Mantus rode

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by weavis

Ive been waiting for the thread to debate which is the best make of anchor!

The truth is, I think in reality, and for a variety of reasons, we become attached (sic) to our equipment. Large expense items for poor Brit boys was a case of making a choice and being stuck with it.... (age 14-20)

England is a Tidal country, and us going out fishing... we would drift about a mile or a mile and a half offshore, just beyond the tide range, and sling the anchor when we hit a fish shoal. Our technique was to let it bottom, and then if the tide was flowing or ebbing, let the water settle it firmly...

None of us gave much thought to anchoring, you see, it just worked...

Having gone through a series of ever larger vessels both motor and sail as the years passed, and with a better income, the anchors got larger and heaving them over became mechanised... they still held in the main.

Ive learned a lot from this thread.

Well, I think the state of the art and state of knowledge of the art has also advanced a lot since the years when you and I first started anchoring boats. And there was a lot of knowledge at the level of commercial shipping, which did not filter down to the cruising boat scale, before there were large numbers of cruising boats spending large numbers nights anchored in bad weather.



I think we are in a very different game now, with vastly better anchors, and the knowledge that they should be sized differently, from what we grew up with.

[transmitterdan]

Exactly. Today we can carry heavier anchors that dig in much better than 30 years ago. Heavier is better so long as it digs in. A CQR sliding on top of the sand and a Spade of 1/2 the CQR weight is an unfair competition. Lots of good anchors dig in.

A lot of people put great stock in testing by backing down on an anchor. Actually the load you can create with that technique isn’t that much. In the CQR days it was a great way to know the anchor wasn’t sliding on the sand. But backing down doesn’t tell you that the anchor will hold in a storm.

To have confidence in your anchor technique requires actually experiencing rough conditions multiple times and local knowledge helps a lot. There is some art and some science.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Exactly. Today we can carry heavier anchors that dig in much better than 30 years ago. Heavier is better so long as it digs in. A CQR sliding on top of the sand and a Spade of 1/2 the CQR weight is an unfair competition. Lots of good anchors dig in.

A lot of people put great stock in testing by backing down on an anchor. Actually the load you can create with that technique isn’t that much. In the CQR days it was a great way to know the anchor wasn’t sliding on the sand. But backing down doesn’t tell you that the anchor will hold in a storm.

To have confidence in your anchor technique requires actually experiencing rough conditions multiple times and local knowledge helps a lot. There is some art and some science.

I think all this is entirely reasonable, and you're certainly right about the importance of actually experiencing rough conditions at anchor in a variety of bottoms, scopes, etc.


However, I would add that how much you can know from backing down depends a lot on what kind of propulsion gear you have. 100 horsepower swinging a 36" variable pitch prop can generate a massive amount of force in astern -- around 1000daN of force in a bollard pull. A 20 foot daysailer with an outboard is a totally different proposition, so here you can't generalize so much.


1000daN is more than the average wind force on a 54' boat in a 50 knot wind and enough to pull all the catenary out of a 100 meter long, 1/2" chain.



Even with less power than that, I think you can tell a great deal from how the anchor feels when it goes in. Experience will tell what kind of bottom you're in, and what kind of holding you can count on.

[Janet H]

Originally Posted by weavis

Ive learned a lot from this thread.

... with 200 + posts in this thread I hope so

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Janet H

... with 200 + posts in this thread I hope so

A very lively and informative thread.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

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.

I somehow missed all this discussion of the "art" of anchoring.


I didn't actually mean it in the sense of "a form of creative expression".

I meant it in this sense:

"art
noun \ ˈärt\
Definition of art
. . .
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art


Meaning you can't just learn one or two oversimplified rules and call it a day. There is a lot to know about anchoring. It's an art (in that sense).

[Jim Cate]

Ah, but consider the graceful arcing curves that your dragging anchor incises in the seabed as the wind shifts. Surely as artful as some modern "art"!

'Course, kinda hard to see and admire them...

Jim

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I somehow missed all this discussion of the "art" of anchoring.


I didn't actually mean it in the sense of "a form of creative expression".

I meant it in this sense:

"art
noun \ ˈärt\
Definition of art
. . .
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art


Meaning you can't just learn one or two oversimplified rules and call it a day. There is a lot to know about anchoring. It's an art (in that sense).

Exactly, but I like my definition better.

[sailorF54]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Let’s break this down.
....

I think the key factor in Dockhead's testimonial is his use of a Spade anchor...
Once set, a Spade appears to be rather insensitive to the vertical pull that comes with a short scope. This is major difference with more traditional anchors such as CQR-like designs.

My admittedly much less extensive experience with a Rocna anchor tends to support this claim.
But also the use of fairly long (at least 30') rope 'spring' to reduce the load from the boat reaching the end of its tether when 'sailing' right and left seems to me an even more crucial safety factor

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I somehow missed all this discussion of the "art" of anchoring.


I didn't actually mean it in the sense of "a form of creative expression".

I meant it in this sense:

"art
noun \ ˈärt\
Definition of art
. . .
3: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art



Meaning you can't just learn one or two oversimplified rules and call it a day. There is a lot to know about anchoring. It's an art (in that sense).

You probably also meant the first definition:
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation



Curiously, it is not until the 4th definition that creativity is mentioned. I think many understand that when someone says a practice is both science and art, then mean "fact and magic," when in fact the it means that it includes theory, testing, observation, and practice.Much of engnieering is "art" in this sense; the theory is too complex to be practically applied, so we measure, observe, and build based on the rules that work.

[transmitterdan]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers...ill_in_the_art

I think the concept of art is a bit confusing for some, as seen in this thread, that is unless you are used to the term in technical disciplines. An art is a field of expertise that must be studied to master. And in that sense anchoring is indeed an art or field of expertise. It requires study and training.

An artist is not a magician. Their skill comes with training and practice, practice, practice.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by thinwater

You probably also meant the first definition:
1: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation



Curiously, it is not until the 4th definition that creativity is mentioned. I think many understand that when someone says a practice is both science and art, then mean "fact and magic," when in fact the it means that it includes theory, testing, observation, and practice.Much of engnieering is "art" in this sense; the theory is too complex to be practically applied, so we measure, observe, and build based on the rules that work.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pers...ill_in_the_art

I think the concept of art is a bit confusing for some, as seen in this thread, that is unless you are used to the term in technical disciplines. An art is a field of expertise that must be studied to master. And in that sense anchoring is indeed an art or field of expertise. It requires study and training.

An artist is not a magician. Their skill comes with training and practice, practice, practice.

Yes, yes, yes!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sailorF54

I think the key factor in Dockhead's testimonial is his use of a Spade anchor...
Once set, a Spade appears to be rather insensitive to the vertical pull that comes with a short scope. This is major difference with more traditional anchors such as CQR-like designs.

My admittedly much less extensive experience with a Rocna anchor tends to support this claim.
But also the use of fairly long (at least 30') rope 'spring' to reduce the load from the boat reaching the end of its tether when 'sailing' right and left seems to me an even more crucial safety factor

This is correct, and I think I qualified all of my statements by saying something like "if you have a good and large anchor".


And this is why it is just silly to issue categorical pronouncements about how much scope you need. It depends.


My decade of unhappy experience with a CQR showed that you didn't have much chance of holding in strong weather on less than 6:1, or 7:1, or better even more.


Modern anchors are very different. Even the Bruce is claimed to achieve 50% of its maximum holding power at 2:1 scope, but I think a more realistic number is 40% at 3:1, based on several sources which I cited above.



Then, the size of the anchor also matters. If your anchor is small, you need more of its maximum holding and can less afford a shorter scope. If your anchor is large, or better very large (i.e., a BFA), then you have a lot of reserve holding power and a shorter scope won't eat into how much holding power you NEED.


Up to the point that you are like Delfin, and your anchor has enough holding power even at 3:1 to break your chain, making greater scope than 3:1 superfluous in a decent bottom.


In short, IT DEPENDS.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is correct, and I think I qualified all of my statements by saying something like "if you have a good and large anchor".


And this is why it is just silly to issue categorical pronouncements about how much scope you need. It depends.


My decade of unhappy experience with a CQR showed that you didn't have much chance of holding in strong weather on less than 6:1, or 7:1, or better even more.


Modern anchors are very different. Even the Bruce is claimed to achieve 50% of its maximum holding power at 2:1 scope, but I think a more realistic number is 40% at 3:1, based on several sources which I cited above.



Then, the size of the anchor also matters. If your anchor is small, you need more of its maximum holding and can less afford a shorter scope. If your anchor is large, or better very large (i.e., a BFA), then you have a lot of reserve holding power and a shorter scope won't eat into how much holding power you NEED.


Up to the point that you are like Delfin, and your anchor has enough holding power even at 3:1 to break your chain, making greater scope than 3:1 superfluous in a decent bottom.


In short, IT DEPENDS.

Not trying to start another anchor debate, but IMHO, anchors are either good "divers", or they are not. By diver, I mean the tendency to simply bury itself deeper and deeper as you increase the loading. The hoop on the Rocna and Manson interferes with this. The CQR couldn't dive if you supplied it with a scuba tank. Heavier Bruces dive pretty well. Spades, Ultras, Fortresses, maybe the Boss or Vulcan - these are diving anchors and tend to nullify the soil liquification issues identified above since they keep going deeper to fresh soil. Diving anchors, again, IMHO, are highly effective even on very short scope, so discussion of scope without taking into account the other variables is, as you suggest, kind of pointless.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Not trying to start another anchor debate, but IMHO, anchors are either good "divers", or they are not. By diver, I mean the tendency to simply bury itself deeper and deeper as you increase the loading. The hoop on the Rocna and Manson interferes with this. The CQR couldn't dive if you supplied it with a scuba tank. Heavier Bruces dive pretty well. Spades, Ultras, Fortresses, maybe the Boss or Vulcan - these are diving anchors and tend to nullify the soil liquification issues identified above since they keep going deeper to fresh soil. Diving anchors, again, IMHO, are highly effective even on very short scope, so discussion of scope without taking into account the other variables is, as you suggest, kind of pointless.

Certainly the behavior of anchors at higher angulation depends on the design. It would be really interesting if someone would actually test this.


What you say about roll bars sounds reasonable, however, I had terrific success with my previous anchor, a 121 pound Rocna, on short scope, and used it often at 3:1 or even less. In fact I never budged that anchor an inch under any circumstances once it was set. However, it was much harder to set than the various Spades I've used (since the late '90s!), and behaved badly in soft mud where it would clog up.


The Mantus roll bar is much thinner, so maybe doesn't clog as readily as other roll bar anchors.