Photos of Anchors Setting

[noelex 77]

Thanks for the nice comments Erik. I have been busy lately, but I have more photos to share.

Your conclusions are correct. The area where most of the photos have been taken typically have a hard sand layer just below the soft surface. It takes a good design of anchor to penetrate this harder layer. Only a handful of anchors can do this.

Hard sand is one of the common difficult substrates. Also, I think there is a reasonable correlation with the anchors that have sufficient toe pressure to penetrate this hard sand and anchors that can penetrate past the weed roots.

In softer sand or medium mud, anchor performance becomes much more similar. In the ideal medium soft substrate nearly all anchors will do well. Anchor geometry and generating a high penetration force becomes much less important.

As substrates become softer again all anchors will initially set well, but many designs do not have sufficient fluke area, or fluke geometry to generate much resistance. Anchors will remain buried, but slowly drag.

The Delta anchor is a reasonable performer, but underwater in the substrates of the Eastern Med there is an enormous difference between a reasonable anchor and an excellent model. I think the photos back this up. Looking at the anchors over 12 months you could almost compare the best setting performance of an anchor like the Delta or Kobra with the worst performance of one of the top designs. Maybe not quite, but not far off.

Given the multitude of boats, techniques, and substrates this is a remarkable difference. If the photos were taken in the ideal medium soft substrate, the differences in the photos and in the anchors holding performance would be much more subtle.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Thanks for the nice comments Erik. I have been busy lately, but I have more photos to share.

Your conclusions are correct. The area where most of the photos have been taken typically have a hard sand layer just below the soft surface. It takes a good design of anchor to penetrate this harder layer. Only a handful of anchors can do this.

Hard sand is one of the common difficult substrates. Also, I think there is a reasonable correlation with the anchors that have sufficient toe pressure to penetrate this hard sand and anchors that can penetrate past the weed roots.

In softer sand or medium mud, anchor performance becomes much more similar. In the ideal medium soft substrate nearly all anchors will do well. Anchor geometry and generating a high penetration force becomes much less important.

As substrates become softer again all anchors will initially set well, but many designs do not have sufficient fluke area, or fluke geometry to generate much resistance. Anchors will remain buried, but slowly drag.

The Delta anchor is a reasonable performer, but underwater in the substrates of the Eastern Med there is an enormous difference between a reasonable anchor and an excellent model. I think the photos back this up. Looking at the anchors over 12 months you could almost compare the best setting performance of an anchor like the Delta or Kobra with the worst performance of one of the top designs. Maybe not quite, but not far off.

Given the multitude of boats, techniques, and substrates this is a remarkable difference. If the photos were taken in the ideal medium soft substrate, the differences in the photos and in the anchors holding performance would be much more subtle.

I hadn't noticed you posting for so long that I thought perhaps SWL had sold you into slavery to pay for her Bestaever

[Orion Jim]

Since all the anchor experts frequent this column I have a question which others may very well have encountered. I just purchased a S80 Spade. I need to attach it to my 5/16 BBB chain. I will not consider using a swivel. Would it be best to attach my 7/16 Crosby shackle to the anchor shank with the pin, as opposed to the bow of the shackle, and use another 7/16 shackle to attach that shackle to my chain? Or, should I use just one shackle attached to the chain with the bow of the shackle passing through the the attachment hole in the shank of the anchor? In simple terms, one shackle or two? (I've only ever used one in the past but with two the range of motion is greatly increased and I noticed two being used in a photo in one of Hiscock's books)

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by Orion Jim

Since all the anchor experts frequent this column I have a question which others may very well have encountered. I just purchased a S80 Spade. I need to attach it to my 5/16 BBB chain. I will not consider using a swivel. Would it be best to attach my 7/16 Crosby shackle to the anchor shank with the pin, as opposed to the bow of the shackle, and use another 7/16 shackle to attach that shackle to my chain? Or, should I use just one shackle attached to the chain with the bow of the shackle passing through the the attachment hole in the shank of the anchor? In simple terms, one shackle or two? (I've only ever used one in the past but with two the range of motion is greatly increased and I noticed two being used in a photo in one of Hiscock's books)

Jim,

Don't attach the shackle backwards, ie anchor on the bow of the shackle, as you'll end up with the problem I have with my Vulcan where the shackle twists and gets stuck. I've even had this cause the anchor to land upside down and need manhandling before it would dig in (remarkably it still held 1500revs in reverse while upside down!!).
I am adding a second shackle to my set up so the chain is attached to a pin, the anchor attached to the other pin and the 2 bows give a degree of rotational freedom.

Hope that helps and there is a picture of the upside down Vulcan somewhere in this thread.

Keiron

[Steve Bedford]

It is fine to put the pin of one shackle through the anchor shank rode hole and a second shackle pin through the link in the chain. The two shackles are connected via their bows. This arrangement allows for significant freedom of movement between the shackles and reduces lateral stress at the attachment points on the anchor and chain.
Steve Bedford
Super MAX Anchors

[double u]

EXCEPTIONAL! words fail me!
excellent job, very intelligent conclusions
compulsory reading for any cruiser!
(for 3 circumnavigations I thought I was the only anchorholic/maniac on the planet, diving on the anchor, watching it set while the lady backed down on it, setting it strongly so I fell on my butt on the foredeck, watching other boat's -to windward - anchors with trepidation through the diving goggles etc. - while everybody else seemed to be fine (well, not always...) just chucking their hook over the side, jumping into the dingi & going ashore)
unfortunately though: the people who'd most need to read this thread won't...

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by hoppy

I hadn't noticed you posting for so long that I thought perhaps SWL had sold you into slavery to pay for her Bestaever

Don't give her any ideas .

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by ErikFinn

Hi Noelex,

pardon my excitement about your thread but I wanted to ask another Q while waiting for reply to the above
Am I correct that both your Rocna and Mantus are two sizes oversized? Even if it appears Rocna discourages oversizing? If so do you think it is overkill at all and what are your reason for doing so? (maybe you have a monster storm anchor as well, but I can't remember)

Looking at the Rocna sizing chart what would you choose for my boat if you would be to use my boat how you are using yours now? It was about 9000kg empty when new, 43 feet (13 meters)

Best regards,
Erik
PS. on page 122 today after few days reading and watching...

For a long distance cruising boat I think the best anchor size is the largest you can comfortably manage. Our yacht was sturdily built and set up with heavy duty anchoring gear so the anchor is size is no problem to handle.

In fact, as most of the weight is in the chain, upsizing the anchor one to two sizes is usually quite OK for most boats, but you do need to check details such as the clearance of the anchor from the bow when it is retrieved.

A larger anchor has many advantages such as the ability to anchor safely in poorish substrates, as well as the ability to use shorter scopes when necessary. These two advantages alone open up many anchorages/locations that would otherwise be unusable. I think this is a powerful advantage.

My Rocna and Mantus are both a similar sizes (55 and 57 kg). According to the Rocna sizing chart my anchor is two sizes larger. The Mantus anchor table includes a "storm" option and our Mantus is one size larger than this.

[double u]

now that I've been through ALL pages of this exceptional thread:
thank you so much noelex 77 & your mermaid, you've accomplished something never done before! compelling immages, brilliant analyses & conclusions - you are clearly two of the very few cruising-people to really thoroughly tackle the topic groundtackle (sic!) with the dedication it deserves.
unfortunately I have no images to contribute myself, only words, as at the time of our circumnavigations (3 of them, the last one ending '99) underwaterfotography was for the very wealthy specialists.
regarding one of the "recurrent themes" of the thread - poor performance of the cqr - I feel compelled to add my 2 cents worth:
1. circumnavigation 81-88, 34' wharram cat, cqr 20kg+15m 10mm chain+endless 16mm nylon & cqr 16kg+25m 8mm chain+endless 16mm nylon: due to the nature of our "main engine" - 15hp outboard-, setting the anchors with application of increasing revs in reverse would have been useless, we had to use the momentum of the boat, several times backing into the groundtackle at increasing speeds, really "going for all-it-was-worth at the 3rd or 4th go (~3kn) . if at all possible I always snorkeled the anchor (except in croc-waters or atnight-arrivals).tmalss: of all the many anchorageson this 38000 or so mile trip the cqrs would only very rarely fail to set, hard packed sand or mud each time. in coral (where a "set" was unachievable) the very robust nature of the-genuine-cqrs with their drop-forged h-section shafts was very comforting, we'd have hated bending a shaft in the red sea with no place to repair it. of course the gear was massively oversized for the boat, we used 5:1 scope or more, space permitting & most of the time we really "threw" the boat backwards to dig the anchor in - but apart from maybe alltogether 10 occasions - digging in they did. I saw it snorkeling & where I didn't the boat wouldn't drag even if we tried yanking the cleats out of it going backwards. (I thing we drew lots of bewildered stares from other boats, but the boat being everything we posessed then & no insurance (& 4 years spent building it myself) we made somewhat of a "ceremony" of our anchoring.
2nd circumnavigation 89-93: 37' aluminium keelboat, 27kg cqr+60m 10mm chain+100m 20mm nylon plus a 20kg brittany+15m 10mm chain+ endless nylon & a 9kg brittany+some meters of 8mm chain+30m 12mm nylon ("handbrake" ready in the pushpit): much the same experience as on the first trip, only this time with the diesel we could back down on the anchor in a much more controlled manner (but doing so only on soft substrate, otherwise sticking to the going-backwards-at-2kn): the cqr was mostly fully dug in (substrate permitting, of course). in a few places where we knew from trip 1 that the ground was too firmly packed for the cqr to set we used the 20kg brittany, which then proved fine as long as the direction of pull remained constant.
3rd circumnavigation 96-99: same boat, same groundtackle PLUS a genuine 20kg bügel, which of course had to be tried out from the outset (on the 60m 10mm chain). I being an ultraconservative anchoruser (& still no insurance on the boat & this still constituting all our worldly posessions) was of course extremely suspicious of this "newfangled" contraption that all the krauts raved about, so always backing down on it like maniacs, if at all possible with me in teh water watching while the lady tried to tear the cleat out of the boat
what should I say: we only used the bügel on the whole trip, the - heavier - cqr was stowed away, & even I had to admit: the development of anchors had not stopped with the cqr!
now 60 & restless after 16 years "beached" here in austria I look forward to all those new developed anchors when the time finally will have come to cast off again...(...only a little while...)

[double u]

Want to add something about anchorchain too:
1. In an anchorage with other boats chain/rope-gear can be a PITA, as hardly any other „fellow cruiser“ bothers to think how boats arrived before him behave in a windshift. All-chain rode can be a PITA too but much less frequently (as many more boats have all-chain than „mixed mooring“)
2. @catenary: no matter how hard the pull, the angle at the anchor will always be more favorable with all-chain/heavier chain. This will not be noticeable with the „naked eye“ under water, but just try pulling 100‘ of chain ashore & you’ll see. Mathematicians among you are welcome to calculate the sag...
3. Having written that: the often heard statement „...the chain alone will hold...“: I have observed several times our 16000lbs 37’er straighten & lift it’s 10mm chain on a 5:1 scope in 25kn winds all the way to the anchorshank.
4. All-chain & overly heavy chain have a big disandvantage too (beside their weight when sailing): they place higher peakloads & more fluctuating loads on the anchor (at least with boats that „sail“ at anchor): looking at the typical motion of a monohull anchored: as windstrength & -direction slightly fluctuate with each gust the boat „bears away“ on one „tack“ or the other – presenting much more cross-sectional-area to the strongest-wind than head on, falling back at say 45°-50°, only to be brought up short sharply by the groundtackle. Some boat do this more so than others (our wharramcat hardly did...), but I have yet to see a monohull which doesn’t.
5. The same boat with say 50‘ chain &120‘ of nylon in 10m of water will of couse „sail about“ too, but there will be very little forward/backward movement & the boat will never be more than 10° off head-on so placing a much more constant & lower load on the anchor, the peakload being less too. Needless to say though, that the vast majority of us will still prefer all-chain, but I think there is a strong point to be made in favor of the lightest chain that will do, then of course a variety with higher BL! Next time we will have an 8mm (5/16th) chain on a boat up to 40‘.

[double u]

nothing further heard...did my kraut-accent squash the discussion???

[kas_1611]

Not an anchor picture as such but something you really don't want to wake up to find first thing in the morning!!



We'd dropped anchor in a sheltered cove in the evening with a bit of a breeze creating enough ripples to make it impossible to see the bottom. We'd anchored here before so knew the holding was good and were planning to tie up stern to shore anyway.
Dropped and set the Vulcan with 1500rpm in reverse while rigging up the stern to line and settling in to place. Breeze remained despite the forecast it was due to drop early evening so we were drifting from port to starboard for a while. Overnight the wind dropped and switched round to push us the other way gently. No signs of any issues over the evening or during the night.

So you can imagine my surprise to find that lying virtually underneath us!!

And yes our chain was lying under the bow of it.

Took a little bit of planning and deft helming by the Admiral to get out of the situation without making it worse. Thankfully the wind blowing off our starboard side helped drift us out of trouble along with a quick blast from the thruster once we dropped the stern line to pick up later.

Goes to show you never know what's down there and ammo to the argument for a tripping line I suppose, not that I personally like them. Needless to say the wreck has been marked on our chart for future reference and we'll be avoiding that spot from now on.

Keiron

[Palarran]

Was that on Lastovo? Here?

If so, that boats been there a while.

[kas_1611]

No it is on the south coast of Brac, can't remember the exact name of the bay but it is the one with the submarine tunnel. Wreck is located in the NE arm level with the northern edge of the stoney beach.

Keiron

[noelex 77]

I still have photos to upload from last year, but today some friends of ours (Norna Biron) were anchoring nearby and we had the opportunity to see their steel Spade setting. I try to to watch anchors setting underwater whenever possible. I think there is a lot to learn about how anchors perform by watching them in the real world.

Filming the event is much harder, you need to be careful getting close to props and sometimes bow thrusters. Unfortunatly you need to be right over the anchor to record reasonable images and there are not many situations where this is safe. You need to trust the skipper, which I did in this case.

The Spade did a fantastic job. In fact, it was one of the best sets I have ever seen. There was a little slack in chain (no doubt Norna Biron were reluctant to spin the prop while I was so close). This created a sudden snatching force rather than the nice slow progressive pull that anchors ideally like to set, but this did not phase the Spade at all. It dug in within a couple of feet with minimal heaping up. Very impressive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeXv...ature=youtu.be

Note that Steve has an excellent thread with some wonderful videos taken with an ingenious tether arrangement here:
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ng-155412.html

This video was taken freehand, so I have included it here to avoid disrupting Steve's great thread.