Mantus rode

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Delfin,

Do you thread the shackle through the links or just wrap it around the links and pull on the stopper knot to lock the shackle down on the chain?

Or something else?

Maybe go around the chain twice and then pull on the shackle?

I just stick the loop through a link, then through a yacht thimble I spliced onto the snub line, then secured with the stopper knot. Can't fall off, or ding the hull on retrieval.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I just stick the loop through a link, then through a yacht thimble I spliced onto the snub line, then secured with the stopper knot. Can't fall off, or ding the hull on retrieval.

I just started doing this last year with my boat. I found that tying a stronger soft shackle (with the button knot) was easier to tie. The animated knots photos are best for me.

I use 5' of 1/4" amsteel for my basic soft shackle.

You likely know all this.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Anyone can post on the internet pretty much anything that they want.

Agreed!

I am so disappointed, when I or others try so hard to contribute something of value to forum members, and you just continuously attempt to disrupt and disparage them, rather than to just contribute something useful on your own.

Quite frankly, since you have attempted to cast aspersions on my anchoring ability, I will advise, based on your posts in this thread, and my knowledge and experience, I'm quite confident, that everything else equal, I could out anchor you, any time, any where, on anything, with anything.

Most on this thread are attempting to understand the hows and whys of anchoring technique especially in adverse situations

.

to which I have been attempting to contribute despite you constant disparaging comments.

Whereas you (OMHO) appear to be defending an entrenched position that others disagreed with.

Well, if you are referring to my assertions that in general more scope is better, and not preparing to deploy substantial scope for storm conditions is reckless. Absolutely! I will not abandon this knowledge and understanding because some whose opinions I don't really value that much, keep insisting this isn't necessary. I fundamentally disagree with their premise. Why on earth, would I suddenly accept it as fact? You can if you wish.

In my opinion, this isn't "old-fashioned" or "no longer necessary", it is just basic good seamanship.

In terms of contributing to this thread I refer you again to your own post quoted above.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree, all of my posts are fine examples of someone who is knowledgeable and experienced, attempting to contribute value to the forum despite you.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Agreed!

Snip!

Quite frankly, since you have attempted to cast aspersions on my anchoring ability, I will advise, based on your posts in this thread, and my knowledge and experience, I'm quite confident, that everything else equal, I could out anchor you, any time, any where, on anything, with anything.

You know it is not a competition....

Originally Posted by RR

Yes, I agree, all of my posts are fine examples of someone who is knowledgeable and experienced, attempting to contribute value to the forum despite you.

And that is the problem. You advise in an autocratic way that people should give up good holding in deep water to seek higher scope on a lee shore.

Which fully negates any value to your posts and shows the above quote to be entirely self serving and false.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by evm1024

You know it is not a competition....




And that is the problem. You advise in an autocratic way that people should give up good holding in deep water to seek higher scope on a lee shore.

Which fully negates any value to your posts and shows the above quote to be entirely self serving and false.

Well at least he didn't accuse your mama of being so fat she has her own zip code. That would have been really humiliating.

[Delfin]

Come to think of it, I may have anchored next to Rod once.

This goes back 40 years when you were still allowed to anchor in Victoria Harbor, right in front of the Empress Hotel. When we sailed in, there was only one other boat at anchor (wintertime). I positioned ourselves perhaps 100 yards away - I mean, it was a long ways away given how close you are forced to anchor in most places in the summer - and anchored in 25' of water or so. Windless night, 2 am, and thump, thump - we're bumping into the other boat. Needless to say, the other fellow was a bit pissed off, and pointedly advised me to up anchor and go someplace else. So we did.

Next morning, sitting in the cockpit, we watched this fellow pulling in his nylon rode for at least 20 minutes. He pulled. And pulled. And pulled some more. And then some more. By the time he had gotten within around 50 feet of us and was still pulling, and to his credit, he looked over to us from the bow of his boat where there had to be at least 300 feet of rode heaped up and said "gee, I guess I might have had too much scope out." Well duh.

But on reflection, I guess this couldn't have been Rod. Not after acknowledging that he had out an absurd amount of scope, since that would be admitting a mistake.

Point is, the inexperienced, or those with age who haven't learned anything in 30 years but pretend to have, generally default to what they think are "rules of thumb" since that relieves them of understanding the physics or reasons behind the rule of thumb.

As DH has patiently explained quite a few times, the only point of scope is to increase the angle of rode to shank if and when the rode is lifted off the sea bed. Whether the anchor then drags or not at that point depends on the anchor design, the sea bed, the conditions, and whether the hook was set properly in the first place. Catenary, up to a point, helps, and is highly dependent of what the rode is made off, but to say that 8:1, or 5:1 or 100:1 is always better as a "rule of thumb" and if you don't accept that rule of thumb then you're being stupid or dangerous just means you haven't a clue and should be ignored.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I guess, for the tenth time (maybe 20th time?), I never said that. 3:1 could be adequate. It depends.

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times, stop exaggerating!

I'm sorry if I was confused by your posts.

From your post # 19...

(Dockhead)I have been through three days of gales in 30 meters of water, on 100 meters of chain, without issues, and consider 3.3:1 to be quite ok for 30 meters for my case -- which involves nearly half a ton of 1/2" chain

From your post # 22...

(Dockhead)From Steve Dashew, who uses as little as 2:1 in very deep water:

and

Here is a good video showing the actual behavior of an anchor at only 50 feet, on 3:1 scope

and

So much for 10 times the depth.

From you post # 24...

The video show very good results in deepish water (only 50 feet) at 3:1 scope. In really deep water, like 100', you get more or less ultimate holding power at 3:1 on chain, especially heavy chain

.

I disagree with that advice, because (a) 10:1 is overkill in any case;

From your post # 41

Anchored in 150 feet of water on 1:2.2 scope. We went through a storm here.

From you post # 63

(Dockhead) Yet another bad seaman! Choosing to anchor in the middle of the bay in a storm with gusts in the 60's! With 3.4:1 scope.

PS, I never responded to this at the time, but the issue to be remedied was not that he had adequate scope and moved; the issue was that he foolishly (in my position) land tied so he was broadside to wind and waves. First of all, I wouldn't have likely pulled that silly stunt in the first place, I learned long ago that it is far better to swing on the hook than anchor out and tie to shore (IN GENERAL).

From your post # 64

[QUOTE](Dockhead) Scope is good, of course, up to the point of vanishing returns (at most 8:1).

I seemed you were finally agreeing with me, but then you had to post...

And then you posted....

Or do you take a chance on an excellent flat spot of dense silt in the middle of the bay, even if you can only get 2.33:1 scope on it

I thought this was reasonably noble that you admitted that you were "taking a chance" using short scope. Finally. And I agree, YES you were, and you were very lucky that it paid off, or you may not be hear to talk about it.

You may wish to stick your nose in the air and claim that all of your knowledge and experience lead you to KNOW it would be OK, but I suspect it was merely a case of luck and you simply HOPED WITH YOUR LIFE it would be OK. Fortunately, it proved to work out, but it could have just as easily worked out very badly. There is no possible way you could have KNOWN that would hold for the conditions you could possibly encounter. Not possible.

From you post # 71

Of course, NO ONE suggested anchoring on 3:1 scope anywhere, IF you have the choice to use more scope. Obviously not

So after a bunch of disparaging remarks about my understanding and anchoring skill, it now this seems like a complete about face on your part, claiming that one should always use more scope than 3:1 if they can. This didn't seem to be the thrust of your message when you were espousing Dashew, apparently your idol, using 2.2:1.

And then you posted,

Carrying "lots of rode" is great, and solves lots of problems. However, carrying lots of rode is not a simple solution to every anchoring problem.

Thank you for finally acknowledging this and agreeing with my rule # 6 in my post # 8. It took a while, but it seemed like you finally go there. But wait, you couldn't do it, you then had to post a strawman argument in the second sentence, I simply never claimed that. I claimed that it was wise to have it, so if it was needed, it was available.

From your post # 76

In storm conditions, you should use as much rode as you have, up to the limit of swinging circle.

Oh I see, we have gone from you should use the amount of scope you need, which you indicated in a prior post could be as much as 8:1, but now you only use as much as you have.

What if all you have is 3:1 but you need 8:1? I guess you are kinda screwed for not carrying 8:1 aren't you?

Then you posted...

You can get zero angulation with even 2:1 scope, under some conditions

Oh what conditions would those be? Certainly not with all catenary remove d by force on the boat pulling out of the rode. My knowledge and experience helps me understand that with more scope, you would have more catenary (if it weren't pulled out) and a better angle if it were. So 2:1 scope kinda sucks in anything but benign conditions. Good way to pull the anchor out of the bottom if the catenary is mostly removed, (which would only require a bit more force than the weight of the chain at that short of scope).

So it appears to me that initially you have been claiming that a short scope, as low as 2.2 is acceptable, a scope of 4:1 is adequate and 10:1 would never be required, and then somewhere during the course of this thread, you actually started to acknowledge that holding power increases with scope, and there are lots of occasions, like storm conditions, or poor holding where even 8:1 might be necessary. You stopped there and wouldn't acknowledge that 10:1 may be required, even though you acknowledged that it is does have more holding power, just you don't think it would be enough to worry about.

Just like you weren't worried about the short scope you had that night in the harbour I guess.

Yeah right.

But a gotta ask, when during the course of the thread you position starts out at one thing, and then seems to wander around ands back and forth, is it really rsurprising that anyone may be confused about what your position on scope really is?

I've tried to make mine quite clear. You and others have posted a number of strawman arguments attempting to make it less clear, but I think if one just reads mine, they will have a pretty good understanding of my position, and if the following it applying a reasonable level of seamanship, they will be safe.

If they follow yours, whatever that really is, I'm not so sure.

That's my opinion.

[Delfin]

Rod, consistent with the advice you give is your emphasis that your opinions are valuable because of your experience as a marine service provider. In looking at your website, I do see an impressive list of services available, from electronics, bottom painting, consulting - pretty much soup to nuts on all things boating. Really a one stop shop.

When I Google Earth your business address, I come up with a residential neighborhood in Peterborough, which I guess must just be for mail and stuff, or else Street View on Google Earth is wrong. But on your site, you indicate that you operate out of the vessel "Silouette on Pier 2" of the Newcastle Marina on Lake Ontario. When I Google earth that, I see fairly typical lake boats. How on earth do you manage to provide all those services without an actual shop, or do you coordinate the necessary trades for clients after identifying their needs?

I only ask because of your insistence that your opinions are from a professional, so if might help us understand your professional expertise better if you explained your business model.

[evm1024]

I also wonder....

Rod, You base your opinion on your experience. I wonder if you got most of your experience on Serendipity, Sea Quell or Silhouette? Or was there substantial time spent on OPB other peoples boats?

It looks like you sold (your first boat) Serendipity in 2003.

Silhouette (your 3rd and current boat) I must say is quite beautiful.

It is sad that you have spent so much time misrepresenting what others have posted to support your "position". If you spent as much time trying to understand what they were saying you would be the richer for it.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Silhouette (your 3rd and current boat) I must say is quite beautiful.

Well, that was a nice thing to say. Thanks.

Unfortunately, it didn't last, and the balance of the rudeness was ignored.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Well, that was a nice thing to say. Thanks.

Unfortunately, it didn't last, and the balance of the rudeness was ignored.

It's rude to ask someone who says they are an expert in maritime subjects and a marine service provider, and who dismisses the opinions of people who have cruised the world, to simply explain a bit further their credentials since they appear to be one guy, on a boat, on a lake, without a shop or employees?

Seriously? Based on what you represent on your website, I would have thought you'd have a different response since you offer so many different services, but I think you may have answered my question whether you wanted to or not.

Much obliged.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Rod, consistent with the advice you give is your emphasis that your opinions are valuable because of your experience as a marine service provider. In looking at your website, I do see an impressive list of services available, from electronics, bottom painting, consulting - pretty much soup to nuts on all things boating. Really a one stop shop.

Thanks!

Yes, we provide "Total Yacht Care" service to a number of clients in South Central Ontario for recreational vessels; power and sail.

As part of our boating community service program we conduct DIY maintenance and improvement seminars for various boating groups.

Another part of our program is to offer general advice and information through internet boating forums.

Those seeking valid solutions to their problems seem to appreciate the opportunity.

Unfortunately, a few become belligerent, some to an extreme.

But logic, reasoning, and experience is always on my side, because I just won't post anything I can't support with it.

[skipmac]

Rod I see you still arguing your position but did not see your response to my post #136 that compared the actual angles between a 7:1 and the 10:1 scope you claim is so much better. Maybe it's hard to argue against real numbers.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Thanks!

Yes, we provide "Total Yacht Care" service to a number of clients in South Central Ontario for recreational vessels; power and sail.

As part of our boating community service program we conduct DIY maintenance and improvement seminars for various boating groups.

Another part of our program is to offer general advice and information through internet boating forums.

Those seeking valid solutions to their problems seem to appreciate the opportunity.

Unfortunately, a few become belligerent, some to an extreme.

But logic, reasoning, and experience is always on my side, because I just won't post anything I can't support with it.

Ok, logic, reason and experience are on your side, but my question was what your business model is that lists numerous services, but apparently operates out of your house or your boat. Most of the firms I might call to install electronics, or do repairs, or any of the things you list as services you supply have actual shops, trucks, employees, etc. I was just trying to close the gap between appearances and your assertions that you know more about anchoring than someone like, oh say, Steve Dashew, or batteries than someone like, oh say, Rod Collins. You know who they are, right?

Appearances can be deceiving, but at this point, there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there, expertise wise, much less professional creds.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Delfin

It's rude...?

Yes, I absolutely believe you are being rude.

I don't care if someone has sailed around the world 10 times in a battle ship or across a small pond once in a dinghy, if they post something that I know to be wrong, I'll call them on it, and if they post something useful I can learn from, I'll thank them for it.

The fact is, I do have enough experience to know that every single 3:1 scope proponent in this thread really knows damn well they should carry more rode and use more scope when they reach the end of what they've got; they just don't want to admit to others (or themselves) that they are compromising their safety.

Frankly, I don't really give a crap about any kind of skipper who would do this kind of thing, it's the others on their boat that are counting on them to get home safely that I really care about.

One person in this thread called anchoring an art.

I almost fell of my chair.

It's a science, pure and simple; the application of physics to hold a known object in place against variable forces.

And the science tells us, that more scope is better, and 3:1 scope may not be enough to stand up to those forces; so to carry only enough rode for that amount of scope is completely illogical. Bad science.

If anyone wants to practice art, go paint a picture of flowers or something; don't put other peoples lives in harms way needlessly, when you can easily avoid doing so.

600 ft of rope to attach to that chain won't break the bank or the boat.

Don't be a fool.