIG differences between a genuine Bruce and a Lewmar Claw. These anchors are TOTALLY different in terms of geometry. The genuine Bruce almost always out performs the Lewmar Claw in my testing.



My Spade is my first line back up and I also carry a Fortress...

All that said I am ABSOLUTELY NOT a believer the perfect anchor has been built yet and would love to try an Ultra or Excel but like you I am a Scot....

As to BIB we dragged a 33 pound genuine Bruce steadily while it remained set (approx (9:1 scope), and not fouled, nearly 1/8 mile in a storm. This was with a Catalina 30 and that anchor was already up-sized (most use a 22 pounder on that boat). I laid out the Fortress and we stopped dead...

When I dove I could follow an arm depth furrow and checked it about every ten feet, and gave up after about 100 feet. I never found a single "hop" just steady dragging. In the morning it was still buried below about 16" of soft mud to the top of the shank.. I can only surmise inadequate surface area for the soft substrate? This anchor was already THREE sizes larger than what Bruce recommended for a 30' 10k boat.....

I know what I use based on testing I feel adequate for my area. For your area I would not be surprised that the Spade works better than a hoop because they are already so close, performance wise....

[hpeer]

One thing I have picked up reading this loosely is that MOST anchoring drama is caused by
1 - newbies or inexpert or careless folks poorly setting their anchor - bad technique
2 - trying to anchor in poor bottom, either loose slick muck
3 - more adventuresome sailors have trouble in rock or kelp

In short, the biggest problem is PEOPLE, not anchors.

Then, I also have the distinct impression that the difference in New Gen anchors is sufficiently small to not be demonstrable or consistent.

So, if you want to improve the anchoring of the fleet (and worry less about someone dragging onto you,) either set up massive training (anchoring certification? ) programs, or encourage them to get bigger/better anchors.

I have made many of the common anchoring mistakes myself, either through ignorance, exhaustion, unfamiliarity, bad luck or sloth. In some of these cases the anchor would not have mattered (setting on a discarded, mud covered sail that eventually broke out ) but other times it would have (muck on rock ledge.) In all those cases a bigger anchor would have helped, in no case would it have been a liability.

From all this I conclude that it would be a really good idea for MOST folks to have a bigger rather than smaller New Gen anchor. Which one doesn't much matter (I have a 66lb Spade and a 125lb Mantus on the bow - 44'/40,000lb mono.)

I await 7 pages of why I am wrong.

[Richard_W]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

In this day and age we should have anchors that are reliable in these adverse conditions. We are close, but not quite there yet.

This goal, if unqualified, might be an unattainable one given what the nature can throw at you.

Here is a radically different approach that might get you closer to achieving this goal ... a dead man anchor that is a part of a sailboat ballast system ... it can be as heavy as you wish within reason.



Source: United States Patent: 6490988

[hpeer]

MailSail said:

Anyone who thinks a Spade does not load up with clay...? Really???? Alain once told me that slick yellow sticker was less for vis and more for trying to prevent clay sticking to the anchor. Still, it does not prevent it and I very often pull up the Spade with a large ball of clay.

Interesting. I paint my anchors with two part zinc epoxy primer, just because I have some left over and don't want to throw it away. I have "refinished" a Danforth with zinc and then two part epoxy top coat in White.

I wonder if that helps or hurts? I sure can't see the harm.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by downunder

Clogging of the smaller roll bar anchors seems well accepted in several bottom types, mud and weed.

Indeed. Which explains why some prefer a diving anchor. In a serious blow, which would you rather have - a hoop anchor that if the anchor drags can trap whatever weed ball or rock it encounters in the backboard the hoop presents, or an anchor that when subjected to extreme pull buries itself into the seabed and lacks a backboard?