Photos of Anchors Setting

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by 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....

Yes, Tomascz, but are YOU willing to do this, and send your mermaid to photograph the results? It's a huge ask.

Ann

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Yes, Tomasz, but are YOU willing to do this, and send your mermaid to photograph the results? It's a huge ask.

Ann

Ann, we are Med mooring generally, mostly to the walls, so there is a obvious limit on powersetting the anchor.
Frankly speaking for most of the time we are using only the winch to set the anchor and next leave the boat with completely tighten rode and mooring lines tight as a strings for about an hour, hour and a half. Sometime I need to take up a feet or two of slack in the meantime, rarely more. After this we are going to snorkel over the anchor if it is only possible.
In such conditions our Rocna sets perfectly 99 % of time.
I think it should probably set well in anchoring out situation with some wind to do the job. If not - it is still possible to reanchor after checking the set

Do not take me wrong - I was not really urging Noelex to anchor any other way as his own
Just noted, that as the real life test this approach has its limitations and the results are not easily comparable.
This is the problem with most of anchor tests - in my own opinion.
The testers are trying to obtain optimal set and then check the maximum pull the anchor can withstand.
Problem is sometime (not so rarely) it is not possible to fully set the anchor by engine and it is very important to know the behaviour of the anchor in such situation.

Of course I do not want Noelex to take any risks, even if I do believe Mantus would do not worse than Rocna in such situations.
On the other hand it is my feeling that organized testing of anchors setting just under influence of elements would be of great value, but it is the matter for manufacturers obviously

By the way - my own mermaid has PADI OWD certification, but we both think Noelex' mermaid is a class of her own - unbeatable with underwater camera.
Nevertheless, when it will be possible for us to return to sailing we will happily contribute to this thread, of course
(Even if we need to reanchor. You know, Rocna is Beata's best friend on board and all the anchoring games are the fun for her )



Cheers,

Tomasz

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

I can suspect that results would be much more even if all the anchors on the potos were set by You

Hi Tomasz. Yes, I agree with nearly all you have said. The setting force is a variable, at least in light wind where most of the photos have been taken. Once we get above approximately 25 knots of breeze, this is more force than I apply from engine so the setting force can be considered equal.

However, after allowing for the variable setting force, there is still a lot that can be learned. For example, if an anchor has taken a long distance set, it is only going to take longer when more force is applied. The scraping and heaping up of substrate is also a bad sign and even worse if this has happened with only a light setting force. I have also seen most of the drops, so I have a reasonable idea what the technique which is also a help.

Perhaps the best question to ask with any of the photos is: "What would happen if more force was applied from stronger wind. Does the anchor appearance give you confidence that it will dive down, rotate level, bury its fluke completely and most of the shank like it needs to do to hold in 30+ knots of wind?"

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Wow, Noelex,

That's quite a gauntlet Double Whisky threw down.

No problem. The Mantus has set first time every time so far. Wind pressure is actually a kinder way to set the anchor. A steadily increasing wind provides a very slow increase in setting force. Anchors like to ideally set slowly.

The exception is if the wind builds up very rapidly, or starts blowing at a moderate force from a new direction. The later can allow the boat to build up some momentum before the force is applied to the anchor. Both of these situations can induce a very rapid increase in force and this is not the ideal condition to allow the anchor to set (although usually a good anchor will do so).

Once dragging, anchors seem quite reluctant to grab. A moving anchor is a bit like a skidding car tyre and provides very little grip.

Incidentally these problems are minimised Med mooring. The boat cannot build up any speed and if the anchor slips the force on it is naturally reduced. Winding in some chain provides a relatively slow increase in the force on the anchor.

Anyway, I have great confidence the Mantus will set very well under just wind force alone so I will certainly do the test and photograph the results. Give me some time, as I think it should be done with the new shank. There is also little point in doing this when anchoring in strong wind. The wind provides the same setting force as the engine. In strong wind, this is what I do anyway. There is no need to put on any reverse to set the anchor if it is blowing strongly. There is also no point doing this trial in very light wind. If there is no force on the anchor it will just sit on the bottom with not even the toe dug in. The anchor chain will hold the boat in very light wind.

The ideal will be very light wind when I drop, but with a forecast of building wind over the day or few days. This will also allow some shots of the anchor just sitting on the bottom and then progressively setting, which is always interesting to see.

I pick up the gauntlet DW. Anchors at dawn.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Have you seen any Brake anchors

The Brake is quite a good anchor. It is not a common anchor, but a number of French boats have them, so I am sure I will get some photographs before long.

Overall, I would rate the Brake about the same as a Kobra. A good reliable anchor, but not quite making the top class. As always this is a general assessment and it will vary with the substrate.

It has also performed reasonably well in magazine tests (although the French anchors always seem to do suspiciously well in the French tests ). They did change the shank design a few years ago, making it thicker to combat some problems of it bending. It bent in one of the magazine tests, but when they tried the new thicker and heavier shank they found it did not work as well. Heavy shanks decrease performance which is partially why I don't like the constant push for stronger shanks. The average person is much more likely to damage the boat dragging than they are to bend a shank.

However, the Brake does not have a guarantee against deformation so bending will hurt the hip pocket. The Brake also has a very thin toe. This helps it penetrate weed better and increases performance. I have never seen a Brake toe bent, but it is no thicker than some other anchors that do seem to bend their tips. Most anchors have a much stronger tip design.

It also has a short shank so it may be an anchor to consider if you have fitting problems because of not enough distance between the bow roller and the anchor winch.

I will try and find the links to the magazine tests for the Brake, but I am just off for a snorkel. Both an Ultra and a CQR are in the anchorage and I cannot miss the chance to photograph those

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I will try and find the links to the magazine tests for the Brake, but I am just off for a snorkel. Both an Ultra and a CQR are in the anchorage and I cannot miss the chance to photograph those

Waiting, waiting, waiting....

[noelex 77]

This test was an English write up of the French test that included the Brake:
http://manson-marine.co.nz/Anchor%20...st%20Nov09.pdf

This is the original which has a bit more detail and photographs, but is in French:
http://manson-marine.co.nz/Anchor%20...0Juillet09.pdf

For those with no idea what anchor we are talking about. This is photo of the Brake I took at a French marina (where else). It is a weird mix of convex and concave blade in a "W" sort of formation. This is a very thin and therefore I think original shank.

They usually have the skid plates, or fluke painted red/orange so I suspect this has been re-galvanised.

[noelex 77]

Firstly apologies that I am 24 hours behind presenting these anchors. There have just been too many anchors in the anchorage of late. In addition, the wind has been 20-25 knots, which gives all the anchors a good setting force so it is a great time to look at anchors.

Firstly the Kobra. Since the earlier photo, the wind has swung around 180 degrees and increased to the low 20s.

You can see it has set a little bit better, but the underside of the fluke is still exposed as is much of the shank. There is as a reasonable amount of heaping up. The rock has been dragged along but has fallen off the fluke. You can see the blur from the puffs of sand given off by the chain lifting in the background. At 4:1 in the low 20's the chain is lifting to within a few metres of the shank in the gusts as you would expect.

On the plus side it is nice and level and remember it has just rotated 180 degrees.

Unfortunately, it moved almost 2m from its original point. It is not clear if it has shuffled around and then dragged a couple of meters, or if it has broken out and had to reset. I suspect from the sand marks it was the former, but sometimes it is a bit in-between with a high list that exposes one fluke, reducing the holding, then a drag while the anchor rotates level. Anyway, is not a great response to a changing wind direction. The Kobra and the convex plough anchors in general, do tend to develop a high list when rotating. However, I did not see it rotate on this occasion so I don't know exactly what it did. In the Kobras defence it was not initially set deeply with a lot of force. Worryingly, it is still not really well set despite the stronger wind. This does make it a lot more vulnerable to breaking out as it rotates.



This photo shows its original position:



This shows the final position. Note the anchor has rotated 180 degrees. The cluster of four medium sized stones that is visible in both photos provides the best reference. (the line below the anchor is the old imprint of the chain in the sand, not the chain itself)::



The Kobra is a good anchor, but this response to a change in direction of pull was not particuarly impressive. It is one of the slight weaknesses of this style of anchor. Unfortunately, this aspect of performance is not well assessed in traditional anchor tests.

[bazzer]

Originally Posted by 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.

This a example of a anchor that has not been set IMHO. The problem is that the chain is flat along the bottom and the shank is clearly laying downwards instead of parallel to the bottom. In the the position shown the tip will just drag along the bottom until a steady strong pull is applied to the chain to raise the shank. It's a case were too much chain and not enough pull will result in Anchor drag.
I'm not a fan of the Delta, but they are standard on all the new Jeanneau's here in the USA so they can't be as bad as shown in this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by bazzer

This a example of a anchor that has not been set IMHO.

Yes I agree. As I said earlier, this particular Delta result shows a lot of promise, unlike many of the other photos of the Delta I have shown. I think, like you, this Delta would have set well with more force. This gravelly substrate is softer and the Delta looks much more comfortable. There is no heaping up and it has reached this point in reasonably short distance. All good signs.

Unfortunately, the Med moored boats left before this hypothesis could be tested.

Originally Posted by bazzer

I'm not a fan of the Delta, but they are standard on all the new Jeanneau's here in the USA so they can't be as bad as shown in this thread.

I don't think that argument is valid.

[Prairie Chicken]

I pick up the gauntlet DW. Anchors at dawn.

I'm eagerly awaiting the results.

Good thread noelex!

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by bazzer

I'm not a fan of the Delta, but they are standard on all the new Jeanneau's here in the USA so they can't be as bad as shown in this thread.

They are standard on Jeanneaus, Beneteaus, Bavarias and so on not because they are good and reliable anchors, but because they are ralatively cheap and because the Lewmar's sizing chart recommends obviously undersized anchors, suitable as a lunch hooks rather, than as cruising anchors. Together with lighter chain, weaker windlass and so on, it makes for several thousands of savings per boat - it mean millions for each of leading boatbuilders...

[noelex 77]

This was a CQR.
It was much better set than I usually see a CQR.

It was dropped close to the beach in only 3m of water. The sand tends to get much softer towards the shore. This softer sand is the key to it doing well in this case. In medium soft sand the CQR manages reasonably. It usually fails totally in a hard substrate where it just drags on its side not digging in. The scope was long, perhaps 7:1.

Notice the fluke has a very high list (almost 90 degrees). This is the way the CQR sets, which is very different to fixed plow anchors that rotate level much earlier. Nevertheless, it has set in a commendably short distance and at least buried one fluke.

The CQR fluke is small by modern standards and when one fluke is sticking in the air this does not give much surface area below the substate. With more force the fluke will rotate horizontal, but it takes a lot of twisting force to lift the heavy shank and hinge upright so this occurs late in picture.

This is a good result for a CQR at this early stage.



Sorry I have got a bit behind posting these anchors. This was the result after close to 25 knots of wind. It is quite impressive. The CQR has rotated level and has moved back very little. The CQR is very sensitive to substrate, but with a medium soft substrate it can perform well. This is the best result I have seen from a CQR (in the Med) for a couple of years. It has rotated completely level and the fluke is entirely buried (although take in consideration that the blade is much smaller than the modern new generation anchors so the holding pound for pound is less). The shank has not yet buried at all. The thick "I" beam construction of the shank together with the bulky hinge does inhibit penetration of the shank somewhat, but in softer substates it will bury and this anchor is giving every indication it will do just that with a stronger wind force.



I am not a great fan of the CQR, but it has done a great job here. I can only photograph and report what I find. I would caution that I see this this sort of result very rarely from a CQR in the Med.

[noelex 77]

This was another Delta, but is quite an interesting result.

I did not see the boat drop. I woke up in the morning and there they were. The wind in the morning was quite light, but built up to close to 25 knots. The anchor was in a similar loose gravelly type of substrate to the previous Delta: 8m @ 7:1.

The anchor is level and reasonably well set, but has traveled about 7m to reach this point. I did not see the drop so this may have been poor technique. It was a private boat with a young French cruising couple.

The fluke and shank are mostly buried, although it would be nice to see it set a bit deeper with this level of wind.

However, while watching the anchor it slid backwards. Only a couple of inches, but this is disconcerting, especially as the wind had been steady for at least an hour or so. I suspect that a lot of the 7m of movement was due to these small drags in the gusts. I dove down and managed to capture the puff of sand associated with the slide. The anchor did not penetrate any deeper with this movement backwards.

This is a common failing of the Delta. I have seen it completely buried under the sand, but slowly working its way backwards like a mole burrowing under the surface. Unfortunately, the small blade area and convex shape do not provide enough resistance in any sort of loose substrate. This very slow drag often goes undetected by the owner. Although to be fair I only saw one episode of few inches of movement in the 10 minutes or so I spent looking at the anchor.

While diving on the anchor the owner swam over and said he was worried that he was dragging and asked some advice. What would you have recommended?

This was just after the anchor slid backwards and shows the puff of sand generated:



This was after the sand cleared and it gives you a better idea of the set:



Here you can see the drag mark. It extends a little further to the left than seen in the photo:

[Ozbullwinkle]

Hi Noelex & thanks for all of the effort that you have put into this thread.

I note that one of the earlier posts said that your Mantus anchor weighs 57Kg & it is obvious from the photos especially the one with the mermaid holding the top of the rollbar that it is a large anchor. It looks like she could have almost swum through the rollbar.

I would be interested to know what the length and displacement of your yacht is and most importantly if it is considered to be oversized by Mantus according to their sizing chart.

While I also use your method of setting the anchor, I would also like to see the results if you dropped your anchor in the same fashion as the other cruisers whose anchors you have been photographing. Please do some drops where you drop the anchor and let out the desired length of scope but do not drive the anchor in with your motor. The resulting photos would be interesting and if the anchor was not set in a fashion to give you piece of mind getting near the end of the day then use power to drive it in for overnight.

By doing this we could see more of a comparing "apples with apples" type results although the considerable size and weight difference of your anchor compared to all of the others is still a very substantial factor when viewing results.