Mantus rode

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Well, you'd have to call another firm, because there's a really good chance that with your charming attitude and demeanor, I'd tell you, "Sorry, we're too busy", about 15 seconds into our new customer screening process.

Would that screening process be conducted on your boat on the dock or at your house? If so, I'm not sure you'd get those 15 seconds from me.

But you still haven't answered my question regarding what looks like a very intriguing business model. I'm just curious how you manage to pull it off. Does it work because the kind of clients one finds where there are oceans to cross aren't in your neighborhood, so you're dealing with people who actually have less experience than you?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Delfin

. . . A heavier anchor is always better than a lighter one, right? So what kind of a jerk would I be if I implied that you were (a. a fool; (b. endangering your passengers; or (c. stupid as you have called others because you refuse to carry a 400# Fisherman anchor? Answer: I would be you Rod...

This is an important point. Carrying a heavier and better anchor, is more important than using more scope. I showed earlier with figures, that two sizes up in anchor size makes more of a difference in holding than going from 3:1 to 10:1 in scope.



Yet, we don't call people fools because they don't have the maximum possible size anchor. Unlike the case with scope, a heavier anchor is ALWAYS materially better -- always increases holding power and always roughly in proportion to size.


This fetish for scope is nothing but that -- religious belief without any serious thought behind it. A single superficial idea held in a fixed way as a substitute for the larger and more subtle body of knowledge which is needed to anchor competently.


And anyone with any real experience knows that very often scope is inherently limited by swinging room, and can't be increased just by carrying more rode.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

So you think anything under 8:1 scope in strong weather -- not considering the anchor, the bottom, the shelter, etc. -- is a "tragedy waiting to happen"?


Sorry to inform you, but this is standard practice, among experienced sailors. Same practice followed by Dashew, Morgan's Cloud, everyone who anchors in places where there aren't easy answers.


Just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean it's unsafe.

DH, you describe your backing down on the anchor, but I am curious if you let it settle first before doing so? Right or wrong, I have myself convinced that an anchor is best "nudged" into setting position, then left alone for a hour or two before backing down on it. I do this by dropping the amount of chain required to reach the bottom - 1:1 scope, so to speak. I then put the vessel into reverse for a few seconds while playing out the desired scope, ensuring the chain isn't just dumped on top of the anchor. Once I've laid out what I want in terms of scope, typically around 2.5:1, I go have a beer, launch the dinghy, etc. and only then restart the engine, and back down on the hook if I have any concerns about holding. With a 44" wheel and 270 hp, I can certainly take up the catenary quickly, but I do so very gradually until I hit around 1000 rpm. Then, I will lay out the snub line, which probably takes me to 3:1 depending on depth.

Point is, I have seen many boats drop the hook, throw the boat into reverse, then wonder why they are skating around the anchorage. I'm pretty sure if they just cooled it for a while to allow the hook the start the setting process they would have been fine.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Delfin

DH, you describe your backing down on the anchor, but I am curious if you let it settle first before doing so? Right or wrong, I have myself convinced that an anchor is best "nudged" into setting position, then left alone for a hour or two before backing down on it. I do this by dropping the amount of chain required to reach the bottom - 1:1 scope, so to speak. I then put the vessel into reverse for a few seconds while playing out the desired scope, ensuring the chain isn't just dumped on top of the anchor. Once I've laid out what I want in terms of scope, typically around 2.5:1, I go have a beer, launch the dinghy, etc. and only then restart the engine, and back down on the hook if I have any concerns about holding. With a 44" wheel and 270 hp, I can certainly take up the catenary quickly, but I do so very gradually until I hit around 1000 rpm. Then, I will lay out the snub line, which probably takes me to 3:1 depending on depth.

Point is, I have seen many boats drop the hook, throw the boat into reverse, then wonder why they are skating around the anchorage. I'm pretty sure if they just cooled it for a while to allow the hook the start the setting process they would have been fine.

My procedure is much the same, although I might not spend quite that much time "soaking" as you describe. More "soaking" is required in soft mud, where I find the anchor needs to sink through the ooze before you can set it. Otherwise, it clogs and skids, especially roll bar anchors. Less soaking is required with an an anchor with sharp point like Spade, than with one with a blunt point like Rocna.

By the same token, as you say, you can't start off with a blast of reverse - you have to do it gradually, working slowly up to max revs.

In any case, working the anchor into the seabed is a crucial part of the process, and yes, you see many unskilled people skipping this step.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

My procedure is much the same, although I might not spend quite that much time "soaking" as you describe. More "soaking" is required in soft mud, where I find the anchor needs to sink through the ooze before you can set it. Otherwise, it clogs and skids, especially roll bar anchors. Less soaking is required with an an anchor with sharp point like Spade, than with one with a blunt point like Rocna.

By the same token, as you say, you can't start off with a blast of reverse - you have to do it gradually, working slowly up to max revs.

In any case, working the anchor into the seabed is a crucial part of the process, and yes, you see many unskilled people skipping this step.

Our Ultra has a very large percentage of its 176# in the tip, which is slightly down curved. The holding power seems really remarkable, at least to me. This replaced a Lewmar Claw of the same weight, which also performed extremely well. I think that helps make the point that once you get into heavier anchor weights, even a sometimes indifferent performer like a Claw can be quite effective.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Our Ultra has a very large percentage of its 176# in the tip, which is slightly down curved. The holding power seems really remarkable, at least to me. This replaced a Lewmar Claw of the same weight, which also performed extremely well. I think that helps make the point that once you get into heavier anchor weights, even a sometimes indifferent performer like a Claw can be quite effective.

If I recall correctly, when Noelex and SO were videoing anchors in various harbors they reported that consistently the Ultra showed the shortest tracks from where it landed to when it dug in and set.

[evm1024]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I am sorry, but this is the poorest science I have ever seen in my life.

Wow, and that accusation from Rod.

You paint a great picture though.

Interesting that you use the word PAINT as that is the bulk of your marine service work. Paint work, polishing, fiberglass repair.

Anyone can see you just fudged the numbers in an algorithm to support your point.

I'm so glad I put my cup of espresso down! Mr. Fudge Numbers accuses others of doing the same. Untrue of course. this has been the point from the beginning.

Using that same algorithm, put both anchors on the same bottom and 10:1 scope wins over 3:1 hands down every time, everything being equal, no mitigating factors.

And here we have Rod fudging the numbers again. But he hides it with EEE when he knows damn well that things are never EEE in the real world.

How the frig are you going to know so precisely what the bottom holding co-efficient is going to be at various places in the anchorage, pull up core samples and send them off to the lab?

And here we have an insight into some of Rod's limits. He thinks "If I cannot "see" it then it cannot be done". Where it is clear that others do have greater skills including reading the bottom and building a good guess as to its holding ability. Rod's lack of experience and limited experience shows through.

Maybe you're going to paint the bottom whatever you want it to be?

Must have a number of bottom paint jobs lined up

Ridiculous!

Rod holds convictions in his superiority far in excess of his training and experience. He started out with 2 trailer sailors (no problem with trailer sailors, I started with a Ranger 20 in the '70s) and restored his Douglass 32 full keel boat.

He has what? 8 years with his Douglass of which some time was spent in the restoration and because of his location the winters are cold and he is lucky to get a 6 or 7 month boating season.

He sails on Lake Ontario which is 193 miles by 53 miles (311 km x 85 km) and we can deduce that he never sails overnight, that he anchors out rarely and that because of his successful business has no time for anything but day sails. I.E. limited experience anchoring. And as he has stated in a prior post he learned his anchoring from books.

We know that he has not disclosed the amount of rode he carries on his Bruce or his CQR anchors. He has not disclosed if his rodes are of equal length or of what they are constructed. We know that there was at least some chain on them.

He has not disclosed his reason for not upgrading his anchors to a newer generation or even the weight of his anchors.

Based on his ground tackle and cruising ground (and lack of meaningful tide range) we can deduce that he has never anchored in depths greater than 25' and that he has never anchored in a marginal location during a prolonged period of bad weather.

You may think that this is a character attack but it is not. This is a construction of a CV (curriculum Vitae) of his sailing career so as to be able to form a reasonable understanding of the value of his opinions.

[groundtackle]

I concur with 'go slow like a pro' when anchoring, coming along side and a few other things in life.
Listening to the chain; I've played with a stethoscope, it's fascinating.

Chris

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

My procedure is much the same, although I might not spend quite that much time "soaking" as you describe. More "soaking" is required in soft mud, where I find the anchor needs to sink through the ooze before you can set it. Otherwise, it clogs and skids, especially roll bar anchors. Less soaking is required with an an anchor with sharp point like Spade, than with one with a blunt point like Rocna.

By the same token, as you say, you can't start off with a blast of reverse - you have to do it gradually, working slowly up to max revs.

In any case, working the anchor into the seabed is a crucial part of the process, and yes, you see many unskilled people skipping this step.

I experienced this the first time when anchoring in the St John's River with a Rocna. Dropped and started backing down and could not get it to set. Pulled the anchor 100 yards across the cove, fast slow and in between, trying to get it to dig in. Finally sat for a while trying to decided what to do, backed down again and it stuck.

Learned that that river in places doesn't really have a hard bottom. Just gradually transitions from water to soup to ooze to mud to goo and somewhere deep down it gradually gets harder. The boat yard there was a navy base in WWII and dredged to accommodate moderately sized ships, as deep as 40' in places. Over the years it has silted in to less that 5' in spots but it is so soft you can just motor right through it.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by groundtackle

I concur with 'go slow like a pro' when anchoring, coming along side and a few other things in life.
Listening to the chain; I've played with a stethoscope, it's fascinating.

Chris

That is a fascinating idea. Must take awhile learning how to interpret the sounds you're hearing!

A friend on my dock just bought an under water drone. I've about convinced myself that this is a piece of safety gear I can't live without. Bit of a struggle diving the anchor in the PNW, but this would allow one to see exactly how the anchor is lying. And, it would provide a data source for improving one's anchoring technique that seems like it would be hard to beat.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by evm1024

Rod holds convictions in his superiority far in excess of his training and experience. He started out with 2 trailer sailors (no problem with trailer sailors, I started with a Ranger 20 in the '70s) and restored his Douglass 32 full keel boat.

He has what? 8 years with his Douglass of which some time was spent in the restoration and because of his location the winters are cold and he is lucky to get a 6 or 7 month boating season.

He sails on Lake Ontario which is 193 miles by 53 miles (311 km x 85 km) and we can deduce that he never sails overnight, that he anchors out rarely and that because of his successful business has no time for anything but day sails. I.E. limited experience anchoring. And as he has stated in a prior post he learned his anchoring from books.

We know that he has not disclosed the amount of rode he carries on his Bruce or his CQR anchors. He has not disclosed if his rodes are of equal length or of what they are constructed. We know that there was at least some chain on them.

He has not disclosed his reason for not upgrading his anchors to a newer generation or even the weight of his anchors.

Based on his ground tackle and cruising ground (and lack of meaningful tide range) we can deduce that he has never anchored in depths greater than 25' and that he has never anchored in a marginal location during a prolonged period of bad weather.

You may think that this is a character attack but it is not. This is a construction of a CV (curriculum Vitae) of his sailing career so as to be able to form a reasonable understanding of the value of his opinions.

Clearly this CV does not address any personality issues that may make him suited or unsuited for a crew position.

All of this is why I find his business model so interesting. Throw up a web site listing every marine service imaginable without the slightest ability to actually do any of the work, tell everyone you're an expert, and voila, a marine service provider is born.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

One person in this thread called anchoring an art.

I almost fell of my chair.

Then fasten your seat belt because I will also call it an art form BUT in the context that one needs to apply a wide range of skill and experience, all based on physics, geometry and science but modifying the application of the techniques, sometimes in very subtle ways, to accommodate requirements of a specific situation.

So for me, considering all the above and the fact that one cannot or should not just blindly follow a few, over simplified formulas, anchoring is an art form.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

That is a fascinating idea. Must take awhile learning how to interpret the sounds you're hearing!

A friend on my dock just bought an under water drone. I've about convinced myself that this is a piece of safety gear I can't live without. Bit of a struggle diving the anchor in the PNW, but this would allow one to see exactly how the anchor is lying. And, it would provide a data source for improving one's anchoring technique that seems like it would be hard to beat.

Ooo. An underwater drone. What a cool toy to have. Assume it has a wired connection to the controller as I don't think radio waves penetrate underwater very well.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Ooo. An underwater drone. What a cool toy to have. Assume it has a wired connection to the controller as I don't think radio waves penetrate underwater very well.

Yes, it comes with a 25 meter hard wire and an optional 100 meter control wire. My Geekometer pegged when I saw it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Our Ultra has a very large percentage of its 176# in the tip, which is slightly down curved. The holding power seems really remarkable, at least to me. This replaced a Lewmar Claw of the same weight, which also performed extremely well. I think that helps make the point that once you get into heavier anchor weights, even a sometimes indifferent performer like a Claw can be quite effective.

Anchor performance apparently doesn't scale once you get over 100 pounds. Dashew had great luck with his 176 pound Bruce anchors, and most Sundeers apparently still have the ones they were delivered with.


You should be getting over 30 tonnes of maximum holding power with that anchor -- what kind of rode do you use with it? That would be beyond the breaking strength of most human scale chain.


12 tonnes on 3:1 scope; probably hardly any reason to use more than that, with such an anchor. A great example of what we have been talking about.