Photos of Anchors Setting

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by hoppy

I wonder how difficult it would be to free an anchor from that if you can't see how it's stuck

Yes, it is much harder if you cannot see what is happening.

I hope by illustrating cases like this, the photos give people some idea of the sort of thing that might be occurring. But I don't want to give people the impression that these situations are common.

I think one of the best defences is an anchor that sets quickly. If the anchor only moves back a few feet when setting, the chances of it catching anything are greatly diminished. This even helps in rock (see below) but the best solution for rock is just to avoid this substrate if possible. If there is a risk of rock, use a trip line with a buoy to the surface, do not rely on a rock slot.

Another advantage of an anchor that sets quickly is that if it does not grab immediately you know something is wrong and this is very likely to be with the substrate. Given the reliability of modern anchors to set the first time this usually means rock.

With an anchor that normally takes a long distance to set you need to drag it a long way before there is any suspicion that there is a problem and by this stage it may have found a crevice to wedge into. This was evident looking at the anchors in rock. While it did not photograph well, we could see long scrape marks on the rock where the anchor had been dragged backwards before it snagged. With a Delta anchor these long setting distances are common even in sand, so there would have been little indication of a problem. With a rapidly setting anchor it would have been evident to an alert crew that the anchor was not behaving normally and the anchor would have been picked up before it became snagged.

Edit:
I think you can just make out the scrape mark in these photos snaking off into the distance. They went on for a long way. With a rapidly setting anchor like the Mantus or the Rocna it would have been apparent a long way before the mooring had been reached that there was a problem and hopefully the anchor would have never snagged.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

As a side note, I am not a great fan of using "rock slots" for overnight anchoring.

Anchors that are stuck on rocks or debris are not common, but seeing these underwater I think I have some insight into what it would take to free them. A rock slot would not be any help in a lot of cases, like this one shown. The rock slot is nowhere near as effective as a simple trip line.

On the down side, I think the rock slot significantly reduce the anchor's ability to "shuffle". The ability of an anchor to rotate and remain engaged with the seabed is a very important property and any reduction in performance needs to be considered very carefully.

I worry when I see forum discussions where people are suggesting using the rock slot all the time. I think this is poor advice. It risks decreasing the anchor performance every time you drop. On the very rare occasions where an anchor is caught there is a reasonable chance the rock slot will be not be of any help. It seems a very poor trade off to me.

Did I mention I am not a fan .

Anyway, look at the photo and see what you think would a rock slot have been any help?

[/QUOTE]
Does the rock slot even work? I have never believed it did. Seems like a marketing ploy. A (strong) trip line can save your ground tackle... twice for me... I usually don't set a buoy, but if there is low visibility and I suspect rocks, I will.

[noelex 77]

This is a Rocna. It was dropped by private cat in 8m @ 5:1.

It is doing a nice job. It has taken slightly longer to set than is typical for this anchor with just a touch more heaping up, but the fluke was well buried and this is a very secure result, as you would expect from a great anchor in a substrate close to ideal.

[kas_1611]

Further additions from our recent bimbles around the Adriatic.

Firstly from Skrivena Luka on Lastovo. A large very sheltered bay on the south of the island with an excellent sandy bottom with patches of sea grass. We dropped in around 5m of water and set the Vulcan at 3:1 with a good 1500rpm reverse.


Shows why that short setting distance is so important. Managed to drop it in the sandy patch between the sea grass


Clearly showing the blade digging into the sand before it hit the seagrass.

And here are a couple of neighbouring anchors


A Rocna40 dropped by an Ovni435, probably the day before as the chain had swung through almost a full 360º. Took a good deal of working to get it out the following morning.


A CQR dropped by an older Bavaria charter boat doing what CQRs tend to do, lying on its side clogged with seagrass.

More to follow

Keiron

[kas_1611]

Second set of photos. This time from Necujam on Solta. A huge bay with several smaller arms that is well sheltered from most winds and you can find shelter somewhere from every direction. Most people tie up stern to shore. Good bottom made up of clayey sand with a few shells, very little weed. As a side issue at the head of the bay is the ancient fish pool for the Roman Emperor Diocletian who had his palace in Split.

Here's our Vulcan, 1st just after we dropped in about 15kts of wind and were swinging free



2nd, after tying stern to shore at 90º to our original setting direction.


The anchor rotated in place and dug itself in further due to the extra reverse we had to use while tying up. Letting out about 8m to tie up the pulling in 5m to reposition the stern probably helped dig it in.
Took a lot of wiggling to get it to pop out the following morning

Now some other examples:


A Brittany(?) dropped by an Oceanus 41 charter boat tying up stern to shore. Quite a short drag line and a pretty good dig in but this anchor seems pitifully small for a 41ft boat. Still it held them while they set the lines and reversed on it.


A Delta dropped by another Oceanus who rafted up to the Brittany boat (friends). Long drag mark and very little digging in but as it was light winds from their stern it wasn't much of an issue.

Finally:


Possibly the best set Delta I've ever seen, including my own attempts with a Delta . Dropped by an older Bavaria charter boat who tied up to shore next to us. Excellent technique helped the result and they did give it a fair amount of reverse. Impressively that is the drop mark and the short setting distance.

Cheers

Keiron

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by kas_1611

A Rocna40 dropped by an Ovni435, probably the day before as the chain had swung through almost a full 360º. Took a good deal of working to get it out the following morning.

I think you mean 180º

[noelex 77]

Thanks for the photos Kas. Everyone is especially interested in the Vulcan.

I think the third photo in post #2375 is a Jambo anchor, very like a Brittany as you noted, but with two evil looking spikes coming out of the ends of the fluke.

The Jambo-Anchor -

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by hoppy

I think you mean 180º

Hoppy,
Yes it looks like 180º but the chain marks actually went through a full circle Don't think it is 100% clear from the photo but it was in real life trust me


Noelex,
That's the beastie yes. Evil looking bugger you definitely wouldn't want to have dragging down the side of your boat. There's a lot of charter boats sailing in Croatia this year with them fitted and all of them look horribly undersized. Needless to say I've seen a fair number of boats having problems with them dragging.
The Vulcan is performing brilliantly, especially now I have added a second shackle to rectify the initial problems we had with a single shackle jamming against the shaft (due to the oversize link on the chain we had to fit the original shackle "backwards"). A neighbour has swapped his CQR for a 20kg Vulcan and was so impressed by the performance first time he used it he actually called me to say so. Needless to say I am happy we upgraded and I sleep soundly at night.

Cheers

Keiron

[sanibel sailor]

I am happy to see this thread come active again. Thanks to all the contributors

[noelex 77]

This is an Océane anchor.

It looks like this (not my photo see this website New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared and Rated - )




An interesting anchor that I have only seen a few times. I won't bore the thread with a lot of anchoring design theory, but to give you some background:

There are various ways that an anchor can be pursuaded to adopt the correct setting position where its toe will dig in.

The most common way is to use ballast (steel or occasionally lead weight). An example is the very popular Delta anchor. The ballast works OK, but because the weight is concentrated in the toe of the anchor, the tip needs to be bulky and it is difficult to drive a bulky tip into weed or hard substrate. In addition, because weight is concentrated at the tip, for a given weight of anchor there is less weight left over to make the fluke. As the fluke cannot be made very thin, the fluke area tends to be quite small.

A relatively recent invention is the rollbar. This makes the anchor unstable in anything but the setting position, eliminating the need for lots of ballast and a bulky toe (although most modern designs have a small amount of tip ballast). The weight savings can be used to make the fluke area much bigger, improving the performance in soft substrates. The drawback is the rollbar will not fit all boats and once the initial setting is over the rollbar is redundant.

The holy grail of anchor design is to produce an anchor with no bulky tip weight and no rollbar. These models have very tall flukes with the fluke acting a little like a pseudo roll bar to make the anchor unstable in anything other than the setting position.

(Note, to keep things simple I left out of this dicussion fluke anchors like the Danforth and also the Bruce that is so unique, it is in a class of its own)

This Océane was developed by the great anchor and sadly late anchor designer Alain Poiraud after he developed the Spade. Unfortunately, it was never marketed well and only sold in small numbers. It was the first model that I can recall of whole new class of anchors. The Océane was followed by the similar, but slightly simpler Sword and more recently Manson have released a model in this category, the Manson Boss.

The Océane gets positive user reports. It gets reasonable magazine test scores, but there a few comments that the results are erratic. I have not seen this anchor underwater very often.

I have also never seen one on chandlery shelf (it is now discontinued). By looking at how the anchor behaves on dry land, the tip weight, the fluke area, the fluke geometry the stability when not in the setting position etc can all be helpful in understanding an anchor design.

It has done a great job. The shank is very high on this anchor so, the fluke is a long way down in these photos. My biggest criticism it that despite a deep bury it still has a significant list. Most anchors would be dead level at this stage. Low levels of roll stability do tie into a slightly erratic performance, but this is only one example, and it has been set with a changing direction of force. It is a pity that it was not a more popular anchor. Especially with some development, this style of anchor has great potential.

[noelex 77]

This was a large Danforth, or Danforth copy. 6m@5:1.

You can see it has a rock wedged between its flukes. It was very firmly jammed in place. It had actually started to push apart the two blades of the fluke.

While any anchor can be effected by rocks or debris, the fluke anchors like the Danforth, Fortress and Brittany etc are especially prone to this problem in my view. It is another reason why I would not use a model like this as a primary anchor.

The problem, as I see it, is twofold. The gap between the flukes is just a nice size for things like small rocks. The second problem is that because the fluke needs to pivot, any debris in this gap will stop the fluke flipping over to the other side . This is not just a problem in this sort of horrible rocky substrate. Even sand and mud often has some small rocks/debris/shells that the anchor can encounter while it is setting. Anchors without moving parts very rarely have any problems with these sort of obstacles.

This jamming of the fluke is often blamed for the poor rotational performance of some of these style of anchors ie the ability of the anchor to cope with changes of wind direction. While I think jamming of the fluke is a factor in some cases underwater, I see these anchors in some rotations develop a very high list and lose most of their grip on the bottom without any rocks hindering their performance.

In rock, this anchor understandably had little grip, but there was nice soft sand only a short distance downwind. If the anchor had dragged it would have encountered a lovely sand substrate. I wonder if the rock jammed in the fluke would have prevented it working?

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

This is an Océane anchor.



It looks like this (not my photo see this website New Generation Anchors - Explained, Compared and Rated - )









An interesting anchor that I have only seen a few times. I won't bore the thread with a lot of anchoring design theory, but to give you some background:



There are various ways that an anchor can be pursuaded to adopt the correct setting position where its toe will dig in.



The most common way is to use ballast (steel or occasionally lead weight). An example is the very popular Delta anchor. The ballast works OK, but because the weight is concentrated in the toe of the anchor, the tip needs to be bulky and it is difficult to drive a bulky tip into weed or hard substrate. In addition, because weight is concentrated at the tip, for a given weight of anchor there is less weight left over to make the fluke. As the fluke cannot be made very thin, the fluke area tends to be quite small.



A relatively recent invention is the rollbar. This makes the anchor unstable in anything but the setting position, eliminating the need for lots of ballast and a bulky toe (although most modern designs have a small amount of tip ballast). The weight savings can be used to make the fluke area much bigger, improving the performance in soft substrates. The drawback is the rollbar will not fit all boats and once the initial setting is over the rollbar is redundant.



The holy grail of anchor design is to produce an anchor with no bulky tip weight and no rollbar. These models have very tall flukes with the fluke acting a little like a pseudo roll bar to make the anchor unstable in anything other than the setting position.



(Note, to keep things simple I left out of this dicussion fluke anchors like the Danforth and also the Bruce that is so unique, it is in a class of its own)



This Océane was developed by the great anchor and sadly late anchor designer Alain Poiraud after he developed the Spade. Unfortunately, it was never marketed well and only sold in small numbers. It was the first model that I can recall of whole new class of anchors. The Océane was followed by the similar, but slightly simpler Sword and more recently Manson have released a model in this category, the Manson Boss.



The Océane gets positive user reports. It gets reasonable magazine test scores, but there a few comments that the results are erratic. I have not seen this anchor underwater very often.



I have also never seen one on chandlery shelf (it is now discontinued). By looking at how the anchor behaves on dry land, the tip weight, the fluke area, the fluke geometry the stability when not in the setting position etc can all be helpful in understanding an anchor design.



It has done a great job. The shank is very high on this anchor so, the fluke is a long way down in these photos. My biggest criticism it that despite a deep bury it still has a significant list. Most anchors would be dead level at this stage. Low levels of roll stability do tie into a slightly erratic performance, but this is only one example, and it has been set with a changing direction of force. It is a pity that it was not a more popular anchor. Especially with some development, this style of anchor has great potential.

Looks a bit like the Vulcan?


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Looks a bit like the Vulcan?

In the early press releases, the Vulcan sounded like an anchor that was going to use geometry (primarily in the form of a high and very curved shank and light concave rear blade) together with a very light shank to orient itself into correct setting position. This is how the Océane, Sword and Manson Boss work.

Having now seen the photographs, I think the Vulcan is actually more like the Spade, and Ultra, in that it primarily uses a blasted toe to make itself unstable in anything but the correct setting position. However, the anchor has incorporated some of the elements used in anchors like the Océane, Sword and Manson Boss, to reduce the amount of ballast needed. This enables the ballast chamber to be a bit lighter. A smaller ballast chamber at the toe facilitates easier penetration especially in weed. It has also enabled Rocna to use a less expensive steel ballast in the Vulcan rather than the lead that is used in the Spade and Ultra. Although there is still some size penalty to the bulkier steel.

I have not seen the Vulcan in the flesh. It would be nice, even on dry land, to see how the the anchor behaves. It would be interesting to see how much of the righting movement is due to ballast and how much is due to the tall, light and highly curved shank.

For us anchorholics, it is helpful to understand how the Vulcan works. It provides some insight into the anchor's likely strength and weakness, but I suspect most readers are far more interested in the practical results. So keep the photos coming.

[noelex 77]

This was a Delta in 8m @ 4:1.

In the gusts the chain was lifting all the way to the anchor, although this was happening rarely. The Delta normally struggles at shorter scopes, but this anchor is doing a good job. The setting distance is long, but the fluke is well buried.

While there is some heaping up, the Delta is not just piling sand in front of the flukes. It has managed to dive, down to deeper sand. This is an important distinction because the piled up surface sand is very loose.

This is a nice easy substrate and the convex plow anchors are starting to show they can do a good job in the right sort of bottom.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

This was a large Danforth, or Danforth copy. 6m@5:1.

You can see it has a rock wedged between its flukes. It was very firmly jammed in place. It had actually started to push apart the two blades of the fluke.

While any anchor can be effected by rocks or debris, the fluke anchors like the Danforth, Fortress and Brittany etc are especially prone to this problem in my view. It is another reason why I would not use a model like this as a primary anchor.

The problem, as I see it, is twofold. The gap between the flukes is just a nice size for things like small rocks. The second problem is that because the fluke needs to pivot, any debris in this gap will stop the fluke flipping over to the other side . This is not just a problem in this sort of horrible rocky substrate. Even sand and mud often has some small rocks/debris/shells that the anchor can encounter while it is setting. Anchors without moving parts very rarely have any problems with these sort of obstacles.

This jamming of the fluke is often blamed for the poor rotational performance of some of these style of anchors ie the ability of the anchor to cope with changes of wind direction. While I think jamming of the fluke is a factor in some cases underwater, I see these anchors in some rotations develop a very high list and lose most of their grip on the bottom without any rocks hindering their performance.

In rock, this anchor understandably had little grip, but there was nice soft sand only a short distance downwind. If the anchor had dragged it would have encountered a lovely sand substrate. I wonder if the rock jammed in the fluke would have prevented it working?

Noelex, this is certainly true, as an obstacle can become lodged in between the crown (center part of anchor) and the shank, which in turn will not allow the shank and flukes to pivot.

However, this is also an advantage in soft mud, as by contrast a fixed fluke anchor can have difficulty orienting with the fluke downward if it lands on its side, or upside down, which was observed during the Chesapeake Bay soft mud bottom testing.

With a pivoting fluke / Danforth-type anchor, there is no upside down, and the long stock (narrow round rod) helps to stabilize (or stabilise) the anchor as well once it reaches the sea bottom.