Photos of Anchors Setting

[JPA Cate]

Thanks for the pics, NornaBiron.

FWIW, when Jim went to get our Manson Supreme out of the deep mud and shell of Port Cygnet, it was buried so deep the sticky mud was piled up along the top of the roll bar, and it took 1500 rpm to break it out whereas normally just being over the anchor the windlass can lift it. I had tried just at idle fwd (about 850 rpm, with our Nanni/Kubota), but it was insufficient and kept increasing till it broke out.

The water there is brown from tannins in the local button grass, and you cannot see what the bottom is.

Ann

[NornaBiron]

More from Egypt:

Here are two videos showing our friend's Manson Supreme anchor setting. The first is with a 3.5:1 scope and you can see the anchor struggling to set. The second is with a 5:1 scope and the anchor has set well. The bottom was soft sand on sandstone.

[NornaBiron]

Here are the photos from the same anchorage as our last post. First is the Manson Supreme shown in the previous video. Second is our 45kg Spade, we dropped with short scope this time to try to avoid the bommies around us but dragged for a short distance until we let 5:1 go. Third is a 27kg CQR set on its side (however out of all the sets shown it was the only one to dig in straight away and hold), Fourth is a 15kg Delta that set well after dragging initially. The last photo is of another 15kg Delta that hit a hard spot but did hold. The forecast was for light winds from one direction so the owners did not worry about resetting.

[ImaginaryNumber]

In 2008 Evans Starzinger published a report on the setting and holding capability of two different types of anchors: claw (Bruce and Manson Ray); roll-bar concave (Manson Supreme, Rocna, and some tests with a Bugel). These anchors were in the 120lb (54kg) to 140lb (64kg) range.

http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/Main...hor%20test.pdf

Their tests included

• On a beach
• Rocky bottom
• Heavy Kelp
• Short scope
• Veer test

Anchor Ratings in specific difficult bottoms

Very Soft Mud
1st) Supreme ... 2nd) ROCNA ... 3rd) Ray

Heavy Kelp
1st) Ray ... 2nd) ROCNA ... 3rd) Supreme

Smooth Rock
1st) Ray ... ... ... ... 3nd) ROCNA & Supreme

Short Scope & Sloped Bottom
1st) Ray ... 2nd) Supreme ... 3rd) ROCNA

Total holding power in hurricane conditions*
1st) ROCNA & Supreme ... ... ... 3rd) Ray

*based on other anchor tests focused on holding power, not independently confirmed by our testing

Conclusions
For full time cruising we strongly recommend the biggest anchor your boat can carry. An extra 10kg may make the difference between setting in a difficult bottom and having to move to another anchorage.

The Ray, ROCNA & Supreme are all good anchors. The design and performance of the ROCNA and Supreme are very close, with the edge going to the Supreme on lower cost. The Ray/Bruce is a quite different design – potentially offering faster & deeper setting in bad bottoms but with lower total holding power. The Ray/Bruce does make an excellent general purpose anchor you must go a size or two larger than the equivalent roll-bar anchor. (Note: we do not recommend Bruce copies in sizes less than 20kg as the design does not scale down below that size very well and the holding power drops off dramatically). The Ray is quite expensive compared to other Bruce copies, but it is noteworthy that its forged shank construction would prevent the casting cracks than destroyed our Bruce.

We would consider any of these anchors acceptable as a main cruising anchor. They are all good, but with distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The Ray offers the best all around setting ability in poor bottoms but according to other anchor tests has the lowest holding power per lb. To use the Ray as a main anchor you need to get a big one. The ROCNA and Supreme have much higher holding power per lb but are less reliable setting in very difficult bottom conditions and may take a bit of additional skill and scope to get set in these unusual sort of conditions.

Which anchor is best for you will depend on which sort of difficult bottoms you are most likely to encounter and the trade-off you make between setting reliability in difficult bottoms vs. weight/holding power in more normal bottoms.

For our own personal cruising we came away with three feelings. First, we were somewhat disappointed in the ROCNA & Supreme’s performance as our expectations were very high based on their marketing and the results of other people’s anchor tests. These test demonstrated to us why we have had such good success with big Bruce designs in the past, and we will definitely keep the Ray. Second, the Supreme has the biggest/highest profile roll bar and it will just simply not fit down any of our hatches so we can’t stow it. Therefore we are giving it away to a 53’ Antarctic charter boat (which took it out for a testing session and really liked it) – not for any concerns about its performance but simply because can’t fit it. The ROCNA has a bit lower profile roll bar and will just barely fit down our hatches. Third, a big anchor, proper scope, and a slow but firm setting technique are for us the real keys to excellent anchoring performance.

I appreciate their reporting on anchor holding ability in gravel, rock, and heavy kelp. This thread has been light on reporting anchoring ability in these conditions. It appears that no one anchor style excels in all bottom conditions.

[noelex 77]

Sorry there has been no anchor photos from me. Unfortunately, I have not seen the anchor at all at our current anchorage. It is a mud substrate and as is typical for this time year, the winds have been 35 knots plus at least every couple of days which has left no opportunity for the water clarity to improve. We are anchored in 8m @ 8:1.

I have found the anchor in these sort of occasions using GPS and laser rangefinder with duck dives in the general vicinity, but the water is too cold at the moment for such antics.

It is a pity, as the wind has been rapidly shifting direction so it would be great to see how the Mantus has rotated. All I can report is that we have not moved and as soon as I see the anchor, I will post the photos.

This is the forecast for today and tomorrow:

[Tayana42]

I hope you are well sheltered. Looks like the wind is trying to make things a uncomfortable as possible even if the Mantus doesn't move.


S/V B'Shert

[JPA Cate]

ImaginaryNumber,

What have appeared here are photos of anchors setting in various anchorages experienced by people who are out cruising who have donated their time and effort. I certainly appreciate all the time and effort noelex and his mermaid have put into it, day after day. As more people get underwater cameras, we may have more bottom types covered, but that is in the unknown future. I'm glad we've seen as much as we have from noelex's pictures and commentary. The only time you get to see other set anchors is when you're in the water to do it. It is easy for me to imagine that it is too cold in February in the med to take your camera and dive in.

Ann

[NornaBiron]

Here are some sets on different ground. First we have our 45kg Spade set on weed and sand. It has buried about one metre into the sea bed. Second we have a 25kg Spade set in a rock And last we have a Manson Supreme laying on sand, the chain is wrapped around a rock.

This just goes to show that,if you can, it's best to dive on your anchor

Sorry about the photo quality, the visibility isn't so good today in Egypt

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

ImaginaryNumber,

What have appeared here are photos of anchors setting in various anchorages experienced by people who are out cruising who have donated their time and effort. I certainly appreciate all the time and effort noelex and his mermaid have put into it, day after day. As more people get underwater cameras, we may have more bottom types covered, but that is in the unknown future. I'm glad we've seen as much as we have from noelex's pictures and commentary. The only time you get to see other set anchors is when you're in the water to do it. It is easy for me to imagine that it is too cold in February in the med to take your camera and dive in.

Ann

Ann,
I quite agree with you, and add my thanks to Noelex and the others who have contributed photos to this useful thread. It would be great if an inexpensive and effective way to photograph anchors could be developed without having to actually dive to the anchor. This would allow us to learn more about how anchors are setting in deeper, darker, and colder waters. My mentioning the experiences of Evans Starzinger, who has sailed a lot in higher latitudes, was presented in the hope that his knowledge would contribute to this thread.

[Tayana42]

NornaBiron, thanks for your photos even though the water clarity was less than you wished.


S/V B'Shert

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Ann,
I quite agree with you, and add my thanks to Noelex and the others who have contributed photos to this useful thread. It would be great if an inexpensive and effective way to photograph anchors could be developed without having to actually dive to the anchor. This would allow us to learn more about how anchors are setting in deeper, darker, and colder waters. My mentioning the experiences of Evans Starzinger, who has sailed a lot in higher latitudes, was presented in the hope that his knowledge would contribute to this thread.

I think I did you a disservice, IN, and I apologize. I felt like you were saying noelex, et al, hadn't done enough, and I have been absolutely riveted by their posts for the past few months. I've only ever seen the anchors around ours, and never thought to measure the drag tracks in setting, for instance. Noelex taught me what to look for, with the aid of the mermaid's pics, and I feel really grateful. I'm glad you, too, are thankful, and I'm sorry if you felt like I jumped down your throat.

Yes, Evans and Beth have really great inputs for the cruising community and are really friendly, too. All good. I really liked Evans thread about load testing his soft shackles and other stuff here on CF, too.

Ann

[noelex 77]

The wind has been rapidly switching around and has been above 30 knots every couple of days, although the most it has reached has been the low 40's. With a mud bottom this has kept the water visibility too poor to even glimpse the anchor.

Yesterday the weather improved and having spent too long at this anchorage for our liking we were keen to move. The next island is only 35nm away, but with only light winds forecast I would have rather made a start before lunchtime, but the water had cleared and I could not resist a look (and photograph) of the anchor.

The bottom details were reasonably visible from the tender, but after over an hour of looking I had to admit defeat.

Plan B was to to get my wife to retrieve the anchor while I was observing from the tender. At 1:1 the anchor is easy to locate.

When the chain was bar tight there was still nothing visible of the anchor, but a careful look showed the float sticking just a couple of inches above the surface. This is from a line that about a metre long at that is attached to already tall roll bar!

In this first photo you can see the disturbance of the sand as the anchor is yanked upwards by the chain that is leading directly to the shank. The float is only sticking up a couple of inches above the bottom. It is about the centre of the photo' but the cloud of sand close to the bottom is obscuring it:




As the anchor is forced up, the float comes into view. The fluke, shank and even the roll bar is still a long way down:




More of the rope on the float is visible, but the shank and even the roll bar are still completely buried and this was after some considerable pulling at 1:1:

[Wotname]

Hey, what's going on here, previously the mermaid did all photo's and such like but now you are posting about a wife .
Or have you gone and married the mermaid...

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Hey, what's going on here, previously the mermaid did all photo's and such like but now you are posting about a wife .

Shhhh, don't tell my wife about the mermaid that lives under the boat .

[noelex 77]

I don't use a swivel. They introduce an extra couple of failure points and are usually unnecessary.

The only problem I have noticed is occasionally when the boat swings around the same way several (many?) times the chain can become twisted. Even this is unnoticeable until the chain is retrieved.

The gypsy can only pass untwisted chain so the twists get compressed into the final bit of chain between the gypsy and the anchor. The chain will only tolerate so many twists per unit length before it starts bunching up. The bunched up chain is very tightly twisted and bulky. It will not pass through the gypsy.

Once the anchor is free from the bottom it will rotate sometimes surprising rapidly to unwind the chain and the problem is solved. However, to break out modern anchors you need to a very short scope 1:1, or close. If you cannot retrieve enough chain because it is bunching up as the twists get compressed into the last part of the chain then you have a problem.

This has only happened a couple of times, so I prefer to live with the simplicity of no swivel, but it is something that you should be aware of if you want to dispense with the swivel.

It was very close to becoming a problem at this anchorage, as we had been anchored in the one spot for longer than normal and there had been many switches in the wind direction.

Here you can see the last bit of chain underwater at 1:1. Notice how the chain has become twisted enough to just start to bunch up. The chain is under quite a bit of tension, but some links are lying sideways.

(The yellow line is a just a bit of old fishing net the chain has managed to ensnare)