Photos of Anchors Setting

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

What's the point of the short line with the float on the roll bar?

The main use is so that you can easily find the anchor underwater. If the anchor is in thick weed, or in soft ground the anchor can bury so much that the only thing left is the float. Of course this is more likely to happen on anchors that are less tall.
The roll bar already acts as a mini float but it can still disappear in some circumstances.

A secondary function is that if you need to attach a line to pull a fouled anchor out backwards the loop on the end of the float line is easier and slightly less distance to dive down too.

[noelex 77]

The anchorage has become busier and for the first time I could not visit all the anchors. The results have not been selected. I am still posting photos of all the anchors we can visit. Good, or bad you will get to see them. More photos will follow.

First is a Kobra. It was well dropped by an obviously practised couple on a private cruising yacht.

The Kobra is quite close to our anchor. It has taken 6-7m to reach this point. It has rotated level, but has not set deeply yet, which is disappointing given its long setting distance. The set is much more a heaping up of the substrate in a very "Delta like" manner, rather than real penetration of the harder sand below.

This is in 9m @4:1. Note the rock lying on top of the fluke:



And here the chain drapes over the anchor after doing a big loop when the light wind reversed. The securing rope is not a good idea. Anything bulky here inhibits penetration:

[noelex 77]

Another typical Delta performance. This time from a stainless steel version. You will be getting the idea by now that a particular model of anchor tends to do much the same thing unless you alter the substrate. Anchors are surprisingly consistent.

It was dropped from a 30 foot power boat. It was quite close to my anchor, but the substrate is not quite the same. 8m @ 5:1

Almost the whole of the shank and the back of the fluke are still exposed. The distance taken to achieve this was only about 3m. This is not enough setting distance for the Delta. The convex plough anchors, on the whole, take a long distance to set in medium and hard substrates. So there is some hope it would do better with more force applied.



I don't think the anchor had been used much:

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The convex Delta and CQR anchors, on the whole, take a long distance to set in medium and hard substrates. So there is some hope it would do better with more force applied.[/IMG]

Fixed

You should know that you cant ascribe data on one item to data on all items. Other convex anchors set much faster. Not all Convex anchors behave the same, just like not all concave sugar scoop anchors behave the same.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Factor

Not all Convex anchors behave the same, just like not all concave sugar scoop anchors behave the same.

Anchors of a similar shape and geometry do not behave identically, the tweaks do have an influence, but a lot of general characteristics are shared.

I agree it is too simplistic to simply divide anchors into the category of concave and convex. No one would suggest a Bruce and a Spade are similar designs for example.

However, the more we narrow the design characteristics the more similarities start to appear, as you would expect. This is true for other anchor designs. It is not a principal that just effects fixed convex plow anchors.

For example, concave roll bar anchors such as Rocna, Manson Supreme, and Mantus also share a lot of performance similarities with each other.

Originally Posted by Factor

Originally Posted by noelex 77
The convex Delta and CQR anchors, on the whole, take a long distance to set in medium and hard substrates. So there is some hope it would do better with more force applied.

Fixed

The CQR should not be be grouped with the Delta. The articulated shank of the CQR means it works in a quite different way to fixed shank of the Delta. The hinging alters the way the anchor sets, resets and the heavy hinge creates quite a different vertical centre of gravity.

[Lep]

Great thread! Nice to see some spectators in those last round of photos.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Lep

Nice to see some spectators in those last round of photos.

Welcome to the forum Lep.

Be careful what you wish for. The small fish love a dragging anchor. Slowly dragging anchors seem to be their favourite. The moving anchor churns up the bottom and food.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Anchors of a similar shape and geometry do not behave identically, the tweaks do have an influence, but a lot of general characteristics are shared.

I agree it is too simplistic to simply divide anchors into the category of concave and convex. No one would suggest a Bruce and a Spade are similar designs for example.

However, the more we narrow the design characteristics the more similarities start to appear, as you would expect. This is true for other anchor designs. It is not a principal that just effects fixed convex plow anchors.

For example, concave roll bar anchors such as Rocna, Manson Supreme, and Mantus also share a lot of performance similarities with each other.



The CQR should not be be grouped with the Delta. The articulated shank of the CQR means it works in a quite different way to fixed shank of the Delta. The hinging alters the way the anchor sets, resets and the heavy hinge creates quite a different vertical centre of gravity.

I think your two responses above contradict the points you were making.

Or you are taking liberties in defining what is similar and what is not.

Mark

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by colemj

I think your two responses above contradict the points you were making.

I guess you mean the CQR and Delta are very similar. I would agree the blade shape is close, but anyone who has picked up a CQR will tell you (or their squashed fingers will show ) that the hinge gives the CQR anchor different characteristics, geometry and centre of gravity.

I think the Delta is much closer to one of the many other fixed plow designs (like the Kobra) than it is to to the CQR (which is an articulated plow), but I do accept the Delta is closer to a CQR than say Rocna so perhaps we are arguing semantics.

[noelex 77]

No, this is not a bad flower arrangement, there is an anchor under there

This Delta was dropped in only mild weed. One of the drawbacks of anchors that take longer to set is that they collect a lot of weed (or other) debris while traveling along this setting distance.

This can hinder the setting as it has done in this case, although the Delta has managed to slightly dig in despite the handicap. This Delta had taken about 10m to reach this point. Most of the weed visible has been ripped out along the way and heaped around the anchor. It has gradually built up more and more weed on its 10m journey. You can see the pinky brown weed roots that have been pulled out, clustered around the anchor.

An anchor that sets in a short distance will do much better, as it has less opportunity to pick up this sort debris. This also applies if stronger winds occur and the anchor is required to set deeper. Anchors that dig down with little movement backwards are less likely to encounter problems. Long setting distances also mean the anchor is more likely to pass through an area of heavy weed, even if these areas are small and isolated.

Some anchors, particularly the convex designs, often shed much of the weed debris on the way to the surface when being retrieved. They can sometimes (but not always) look quite clean by the time they reach the surface. It saves cleaning them , but it masks the extent of the problem and owners don't realise how the debris is collecting around the anchor and hindering its performance.

Diving you see the true picture of what is happening on the bottom:

[noelex 77]

This was the final anchor I managed to see. For the record, there were two steel boats that I did not have the energy to inspect. One with a Brittany and one with an anchor that I did not see (they entered the anchorage with it dangling underwater)

This one is another Delta. The set is not very deep at this stage, with much of the fluke exposed even on the top, but it does show promise. It has set reasonably quickly and the fluke has dived rather than just heaping up the substrate.

Interestingly, it was only about 5m from the weed ball anchor (in fact the two boats were rafted up together and Med moored), but it was in a very different substrate (a very loose gravely sort of mix). The looser substrate was enabling the anchor to do what it should do. It is a pity there was not more setting force used. My prediction is that the Delta would have set very well in this sort of ground.

The only limitation is that the relatively small fluke area of the Delta together with the convex design (which does not offer the same drag coefficient as a flat, or concave fluke) means the anchor can slowly drag in this sort of loose substrate even while remaining set and buried. This sort of slow drag is at least easier to manage than the rapid break out and drag more commonly seen.

[noelex 77]

This was how the "flower arrangement" Delta anchor looked when it came up to the surface.

While there is a small amount of weed visible it does not give much indication of how much weed was actually clogging the anchor on the bottom.

Surface:



Underwater:

[DoubleWhisky]

Hello Noelex

I dare to say I have one problem with Your "prolonged Mantus test".

You are expertly power setting Your anchor every time. Of course it is normal and very advisable for normal cruising. So... where is my problem?

Just... You are doing it too well

First:
Most of the anchors we can see on Your and Your Mermaid's photos are not set very well (it is obvious from Your comments and descriptions).
I can suspect that results would be much more even if all the anchors on the potos were set by You

Second (and more important, at least for me):
There are different circumstances when cruising.
The anchor can be used for anchoring out, and solid power setting of the anchor is the normal thing to do.
Med mooring with long line to the shore is mostly very similar - power setting is O.K. (at least as long as You have enough of deep water behind the stern).
Med mooring to the wall is different. Power setting by full force can be risky with Your stern close to the wall... so mostly the setting is done by the use of windlass.
Anchoring with failed engine (not so rare situation) mean You can not power set an anchor at all...

So - power setting the anchor when cruising is completely O.K.

But power setting the anchor when TESTING IT is other thing.

Really good anchor should set well without power setting, just under the pressure of elements. This is more important - of course in my own opinion - than performance of power set anchor.

It just occured to me, that - just for testing purposes - You should probably anchor Your boat as lousily as You can....

[SVNeko]

This thread keeps getting better and better. Keep up the good work Noelex. Have you seen any Brake anchors, an early French entry in the new gen anchor category. Our boat came with one and it worked fairly well but was slowly rusting away so we replaced it with a larger Supreme.

Sent from my SM-T210R using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[JPA Cate]

Wow, Noelex,

That's quite a gauntlet Double Whisky threw down. Would you consider doing as he suggests, let the *beautiful* mermaid photograph it, then set it so you'd feel safe?

We await with baited breath!

Cheers,

Ann