Scope/Rhode in a crowded anchorage

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

.......... To me, if the anchor you have held fine at varied scopes in varied anchoring scenarios, it does not matter what label or style it is. Keep it. .

And that's exactly what I have been trying to say..

I wonder sometimes if the posters here are just anchor salesmen.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Fortress

We dragged a Rocna repeatedly in soft mud during 8 full days of pulling anchors in the Chesapeake Bay... Safe anchoring, Brian

Yes, we had our Fortress ready to deploy, would have been ideal in that situation for sure, with 5:1 scope or more. But this was very firm mud, shell and gravel. Felt the anchor let go at the height of the storm and the boat swung side-on to the waves. We rushed on deck but it had already reset after just a few metres, perhaps 10m from the GPS; we let out more scope and it never moved again. Since then I've seen Panope's tests and am still searching for a demountable storm anchor from among the new generation lot.

Interesting chart on holding power in soft mud, thanks - very relevant to storm anchor selection.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Fortress

...Apparently, a roll bar anchor needs the soil to be somewhat hard in order to roll over, so to speak, and position the fluke downward into the bottom. Other new and old generation / fixed-fluke anchors had similar issues.

Including the Spade, which doesn't have a roll-bar - how do you explain that one?

I'm quite disappointed. Your videos are far too selective, compared to Panope's for example. You really ought to try to refrain from such blatant marketing when conducting 'scientific' type tests. Your anchors don't need this.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Including the Spade, which doesn't have a roll-bar - how do you explain that one?

I'm quite disappointed. Your videos are far too selective, compared to Panope's for example. You really ought to try to refrain from such blatant marketing when conducting 'scientific' type tests. Your anchors don't need this.

Thanks for your input. While the Spade has a sharp and steeply-sloped fluke, and it is probably more likely to land, or be able to orient, in a fluke downward position, in soft mud the anchor's physical size and shape can obviously be a key factor, as evidenced by the superior performance of the Fortress and Danforth anchors.

Regarding the "scientific" comment, 11 anchors were pulled 5x with the exact same starting scope and for the exact same distance, time and speed using the aft drum winch aboard an 81-ft research vessel, the Rachel Carson, which is owned by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. The cost of the vessel was $275 per hour + fuel.

The distance, time and speed measurements on the wire rope of the winch were taken by a running line tensiometer, which was capable of measuring into the thousand decimal and it cost $5,000 per week to rent.

The results of every pull test were viewed on monitors that were set up on this vessel and were witnessed by technical boating writers from magazines and media with a combined circulation of over 1 million viewers.

The testing protocol was set up under the consultation of Bob Taylor, an anchor design and soil mechanics expert who has worked for over 45 years with the US Navy and in the offshore industry.

Suffice to say, there has never been a more expensive, independently-verified, sophisticated and scientific anchor test conducted throughout the world on pleasure craft anchors.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Fortress

...Suffice to say, there has never been a more expensive, independently-verified, sophisticated and scientific anchor test conducted ...

Yep, and your edited videos are crap... sorry.

Where can we find the 'scientifically' presented results of these very sophisticated and worthwhile tests? (Not just those averaging HP graphs please.)

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Yep, and your edited videos are crap... sorry.



Where can we find the 'scientifically' presented results of these very sophisticated and worthwhile tests? (Not just those averaging HP graphs please.)

Interesting opinion, thanks for sharing. Please be specific with exactly what was "crap."

I'd be glad to send you the non-averaged charts, please send me a PM with your email address.

Thanks,
Brian

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Interesting opinion, thanks for sharing. Please be specific with exactly what was "crap."
I'd be glad to send you the non-averaged charts, please send me a PM with your email address. Thanks, Brian

Okay, Salesman Brian, the first three (maybe 4) videos give tantalising glimpses of the performance of various 'top-rated' anchors (well done you for this selection) but it's too quick and too much edited out to form a judgement on any of those other anchors - except Fortress!!!! All the Fortress results are expounded ad-nauseam, but all others get the 'once over lightly' treatment. What a shame - Fortress is outstanding in these conditions, no argument, so there's never any need to leave out full disclosure on all other brands. Very annoying to have all this fabulous data skimmed over instead of being presented in a businesslike manner that we can all analyse and make useful decisions from. Very annoying. Then the last two videos are sales crap - totally unnecessary following Fortress's stand-out performance. Very, very annoying to watch you guys blowing smoke up your own asses. Okay so I have no patience for this self-indulgent nonsense. Hope this helps.

I had hoped you could point everyone to a publication - one of the many magazines represented at the excellent trials maybe - that would provide information on all of the anchors tested: good points, shortcomings, max holding power developed, how they perform when loaded beyond maximum, etc, etc. Shame to waste such excellent data by not presenting it to the public. Is anyone likely to sue if you do???

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Okay, Salesman Brian, the first three (maybe 4) videos give tantalising glimpses of the performance of various 'top-rated' anchors (well done you for this selection) but it's too quick and too much edited out to form a judgement on any of those other anchors - except Fortress!!!! All the Fortress results are expounded ad-nauseam, but all others get the 'once over lightly' treatment. What a shame - Fortress is outstanding in these conditions, no argument, so there's never any need to leave out full disclosure on all other brands. Very annoying to have all this fabulous data skimmed over instead of being presented in a businesslike manner that we can all analyse and make useful decisions from. Very annoying. Then the last two videos are sales crap - totally unnecessary following Fortress's stand-out performance. Very, very annoying to watch you guys blowing smoke up your own asses. Okay so I have no patience for this self-indulgent nonsense. Hope this helps.



I had hoped you could point everyone to a publication - one of the many magazines represented at the excellent trials maybe - that would provide information on all of the anchors tested: good points, shortcomings, max holding power developed, how they perform when loaded beyond maximum, etc, etc. Shame to waste such excellent data by not presenting it to the public. Is anyone likely to sue if you do???

It helps greatly! We put a lot of pressure on the videographer to come up with a brief summary for each day of the testing and so every pull test was not covered in great detail.

I thought that we had provided links to several excellent in-depth stories that were written about the testing, I will re-check.

Thanks again,
Brian

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Okay, Salesman Brian, ............

You should be old enough to expect a manufacturer to present his product in a favorable light. Have you ever seen a Ford ad showing that a Chevy is better?

Manufacturer's ads or testing should be just one consideration in your purchase decision. Read or watch the ads from all the companies, read their tests and independent tests and reviews.

The problem here is, anchoring is as much an art as it is a science. In no way is it an exact science. Brand "A"' might seem to work better under some conditions while brand "B" seems to work better under different conditions.

In the end, you might just want to read this thread and take the advice of the person who loudly insults anyone who favors a brand that's not the one he favors. He knows best, for sure!

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Read or watch the ads from all the companies, read their tests and independent tests and reviews...

Sound advice, rw, and that's why I've asked for those 'links to in-depth stories' based on the scientific tests sponsored by Fortress. It turns out that much of the supposedly independent information out there is not independent at all; at least Fortress aren't fooling anyone.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Sound advice, rw, and that's why I've asked for those 'links to in-depth stories' based on the scientific tests sponsored by Fortress. It turns out that much of the supposedly independent information out there is not independent at all; at least Fortress aren't fooling anyone.

The links to the stories are right there on the web page that I gave you.

You can also Google "Chesapeake Bay anchor test" and find many of those same stories elsewhere at their original websites.

The bottom line, if you will pardon the pun, is that the capability to adjust an anchor to a wider shank / fluke angle will dramatically increase its holding power in soft mud.

The science behind this is no great secret that is known only to Fortress, as large anchor manufacturers such as Bruce, the US Navy, and Vryhof all make anchors with this feature.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Fortress

The links to the stories are right there on the web page that I gave you...

Duh! And that first link has a link to all of the graphs/data recordings. Excellent - confirms some beliefs and scuppers others. Money well spent.

Several writers remind us how common these mud anchorages are, at least in some parts.

[Don C L]

Going back to the OP, while I don't have one now, I have used a CQR many times. They need more chain and more scope, and more room, in my experience, to set than most other anchors. 16' of chain is pretty short, but if you let out enough scope, 5:1, you should be able to get it set well. Don't start really pulling on it till you have that scope out to set it. I used to allow 10' or 15' to set from where it landed. Don't imagine that it is set where you dropped it! Now once it is really set you could shorten to 4:1 but I wouldn't trust it at such a short scope if the wind and/or swells pipe up. (The only time I have dragged was with a CQR, and I am pretty sure it was because I did not have enough scope out for the rough conditions that rolled in. It was pretty windy and a good swell had come in so the bow was pitching and yanking on the rode pretty hard. On one of those yanks I felt the anchor release. When I let a lot more scope out, between 9:1 to 10:1 if I recall correctly, it grabbed and held. It probably would have continued to hold but I decided to bail out of that anchorage. Oh, another mistake I made that time was anchoring at low tide and forgetting to figure that into the scope.

Before anchoring, as someone mentioned, it is good to go through the anchorage and ask folks how much they have out and where their anchors are. They will appreciate it!
I too highly recommend getting more chain and one of the new generation anchors when you can.