Videos of Anchors Setting

[Panope]

I've given much though about acquiring a suitable 'high bollard pull' boat for testing.

Perhaps the most economical would be a seiner skiff. These are small, tub like, open boats with large, inboard engines. They are used in commercial fishing to pull (along with a mother ship) very large purse seine nets into a circle, thus catching fish.

In the 'off season' these will not be in use and perhaps be available.

A temporary anchor windlass would need to be fitted.

Steve

[Knotical]

Steve, I have watched several of your videos and I appreciate all the work you put into testing anchors. In the latest video the way you talk about what the anchor might be doing underneath the seabed speaks of your experience. I would love to see you develop that perfect anchor one day - maybe somewhat of a hybrid of Mantus, Fortress, & Sarca Excel

[eheffa]

Originally Posted by Panope

Yes, pulling in fwd gear should be good for several thousand pounds of pull.

The BIG hurdle will be transferring an all chain rode to the stern of the vessel. Easiest way that I can imagine would be to make up a rode of 105 feet of chain plus a rope leader. Using the bow roller/windlass, dump the anchor and all chain to the bottom. Then, transfer the rope leader to the stern and manually lift the first 26 feet of chain off the bottom and fix to the bollard/bridal. Reverse process to retrieve.

Does your windlass accommodate 3/8" chain?

Does your vessel have a strong STRONG attach point(s) aft?

Steve

It could work. I will email you privately.

-e

[Izikalvo]

I will take care of it, viking 20 will be shiped to you next week, i will email you with details.

Thanks again for the hard work.

[Izikalvo]

Originally Posted by Panope

Izi,

At the end of this week, Panope will go into the shed for the winter.

That said, I hope to conduct a hard sand "beach test" with a truck this fall.

A 45lb. Viking anchor would be a welcome addition to my test inventory.

Steve

Will take care of it, viking 20

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Panope

Yes. This would be a fantastic and very revealing test.

Unfortunately, my boat does not have enough power.

It is almost certain that increasing the scope will cause the maximum holding power of the better performing anchors to exceed Panope's bollard pull.

I cannot afford to buy or build another boat.

Steve

I did that sort of testing by anchoring with a big Fortress and using winches.


The only way I know to reliably measure depth of set in soft mud is diving, and it ain't real fun (visibility is usually nil). It is usually quite obvious, because the holding capacity soars.



The results I got, and those of others in soft mud, were very similar. About 10# of hold for every 1# of anchor, unless you are a Fortress. Unlike sand, the bottom can be quite variable, making close comparisons unsupportable.


The other big variable is time and gentle tugging. Many of these anchor might have made it deeper if...

• Longer scope
• More soak time between...
• Multiple gentle setting pulls

This allows the mud to consolidate around the fluke, resulting in deeper setting with each gentle pull, until the anchor is well set. I did some testing on this, and yes, it took days anchored in one spot by the time I did the variations and repeats. But it is established practice here (lots of soft mud).


What happens if the anchor rotates out during a squall and needs to reset? It may drag, because there is not enough time. So If you are smart, you power set in the direction the gust front is most likely to come from.

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g73yKp2L_Fw

[Don C L]

Interesting. I think over the winter, Steve you should try your hand at anchor design and construction now!
To me it seems banging those flanges or palms down is arguably better in all cases. I know your concern that the deeper it goes the angle of the chain starts to lift the shank, but I am guessing that burial depth still beats whatever the palms could possibly offer as resistance.

[Factor]

Very interesting. My concern with sugar scoop anchors has always been mud retention, this seems to support that.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Interesting. I think over the winter, Steve you should try your hand at anchor design and construction now!
To me it seems banging those flanges or palms down is arguably better in all cases. I know your concern that the deeper it goes the angle of the chain starts to lift the shank, but I am guessing that burial depth still beats whatever the palms could possibly offer as resistance.

Don, I would be eager to build an anchor of my design but only when I feel that I have some new innovation.

You very well might be correct about the fluke flanges/palms.

Steve

[eheffa]

Hi Steve,

Great work with very interesting findings in your Rocna modifications.

If the anchor were an airplane and the aft tabs / palms on the fluke were equivalent to the elevators on an aircraft tail, these palms are oriented to resist diving and to force the anchor into 'climbing' mode. This is probably not helpful. (I suspect that the up-tab design was intended to promote collecting the substrate on top of the fluke without considering the potential negative effect of your described scenario wherein it enhances the breaking away of the anchor and attached mud as a mobile lump, detached from the surrounding seabed.)

Would angling the tabs downward enhance the diving ability of the anchor? This may only work in a softer substrate but it's an intriguing question.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by eheffa

............Would angling the tabs downward enhance the diving ability of the anchor? This may only work in a softer substrate but it's an intriguing question.

It is a good question.

I'll note that the Spade, Ultra and Vulcan anchors have turned UP trailing edges as do the convex anchors (excel, delta, CQR).

The Super Sarca is the only anchor in my inventory that has a turned DOWN trailing edge.

Unfortunately, the performance (and general shape) of the above anchors are all over the map so no conclusions can be drawn.

In a way the 'mud palms' of the Fortress anchor (the king of soft mud) act as small trailing edge tabs. One up, one down.

Steve

[rslifkin]

I'd almost say the Vulcan has both a turned up and turned down trailing edge. The fluke surface turns up, but the lip at the trailing edge extends down from the fluke (although the angle may be too steep to be useful).

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwEi...ature=youtu.be

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Panope

I did similar testing, same cast of characters, but with a 2.5-pound Guardian.

• Grapnel, mushroom, etc. Agree, not worth extended testing.
• Stones: Similar results to Panope.
• Sand and mud. The Claw still sucked. The Mantus did about as you saw, holding 25-120 pounds, depending on the seabed. The difference was the Guardian. In sand and mud it behaved like a Fortress, going deep. In very soft mud it would hold well over 100 pounds, and in fine sand I gave up before I broke something, at 1000 pounds. It was a bugger to recover, requiring snubbing and the use of a windlass on the big boat.

I actually used the Mantus and Guardian to anchor my 34' catamaran on some 10-20 knots days in an open roadstead, to simulate how their big brothers might behave (rotate etc) is a real storm. They didn't drag, holding a boat with a lot of windage.


Though I did not test the 2.5-pound Danforth, I used to have one. For reasons I do not fully understand, Fortress and Guardian anchors outperform. Some is fluke size, the rest much be geometry.


And every bottom is different.


But until someone else makes a 2-pound anchor in dinghy sizes, Mantus doesn't have any performance competition. But they are not so cheap. But if it saves me from loosing my dinghy....