anchors, ground tackle, windlasses, oh my

[Cheechako]

"Finally, don't believe it's been mentioned yet, but I'd say to avoid deck-mounted foot switches like the plague, they're probably one of the most failure-prone items one can possibly put on a boat ;-) A corded handheld remote that plugs in inside the boat and can be fed out on deck thru a port or hatch can be a good way to go..."


That's a good point not mentioned previously. I find the foot switches cumbersome. I love a switch pendant hand held.... allows you to move around also and not balance on one foot!
Typical scenario is to retrieve chain, go forward to clear debris off the incoming chain, go back to retrieve chain, repeat, repeat etc. With a pendant you don't have to go back and forth.
I will say I've had chain jamming, chain jumping, poor stripping issues on horizontal windlasses though. The vertical windlass wraps the chain nearly 180 degrees around the gypsy. A typical horizontal get maybe two + links in the gypsy.
If the motor fails I think most will pull by hand, retrieving with a broken electric windlass is very slow and cumbersome.

[kerrydeare]

Originally Posted by tinkrman69

Those harbors are all over the place. When its tight put two anchors out to shorten the radius of your swing ... I've heard many say "it's too much trouble to put out two anchors" others "no need that what insurance is for" ...

Some (myself included) have had little luck finding these "all over the place" harbors. I would like to learn how to find them.

That aside, I heartily approve of using two anchors when required (as I've posted elsewhere in these pages). However in my experience issues arise when I'm the only bloke in the anchorage using this method. Usually these problems occur in tide-bound anchorages when that well-scoped fellow on the 46 footer lying on 15:1 starts wandering around in the tide, eventually coming closer and closer, up to the point where things get tiring and interrupt the cocktail hour. Anchorages along the Atlantic ICW are prime examples of this.

Under such circumstances I have many times just picked up my gear (both anchors) and moved, rather than get into it with this sort of boat person. This despite my being the first or at least an earlier arrival in that particular anchorage.

It's nice to see that anchoring discussions have been able to maintain their primary characteristic over the decades: unending discussion and opinion, interspersed with moments of fact.

[tinkrman69]

Originally Posted by kerrydeare

Some (myself included) have had little luck finding these "all over the place" harbors. I would like to learn how to find them.

That aside, I heartily approve of using two anchors when required (as I've posted elsewhere in these pages). However in my experience issues arise when I'm the only bloke in the anchorage using this method. Usually these problems occur in tide-bound anchorages when that well-scoped fellow on the 46 footer lying on 15:1 starts wandering around in the tide, eventually coming closer and closer, up to the point where things get tiring and interrupt the cocktail hour. Anchorages along the Atlantic ICW are prime examples of this.

Under such circumstances I have many times just picked up my gear (both anchors) and moved, rather than get into it with this sort of boat person. This despite my being the first or at least an earlier arrival in that particular anchorage.

It's nice to see that anchoring discussions have been able to maintain their primary characteristic over the decades: unending discussion and opinion, interspersed with moments of fact.

''

Well I son't have much use for the eascoast and ICW But I've had plenty of room off dinner key, no name harbor, stuart, St augustine and Jacksonville. the rest is either too far north or too pomp. I haven't had any problems in the bahamas, DR, puerto rico, Virgins, Mexico, Guatemala, panama.

of course I don't have the herd mentality and don't try to squeeze into the biggest cluster of boats. I also take a spin around and assess the other boats around me to see how they are anchored and where it is probably going and also the tidal conditions and currents and the longest fetches. there still a few sailors around that consider others and the surrounding conditions.

The "boater" with the 15:1 on a single hook is indicative of the wannabe sailor. ( have boat, have GPS...I'm a sailor) Some are willing to learn and do learn many are too scared to look stupid and won't admit they don't know something. many read books and spew many facts but when it comes down to actually doing it oops.

I'm not very educated, in fact I didn't Finnish the eighth grade. But I have been around and my hook has seen a lot of bottoms. I can't say I've never drug, but I can I've "yet" to drag into someone else. when those 40 and 50 knot surprise blows come in the only thing I worry about is those "boaters" up wind of me.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tinkrman69

...with the extra scope the shank will be pulled more into the bottom rather than along the bottom...

Huh ???

For a rode to pull an anchor's shank INTO the bottom, it would need to bury itself BEFORE the anchor does, no? Hmmm, not sure I'd trust any anchor which relied upon the rode burying itself first to obtain a set, but perhaps that's just me... :-)

Anchors bury themselves as a result of the carefully considered geometry of the fluke relative to the shank, among other design features, and not by an excessive amount of scope or catenary somehow magically exerting a downward pull into the bottom... Other than when dropped in the soupiest of mud, I just don't see how it's possible for a rode to penetrate the bottom before the anchor itself does, and thus exert a force upon the shank below horizontal... Only way I can visualize that happening, is to the shank of a secondary anchor laid in tandem with a Rocna, with the connecting rode disappearing into the bottom as the primary anchor buries itself, as the secondary 'follows'...

Again, have a look at the research and writings of those like Alain Fraysse, Earl Hinz, Steve Dashew, or Peter Smith... The geometry simply does not support that there is any measurable benefit to be gained - in anything short of true storm or hurricane force conditions - by going with more than about an 8:1 scope...

ESPECIALLY in the typically shallow anchorages you apparently frequent...

However, if it helps you sleep better anyway, and you have the room, go for it... But if you were indeed using 13:1 in No Name Harbor, it must have been off-season, no?

;-)

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Huh ???

For a rode to pull an anchor's shank INTO the bottom, it would need to bury itself BEFORE the anchor does, no? Hmmm, not sure I'd trust any anchor which relied upon the rode burying itself first to obtain a set, but perhaps that's just me... :-)

He may have meant extra scope would better promote further burying of the fluke(s), in turn pulling the shank downward into the bottom... so the shank is buried, too.

Just guessing, though...

-Chris

[tinkrman69]

it seems that people only read parts of post and pick segments to deny a whole statement.

No every anchor situation is different and you'll notice that I mentioned more than one scope. some bottoms are thick and heavy mud, some are deep sand, some are scoured and thin,....in each the technique will deferent. hence the need for deferent scopes and anchors. Now would you drop an anchor designed for soft bottom in to the rocks when you have an anchor designed for rocky bottom. of course there a lot of anchors and chain in the rocks with no retriever line and some with retriever lines, as people don't care to learn to read the bottom and/or study the charts and prepare ahead.

now as far as the rode setting the anchor? I think your looking for flaws instead of the possibility that something other than a big named paper could have an answer. and I say "an" answer, as in this part of this discussion of scope is whats being refereed to, Thin bottom.
No the rode does not set the anchor. A well designed anchor will set itself, some better than others, in deferring situations. But as the anchor is set it hits the hard pan under the sand - usually broken shell and coral- and won't burry any farther. Say a foot. now on most anchors the shank is only "at" the surface of the bottom. Now on a published paper, the standard scope is 7 or 8:1 some even go up to 10:1 in those papers their anchor of study is able to burry completely. in some studies they were able to show the action of the rode at the anchor at 30+ knot winds and 3 to 5 ft seas.you'll notice that almost every bit of rode was suspended repeatedly right down to the point it was buried. In our scenario a buried shank is not happening. with the extra scope the chain will stay on the bottom for a good 20 to 30 feet. as its tugged on by the action of the waves and wind it buries some, hence pulling the shank in a some what of a down ward direction. now I don't have fancy cameras and gauges and alkinda electronic equipment. But I do have experience. one such experience was in Key West anchored off Dredgers key, during a tropical storm that came through 'bout 3, 4 years ago. I was on a Columbia 9.7 with a 44 danforth on 40 ft of 3/8 chain and 200 ft of 5/8 three strand line and 35 lb Delta on equal rode. The only other boats that didn't drag besides me ? were the ones on the moorings. after the storm I dove my anchors, thinking I'd find them hooked on some coral head. No, the flukes on the danforth were buried unto the mud palms. the shank ran down from there and the tip was buried about 2 inches and about 15 foot of the chain was buried. The Delta was similar but it had drug what appeared to be about ten feet. kind of plowed the bottom. I don't use any "plow" type anchor today, I aint no farmer. Sat in Allen's cay with a frontal boundary coming through. 30+ knot winds four boats all in all one drug along side me and I ended up tethering them off my stern till things calmed down the other two boats started dragging but saved themselves by holding position with their motors for several hours. So altho those studies are good tools, if you really want to know something get out there and look for yourself. Hell don't even take my word. you can take those studies and other peoples experiences and use them to make your own studies and get your own experience. nothing better.

8:1 scope is a rule of thumb. Common sense, investigation, experience and courtesy, will trump all. If you still want to try and pick wholes in this, go ahead. But go find the different bottom conditions and use experience as your pick. don't just use Opinion. you know what they say about those?

[kerrydeare]

Originally Posted by tinkrman69

... I son't have much use for the eascoast and ICW ... ...

I suspect a lot of other folks do, so having methods that are effective there is probably important to a large group of individuals. No, the Atlantic ICW is not what I'd call "paradise" but it's on the way there for many folks I've met.

[tinkrman69]

Originally Posted by kerrydeare

I suspect a lot of other folks do, so having methods that are effective there is probably important to a large group of individuals. No, the Atlantic ICW is not what I'd call "paradise" but it's on the way there for many folks I've met.

yes everyone has different tastes. But anchoring is the same all over the world (situationally deferent) " when in Rome... " is not always the right way to go. I usually stay away from the crowded anchorages. They offer the same things the last one offered. I prefer the off the beaten path places. there is more diversity and reality there. I've met a lot of old friends I hadn't met yet in out of the way places. and fewer people that are just out to get and some people with vary little willing to give what littler they have. I try to leave them with no less than they had. Hence we both gain.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by tinkrman69

But I do have experience. one such experience was in Key West anchored off Dredgers key, during a tropical storm that came through 'bout 3, 4 years ago. I was on a Columbia 9.7 with a 44 danforth on 40 ft of 3/8 chain and 200 ft of 5/8 three strand line and 35 lb Delta on equal rode. The only other boats that didn't drag besides me ? were the ones on the moorings.

OK, on that we can agree, in the event of an extreme situation such as a tropical storm, I'd be tempted to veer as much chain as practical given the situation, as well...

However, seems we've digressed a bit from what prompted the initial reactions from kerrydeare and myself, namely the notion that there are harbors "all over the place" where one "never" has to lie to anything less than a 10:1 scope...

;-)

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

OK, on that we can agree, in the event of an extreme situation such as a tropical storm, I'd be tempted to veer as much chain as practical given the situation, as well...

However, seems we've digressed a bit from what prompted the initial reactions from kerrydeare and myself, namely the notion that there are harbors "all over the place" where one "never" has to lie to anything less than a 10:1 scope...

;-)

I will add my reaction to the scope question. My experience and research also indicates almost no benefit to scope more than 7 or 8 to 1 except possibly in extreme conditions as mentioned.

Also, unless you're in a harbor with huge room and no neighbors, dropping 10:1 scope or higher will cause problems with anyone near by in any change of wind or current causing your boat to swing. Same with one anchor vs two.

When I first started cruising I always set two anchors, mainly because I learned in the Bahamas where many anchorages are narrow cuts that experience a strong, reversing current. In that situation I would still set two anchors, fore and aft. Otherwise I now prefer one bigger, better anchor over two.

[tinkrman69]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

OK, on that we can agree, in the event of an extreme situation such as a tropical storm, I'd be tempted to veer as much chain as practical given the situation, as well...

However, seems we've digressed a bit from what prompted the initial reactions from kerrydeare and myself, namely the notion that there are harbors "all over the place" where one "never" has to lie to anything less than a 10:1 scope...

;-)

well I've never encroached on anyone. those that have drug up on were people who came in after I was already there. I've learned the marine life from a few generations. and the've always taught that it was safest and most considerate of others to put out two anchors. for one you take up less space and two you are less likely to drag into anyone. Now putting out two anchors I can set what ever scope the anchorage requires and still keep the radius of my swing smaller than the sazy man who only puts out one and takes up more space.

now as to your quote above you have mis quoted me. I did not say that I "never" have to put out less than 10:1. as a mater of fact the only time I typed 10:1 was here and in one other post where I talked published papers on anchors and scope. where they said 7 or 8:1 and in some 10:1.

So, I think the problem is that you have a closed mind and can't read a whole post before making judgments I think there would be no argument at all if you opened your mind and read from start to Finnish before you made a judgment. Heck you might even learn something.

there is a guy...Spencer I think his last name. He said something like this " there is nothing that will keep a man in everlasting ignorance, more than Contempt prior to investigation"

[tinkrman69]

oh by the way Mr Jon Eisberg you still didn't get what the post you quoted from was about. It was about the fact that in you have enough scope and chain you will pull the shank down into the bottom after the initial set of the anchor. But there again a closed mind

[kerrydeare]

Originally Posted by tinkrman69

... the problem is that you have a closed mind and can't read a whole post before making judgments I think there would be no argument at all if you opened your mind and read from start to Finnish before you made a judgment. Heck you might even learn something ...

Now we're finally gettin' somewhere. It is well known that all boat threads eventually turn to anchor discussion wars, and all anchor discussion wars eventually collapse into ad hominem sonatas.

In this case, what took so long?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by tinkrman69

now as to your quote above you have mis quoted me. I did not say that I "never" have to put out less than 10:1. as a mater of fact the only time I typed 10:1 was here and in one other post where I talked published papers on anchors and scope. where they said 7 or 8:1 and in some 10:1.

Actually, your first post on this thread, #21 you wrote "I have 200 ft 5/16 and 40 ft of 3/8 on 180 ft of 5/8 line never anchor with lass than 10:1 scope usually 13:1"

[tinkrman69]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Actually, your first post on this thread, #21 you wrote "I have 200 ft 5/16 and 40 ft of 3/8 on 180 ft of 5/8 line never anchor with lass than 10:1 scope usually 13:1"

ah yes I do stand corrected on that. my apologies. the point still stands. standing on one anchor at 8:1 in any anchorage is not wise. In the last 15 years I haven't staid in one anchorage for more than 6 months. on an average it's about 2 months per port. my boat hasn't lost possession once. How many who stay 8:1 can say that. we're not talking two or three times a year snow bird anchoring here.

hhmm It's mostly those snowbirds that I've witnessed dragging. Maybe I should step back and take a look. I might be grouping too many people together. the reason I jumped into this thread was about people dragging. the statements I've made about scope and the types of bottom and the locations were correct. But my attitude seems to be wrong. For that I apologize Jon, Skip and Kerry