Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-08-2016, 08:20 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
djones44's Avatar
 
City: Salt Spring Island
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Twilight
Vessel Model: Permaglass Sedan
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
To me the classic CQR is a plow anchor , some companies copy is just that some companies copy.

Think ferrocement aircraft ,,,,
My CQR emblazoned with "Made in Scotland!" does just what Big Daddy Lipscomb used to do for the Giants, a few gens back:

"I grabs me an armload of football players and picks out the one with the ball."
__________________
Advertisement

djones44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2016, 09:10 PM   #22
Guru
 
boatpoker's Avatar
 
City: Port Credit
Country: Ontario
Vessel Name: DIRT FREE
Vessel Model: Benford Fantail 38
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdowney717 View Post
I watched this and actually wonder, do you know if plow anchors will grab hold for 6 minutes in mud and then they all break out drop close to zero holding? They consistently make this observation in the video. Why is that?
.
Because of "good" marketing by Fortress
__________________

__________________
If you can live with the consequences, go for it - wg
Y'am what I y'am an' thats' all that y'am - Popeye
As God is my witness, I thought turkey's could fly. Mr.C
boatpoker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 01:52 PM   #23
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Over the course of 4 full days, every anchor was tested in a fresh, close proximity seabed and pulled using the exact same starting scope, and for the exact same distance, speed and time.

The test results were measured using a running line tensiometer and were clearly viewable aboard the test vessel on computer monitors.

There might have been several pulls when the tension built to around the 6 minute time period, but then the anchor broke free and the tension quickly declined, as it was likely that the fluke(s) was full of compressed sediment and it could not re-penetrate the bottom

Articles, comments, test results and videos are on the web page below:
Fortress Anchors The World's Best Anchors! Chesapeake Bay Anchor Test

Safe anchoring,
Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2016, 04:15 PM   #24
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
Didn't see many in Alaska but I see lots of Fortress Anchors at the marina in LaConner WA. Danforth and Claws too.
Haha no Dreadnoughts though.

Most all bottoms around the world are mud of some sort. Alaska having such a rocky coastline led me to believe there were lots of rocky bottoms but few were found. I think the rocks are covered up w mud by the hydraulic forces on land caused by all the rain and snow. And in the desert offshore winds transport the makings of mud. And time ... lots of time.

Re the failure after breaking out compaction of the mud bottom on the fluke makes a bullet shaped anchor out of a plow anchor. And even more so the scoop anchors it would seem. Do the scoopers do the 6 min dance too?
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 03:13 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
City: Westerly, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: N/A
Vessel Model: 1999 Mainship 350 Trawler
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 471
Besides the obvious warning that the testing was conducted by Fortress, rather that a truly independent testing facility, the test methodology was both odd an not a 'real-world use case'.

The scope was laid out first. The vessel was held in position, then the anchor was retrieved, slowly reducing scope until it broke free. In a real world scenario, scope would not be reduced as a mechanism to apply force.
Shrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 03:30 PM   #26
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrew View Post
Besides the obvious warning that the testing was conducted by Fortress, rather that a truly independent testing facility, the test methodology was both odd an not a 'real-world use case'.

The scope was laid out first. The vessel was held in position, then the anchor was retrieved, slowly reducing scope until it broke free. In a real world scenario, scope would not be reduced as a mechanism to apply force.
In a real world scenario, surging seas can shorten up the scope which in turn would apply a force, or load, on the anchor.
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 06:59 AM   #27
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,525
What holds the anchor in soft stuff is the anchors projected area.

Look at it down the shank as the mud would to see whats holding you..

The Danforth and its newer copies have huge areas , the CQR less.

WE usually go up one size , if a 35 Danforth would do the 60 CQR would be set if desired.

This makes the projected areas about the same , and a second or stern anchor is usually not required as a Danforth or Danforth copy would require in a reversing tidal area.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 10:00 AM   #28
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
FF,
You go up one size .....
From what? What the manufacturer recomends? Or what was on the boat when it was bought? Or from a guru's boat on your float?
From what is all over the map. And tends to grow and grow. But you say all the cool guys say "bigger is better".
I say ( for whatever that's worth) bigger is only better if too small is what you've got. And many want to be extra secure or even totally secure. Bigger is better got a whole lot smaller when the GPS anchor drag alarm was introduced. Unless one's GPS goes TU anchor dragging is just an inconvenience.
Only experience can give a good chunck of mind peace. If I can hold fast w a given anchor and boat in Alaska in a 50 knot gale I'm going to feel quite comfortable anchoring in Washington w almost any anchor where 50 knot wind is rare.
But if you consider the biggest variable in anchoring (the bottom) perhaps the perdieved best anchor and anchoring technique still won't be secure. OK it looks like you're right FF ... bigger is better.
But only in anchoring. A bigger boat or engine may definitely not be better.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 10:01 AM   #29
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Surface area can definitely be a factor in developing resistance, although we learned that if the "effective fluke angle" is minimal and not very aggressive, and the fluke does not orient downward and into the bottom, then even a physically large anchor is likely to simply slide through the soft mud.

Additionally, widening the shank / fluke angle to 45 in soft mud allowed the Fortress to bury far deeper and develop significantly greater resistance, at least 2X versus the standard 32 angle.

While Fortress holds a US patent on the adjustable 32 / 45 shank / fluke angle, widening this angle to improve holding in soft mud is certainly no secret, as large anchor manufacturers such as Bruce, the US Navy, and Vryhof all make anchors with this capability.

Here's a write up on this topic from Vryhof's latest 172 page anchoring manual which is available for download or viewing on their web site.


image upload no size limit
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 10:18 AM   #30
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
Shrew,
Good point.
But the method Fortress used did IMO show what the anchors could do anchoring in slimy mud. No anchor test will duplicate your next anchoring scenario. And no anchor test is free of all the troublesome variables. Lots of anchor tests can be very misleading I admit. The one that takes the cake (as they say and IMO) is the Mantus vidio of someone pulling a Rocna over a hard sand beach at the perfect angle so it only skids along. And Rocna did a similar one pulling a CQR over a dry beach at high speed. Pulling anchors in sand boxes at boat shows or (to a lesser degree IMO) dragging anchors on beaches at low tide not even in the water is lacking of real world anchoring but they all "indicate" what an anchor may do in the real world. Steve on Panope came about as close to real world as one can get but his tests were'nt really representing typical anchoring .. more like worst case scenario in a specific way (tide reversals). Steve was going up north last I heard.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 10:27 AM   #31
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,712
Brian,
Have you ever tried a hinge point closer to the fluke tip?
Does Fortress even do R&D?
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 11:00 AM   #32
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
I dislike using wind only as a test of an anchor.

Most wreckage I have seen after storms were from surge and possibly sailing atound the anchor.

Even Phil Bolger in one of his books I believe discusses that often sailboats drag while right next to larger wind profile power vessels.

Both he and I seem to think that watching sailboats in a unprotected anchorage from large rollers really hobby horse and sail around compared to their power bretheren

I have also seen vessels just slightly more exposed than othere of the same type that drag.

Same winds yet more water action.

Thus I am suspect of anchors that are rated in tests that use steady even pulls....and possibly even the "technique" of anchoring and total ground tackle.

I believe anchoring is like learning anything in heavy weather. The only sure fire experience is by gradually testing in worse and worse conditions till it is just too dangerous...then extrapolating to known survival methods.

Even though the USCG pilots that successfully save people in horrible conditions, training minimums are lower...like basic technique establishment. The real test comes from years of experience in pushing the envelope further and further.

Till you do thst...everything is really just a guess.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 11:22 AM   #33
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad Willy View Post
Shrew,
Good point.
But the method Fortress used did IMO show what the anchors could do anchoring in slimy mud. No anchor test will duplicate your next anchoring scenario. And no anchor test is free of all the troublesome variables. Lots of anchor tests can be very misleading I admit. The one that takes the cake (as they say and IMO) is the Mantus vidio of someone pulling a Rocna over a hard sand beach at the perfect angle so it only skids along. And Rocna did a similar one pulling a CQR over a dry beach at high speed. Pulling anchors in sand boxes at boat shows or (to a lesser degree IMO) dragging anchors on beaches at low tide not even in the water is lacking of real world anchoring but they all "indicate" what an anchor may do in the real world. Steve on Panope came about as close to real world as one can get but his tests were'nt really representing typical anchoring .. more like worst case scenario in a specific way (tide reversals). Steve was going up north last I heard.
Eric, during the Chesapeake Bay testing, every anchor was pulled 100-ft for 10 minutes (10-ft per minute), and that pull speed was recommended by our consultant Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy anchor design and soil mechanics expert with over 45 years in the field. Obviously, the anchors were pulled slow enough and given sufficient distance and time to perform, or not.

Regarding beach testing, which from what I have seen is usually conducted on brick hard sand, it definitely has a value IF that is where you plan on anchoring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomad Willy View Post
Brian,
Have you ever tried a hinge point closer to the fluke tip?
Does Fortress even do R&D?
Eric, I am not aware of us ever trying to put the hinge point closer to the fluke tip. We have several original prototypes here and I have not seen that design type.

We did extensive R & D during the lead up to our initial production, and we continued to make product modifications afterwards during the first several years as well. We have numerous images of our late founder testing anchors in the nearby muddy swamps of the Florida Everglades and off the local Florida shoreline where he conducted sand bottom testing.

Additionally, we have a structural test machine called "Black Maria" which tests loading points on an anchor during typical pull conditions.

Fortress anchors have had ABS certifications since the early 90s, and the performance and survival of three anchor models during the 1989 US Navy tests was a mission critical point during the launch of our product.
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2016, 02:30 PM   #34
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,525
"You go up one size .....
From what? What the manufacturer recomends?"

Not really , I think most mfg recommendation is based on what price they think will not be too high for that type of vessel.

Skenes perhaps and other sources will give the wind pull loading at various wind speeds.

Usually its not very much for a boat that does not sail its anchor. Surge loading is brutal.

The unsteady boats simply need to bite the bullet and deploy a second bow anchor every time!.

Not a big deal and makes the boat steady, and the rest of the harbor happy..

My anchor collection for our 50ft lobster boat style launch is almost all Danforth H.

A 12H for a bridge wait , EZ to hand pull.

A 20H for a rear (lead to the bow) overnight with usually a 35H in front. Fine in tidal areas.

A 60H is the storm anchor , seldom dug out and the 90H is Hurricane unit only used a couple of times in 50+ years.

The CQR 35 and 60 are for deep reversing tidal spots , where I'm too lazy to set the stern drop.

All Danforths are with 5 ft or so of chain the CQR with 20 ft.The rest is nylon.

I never set a snubber as the nylon does a fine job as its not monster thick.

As a start for overnight a pound of Danforth H per ft of boat seems to work.

A 3 story monster with an oxygen tent would need more , a sleek launch perhaps less.

Storm anchor would go a size up and a 20lb does great as a stern hook.

Remember you may be in the dink (or walking) carrying the anchor out to deep water , after a grounding .

Pity the chain rode fellows!
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2016, 02:27 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
City: Westerly, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: N/A
Vessel Model: 1999 Mainship 350 Trawler
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 471
Storm surge and swell are two very different things. In the case of storm surge, one would be looking at depths and INCREASING scope to account for increased depth due to surge and increased wind.

In the case of Swell, how much swell would one expect in a typical storm in a somewhat protected anchorage 1-3 ft? You're simply not going to see 8-10 ft of swell. You would see 8-10 ft of surge and adjust scope accordingly.

The test called for the anchor to be set and then 100ft of rode to be retrieved. I don't see how that is a real world example of the impact of either surge or swell.
Shrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2016, 02:57 PM   #36
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Shrew,

Thanks for your comments. My point was that decreasing scope and the resulting load on an anchor is not uncommon, and increasing scope to compensate during a storm surge is not always an option.

The initial plan for the Chesapeake Bay testing was to use the 81-ft Rachel Carson research vessel to pull the anchors at a pre-determined amount of scope through the soft mud, but it was quickly found that other than the 21 lb Fortress and 35 lb Danforth, the 44-46 lb fixed-fluke anchors offered minimal resistance.

Simply stated, the boat was too big, the bottom too soft, and most of the anchors too small to conduct controllable and repeatable tests.

And so we laid out a pre-determined amount of scope, then set the state-of-the-art Dynamic Positioning System aboard the Rachel Carson to keep the boat in place and pulled the anchors toward the boat.

In his detailed and lengthy follow-up test report, Bob Taylor noted that based upon the loads achieved during the testing that the decreasing scope had a minimal effect on the anchors' performance. His final summary paragraph:

"Although it is desirable to maintain a constant scope during a test, it seems that the test process employed at Chesapeake where scope was changed during the test had minimal affect on the test."
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2016, 03:32 PM   #37
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrew View Post
Storm surge and swell are two very different things. In the case of storm surge, one would be looking at depths and INCREASING scope to account for increased depth due to surge and increased wind.

In the case of Swell, how much swell would one expect in a typical storm in a somewhat protected anchorage 1-3 ft? You're simply not going to see 8-10 ft of swell. You would see 8-10 ft of surge and adjust scope accordingly.

The test called for the anchor to be set and then 100ft of rode to be retrieved. I don't see how that is a real world example of the impact of either surge or swell.
I have seen anchorages where 4 to 5 footers break over the bows of anchored vessels in a good blow.

My reference to surge was not storm surge but the action of the vessel trying to ride over waves while the bow is being pulled down by the ground tackle and forward into the waves from the overall give and take of cater nary and snubber stretch.

The vessels exposed to this type of action while sailing significantly back and forth put ground tackle to the test much more than just a blow.

True, protected anchorages are the ticket but not always available or the amount of wave action that wraps around a headland sometimes suprises.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2016, 07:07 AM   #38
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,525
"and increasing scope to compensate during a storm surge is not always an option."

Any weight lowered off the bow looped to the anchor line will usually be a great help of more scope is impossible.
__________________

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012