Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-25-2016, 08:30 AM   #441
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,792
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Peter,
Dimples maybe less friction. Buttons no. Prolly both bring up more mud. But who knows? I think you're chances of getting Steve to test buttons and dimples is about 200-1. However preliminary testing could possibly be done at low tide by hand. Got anything to do today?
Who mentioned buttons..? I certainly didn't. I don't think anything other than a smooth surface makes any sense for anchors, other than the basic shape, that is, and I agree with Rex. To loose the stuff, stay with convex.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 09:53 AM   #442
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,083
Peter I mentioned buttons .. in one form or another ... like small (or I suppose large in on a large device) ... like rivet heads. Aluminum skiffs have some on their bottoms if they are riveted .. but an extremely small % of the hull bottom. Anyway I agree w you.

But as to the anchor being able to sluff off the mud as the anchor comes up I think you're giving it way too much attention and merit. On my last long voyage I didn't need to use my washdown system, that I don't have .. even once. It's just not a big deal. And most all boats here on the forum have the anchor out on the bow whereas if you just ignored the mud it would'nt get on youtr boat. It would just fall off into the water. I have seen boats at our marina w significant amounts of old dried up mud clinging to the anchor and thought "how sloppy" but a moment later thinking "who cares". The mud will either fall off in the sun or when the anchor gets deployed again. I just don't see a bit of mud as a problem.

Having said that, up to this point I've been bringing all my anchors on deck to be secured there or stowed below. Then the mud matters, however it's a rare occurance (for me) and I have used quite a few different anchors.

You and Rex are promoting that as you're anchors do well sluffing off the bottom brought up but most of us don't consider it a big deal. At least that's what I think. But if I'm wrong I'll need to grovel on the floor, deck or ground.
__________________

__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 10:01 AM   #443
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Peter I mentioned buttons .. in one form or another ... like small (or I suppose large in on a large device) ... like rivet heads. Aluminum skiffs have some on their bottoms if they are riveted .. but an extremely small % of the hull bottom. Anyway I agree w you.

But as to the anchor being able to sluff off the mud as the anchor comes up I think you're giving it way too much attention and merit. On my last long voyage I didn't need to use my washdown system, that I don't have .. even once. It's just not a big deal. And most all boats here on the forum have the anchor out on the bow whereas if you just ignored the mud it would'nt get on youtr boat. It would just fall off into the water. I have seen boats at our marina w significant amounts of old dried up mud clinging to the anchor and thought "how sloppy" but a moment later thinking "who cares". The mud will either fall off in the sun or when the anchor gets deployed again. I just don't see a bit of mud as a problem.

Having said that, up to this point I've been bringing all my anchors on deck to be secured there or stowed below. Then the mud matters, however it's a rare occurance (for me) and I have used quite a few different anchors.

You and Rex are promoting that as you're anchors do well sluffing off the bottom brought up but most of us don't consider it a big deal. At least that's what I think. But if I'm wrong I'll need to grovel on the floor, deck or ground.
With aluminum such as a Fortress... If mud is clinging on to it when raised... there is little problem re-dunking the light weight anchor into water for getting mud off flukes. Can become a good aerobic work out off the bow, over bow rail if the mud is sticky enough!
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 11:07 AM   #444
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,083
Art,
With my smaller anchors I do that sometimes w steel anchors. Probably will use a brush on the bigger Claw .. 33lb Lewmar.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 12:28 PM   #445
Veteran Member
 
City: Anacortes
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 62
On a steel anchor I wouldn't think you'd want to file through the galvanize or the anodize on an aluminum anchor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
Should sharp(ish) dig in/cut in edges be kept sharpish? Careful filing when necessary?
sean9c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 01:11 PM   #446
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,083
sean9c,
I do it on steel quite regularly.
Coat it afterwards w spray cold galvanize. I've used Barnacle Buster by Petit and CG by Rust-Oleum among others. I'm amazed at how well it works .. like how long it lasts. One would think a mud/gravel mix would abrade it right off. I've taken most of my anchors to the grinder. I always put on the cold zinc very soon after grinding before any significant oxidation occurs. And I keep the exposed surfaces clean.

But aluminum anodised is another matter. The ano is considerably harder than most common aluminum but once removed aluminum will corrode freely. How fast will depend a lot on what alloy. 6061 and the 5000 series alloys are quire resistsnt to corrosion but 2024 will go much faster.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 09:26 PM   #447
Moderator Emeritus
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 6,012
Washdown on retrieve includes cleaning chain, as well as anchor. Mud settling in the chain locker is not good.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 09:57 PM   #448
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,083
BruceK,
I agree totally.
That's why I put my entire 450' rode in a box on deck.
Don't wash my Brait line very often. I use a stiff brush on the concrete walkway.

On our trip to Alaska in the Albin the anchor locker got rather stinky on the way home. So I put an end to it.

I was going to say it's not an option on bigger boats but I actually think it is. I use line but chain could be used w a windlass slightly above deck like many here have anyway. Just would have to pick up the chain as it fell out from underneath the windlass. I don't know how big an anchor could be pulled w a capstan. With a big anchor (50lbs) and 10' of chain it would be very hard to pull the last 12' of rode aboard. My present 33lb anchor not so much.

But I doubt very many will be interested in pulling a 50lb anchor even 12'. A lot of guys here won't even go out on the bow.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 10:13 PM   #449
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,792
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
You and Rex are promoting that as you're anchors do well sluffing off the bottom brought up but most of us don't consider it a big deal. At least that's what I think. But if I'm wrong I'll need to grovel on the floor, deck or ground.
Yes, indeed Eric, get grovelling...did Steve's excellent anchor setting videos not demonstrate beautifully the sloughing off of the bottom stuff rather well in virtually all cases with the Sarcas..?

However, I have to admit, when I anchor in parts of our bay which have on the bottom mud I can only describes as 'weapons grade' then I cheat a bit by stopping the anchor just under the waterline, and then motoring out slowly for a few hundred yards (or metres) until it is swished off, then retrieving the anchor...
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 11:07 PM   #450
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,083
Peter wrote,
"slowly for a few hundred yards (or metres) until it is swished off, then retrieving the anchor... "

How does that work? Thought of doing that after pulling up a badly fouled Danforth ... not much of the Dan was sticking out it was such a big black and stinky ball of mud. Took me quite awhile to brush off the mud. I kinda feared it may get into the prop ... but I guess it would'nt under 3 knots.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 11:25 PM   #451
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,792
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Peter wrote,
"slowly for a few hundred yards (or metres) until it is swished off, then retrieving the anchor... "

How does that work? Thought of doing that after pulling up a badly fouled Danforth ... not much of the Dan was sticking out it was such a big black and stinky ball of mud. Took me quite awhile to brush off the mud. I kinda feared it may get into the prop ... but I guess it would'nt under 3 knots.
Works quite well for the Sarca, or any other single flukes anchor I expect, because the water flow is then onto the top of the fluke, where the stuff is gathered. It might not work so well with the Danforth type, because the twin flukes are offset, but more relevant is that stuff tends to jam or wrap around the T-shape formed by the stock and shank. You need to go slow enough so the anchor does not hit the bow knuckle, but there is no risk of anything reaching the prop, so worth a try at least.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2016, 04:04 PM   #452
Senior Member
 
Panope's Avatar
 
City: Port Townsend WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Panope
Vessel Model: Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 279
Here is my latest offering. I picked up where I left off with the Fortress re-set testing in video #60

Steve

Video #61:
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2016, 02:35 PM   #453
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,083
Good to see you back Steve,
Yes the bottom there is perfect for anchoring except for the flora on the bottom. I think that stuff gave you trouble w the Manson too. Plugged the RB hole .. plugged the fluke slot .. same difference as the anchors became ineffective.

For your vidio routine you need to operate in shallow water where there is enough light for the camra but the weed likes the light too. The ribbon like Kelp like stuff dos'nt appear to be a problem but the reddish brown stuff that slightly resembles scotch bright rammed w muddy sand can plug orfices quite well. Deeper water almost certianly dos'nt have the weed issue.

To be fair to Fortress perhaps finding the same kind of sand/mud bottom that was 40-50' deep would produce excellent results.
But anchoring carefully and w/o the quick motions would be much more typical of everyday anchoring. I have never done or experienced anything like your quick reversals but you're right the ideal anchor should be able to handle it.

Weather is sure nice now .....
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 01:24 AM   #454
Senior Member
 
Panope's Avatar
 
City: Port Townsend WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Panope
Vessel Model: Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 279
Good to be back, Eric. And yes, the weather makes for much more enjoyable testing although my diesel furnace sure made for a cozy way to warm my fingers during winter testing.

This was a challenging test for me to publish because I really did not want to show or say anything negative about my Fortress anchor (which I love) or the Fortress company (which I have the utmost respect for) and especially Brian (who I think is a good person).

However, of all the potential ways that I could destroy whatever credibility my testing has, inconsistency would be most direct. I have been pretty brutal with other, highly respected anchors (Mantus, Manson for example) that I found fault with and ignoring a Fortress fault or creating a favorable test environment would not be right.

If I were to test the fortress in deeper water than the other anchors, then I would then need to re-test ALL the other anchors, and I just cannot keep doing this testing unless someone starts paying me, not with anchors, but with cold hard cash!

Unfortunately, my being payed would be the second most effective way for me to lose credibility so really my testing future is a catch-22.

All that said, I believe the vegetation had less effect on the fortress' problems than you surmise. My analysis of the footage concludes that the vast majority of the vegetation on the anchor was a RESULT of the anchor dragging, not the CAUSE. My belief is that the cause of the anchor dragging in the second and third attempts, was seabed attachment (the exception was test #1 where the chain was somehow stuck along side the anchor).

I Know that your (Eric's) comments and suggestions are all positive and intended to only improve my testing and I appreciate this good natured input. Unfortunately, I have also received some feedback (from someone that you do not know) concerning this video that not only challenges the validity of the test but also attacks my credibility as a tester.

The bottom line is that anchor testing involves a huge number of physical variables, personalities, agendas, beliefs and yes, emotions. Trying to present a body of work as vast as I have produced in a valid way that does not bore the average person to tears, has been my greatest challenge. It has been a totally worth while endeavor.

Steve
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 06:34 AM   #455
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12,957
Steve your test pretty much confirmed everything that I have experienced with that style anchor...plus the many reports I received in years of teaching boating safety and captains licensing.


Students would ask about the different types of anchors and I would give my experiences. I would get mixed discussions about whether Danforth style anchors and their setting issues...


The interesting thing were the phone calls from a few that became charter guys who bought them for the convenience of using them...but got rid of them after they failed to set in emergency situations.


So all the way back to something like my first post before the Chesapeake mud tests...both those tests and yours have fallen right in line with my personal experience. Though my opinion of these style anchors goes back at least 30 years.


To be fair, I do think certain anchor designs perform totally different once the reach a certain size. The scale of the anchor versus what they incur from the bottom and setting in general, possibly ratio between anchor and chain weight, etc, etc.....then there may be a substantial difference in performance.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 07:54 AM   #456
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panope View Post
Good to be back, Eric. And yes, the weather makes for much more enjoyable testing although my diesel furnace sure made for a cozy way to warm my fingers during winter testing.

This was a challenging test for me to publish because I really did not want to show or say anything negative about my Fortress anchor (which I love) or the Fortress company (which I have the utmost respect for) and especially Brian (who I think is a good person).

However, of all the potential ways that I could destroy whatever credibility my testing has, inconsistency would be most direct. I have been pretty brutal with other, highly respected anchors (Mantus, Manson for example) that I found fault with and ignoring a Fortress fault or creating a favorable test environment would not be right.

If I were to test the fortress in deeper water than the other anchors, then I would then need to re-test ALL the other anchors, and I just cannot keep doing this testing unless someone starts paying me, not with anchors, but with cold hard cash!

Unfortunately, my being payed would be the second most effective way for me to lose credibility so really my testing future is a catch-22.

All that said, I believe the vegetation had less effect on the fortress' problems than you surmise. My analysis of the footage concludes that the vast majority of the vegetation on the anchor was a RESULT of the anchor dragging, not the CAUSE. My belief is that the cause of the anchor dragging in the second and third attempts, was seabed attachment (the exception was test #1 where the chain was somehow stuck along side the anchor).

I Know that your (Eric's) comments and suggestions are all positive and intended to only improve my testing and I appreciate this good natured input. Unfortunately, I have also received some feedback (from someone that you do not know) concerning this video that not only challenges the validity of the test but also attacks my credibility as a tester.

The bottom line is that anchor testing involves a huge number of physical variables, personalities, agendas, beliefs and yes, emotions. Trying to present a body of work as vast as I have produced in a valid way that does not bore the average person to tears, has been my greatest challenge. It has been a totally worth while endeavor.

Steve
Steve

"It has been a totally worth while endeavor." Supreme understatement.

Can't thank you enough for your hard work and diligence. Best anchor review ever!

Art
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 08:28 AM   #457
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,792
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Steve, one of the things about the Danforth/Fortress style of anchor, which has always bothered me, and in my view accounts for the variable setting reliability, especially in firmer bottoms, or bottoms with significant debris or growth, is that with respect to the size of anchors we boaters use, (excluding the dreadnaught, and other large ship types"), they are the only ones in common use which effectively lie flat on the surface when first deployed, because of the way they are hinged to go either way. This means there is no inherent throat angle forcing the tip down, and it therefore has to be dragged a distance in order for the fluke that is slightly angled, to engage the substrate, and while that is happening, it is all too easy for a fluke to pick up something that covers the tip, or jams in between fluke and shank, or worse still, it drags so far, the flukes can become badly fouled, and it just continues to drag. I think your video highlights this very well. As psneeld says, it's that uncertainty re the set that's the concern. If they do set, they are good. It's the 'if' that is unnerving...
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 08:45 AM   #458
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,596
My decades experience for initially setting Danforth style anchors.

Regarding setting Fortress anchor flukes into sea bed... when first letting into water so flukes hit bottom in the correct angle to shank (and with shank at correct angle to rode so flukes are at correct angle to best impale bottom):


1. Lower anchor relatively slowly into water while feeding plenty of scope out (roughly at 3 to 4 foot depth per second). In other words... don't just toss it overboard from a standstill boat with unrestricted free fall to the bottom and simply gobs of rode dropped in thereafter.


2. As anchor is being lowered back away from anchor at idle speed or slightly more (this water "flow" against flukes and the pull of rode on shank keeps direction of flukes in best attitude for impaling bottom upon contact.

3. Once anchor is surly on bottom and ample rode-scope has been played out then chock rode firmly (while still backing at very slow speed).

4. Maintain same very low (basically idle) backing speed to set flukes into bottom. Use land marks for visuals on boat movement/stopped-movement.

5. Once anchor set is apparent... slowly increase engine rpm somewhat to make sure flukes have firmly/deeply/correctly impaled the bottom surface. Then, shut off engine.

6. Upon learning to accomplish correct anchor setting you could say we become "Anchor Set Whispers"

7. Enjoy being firmly/correctly anchored.

Happy Anchor-Set Daze! - Art
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 09:15 AM   #459
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12,957
The point of a primary anchor is one that you can let go in seconds and all but abandon, you also may not have controllability or power.

Those are the other half of requirements of an all purpose primary anchor....anchoring for a hurricane can be planned for, several or one high holding power anchor set, and have the luxury of testing it's set.

Danforth style in smaller sizes.....just too many no or hard to set stories for my taste...especially when they confirm a lifetime of anchoring experience....particularly at times when anchoring in urgent situations.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2016, 10:01 AM   #460
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 144
I have a great respect for Steve and the amount of time and effort he has put into his anchor testing project. Truly admirable!

This was not the first time that our anchor didn't performed admirably in an anchor test and it will certainly not be the last with all of the variables involved with setting techniques and bottom conditions.

On the very first day and test of the Fortress anchor in the Chesapeake Bay test, and under the very watchful eyes of the boating writers aboard, the anchor just flat-lined right across the bottom and did not set.

One of the boating writers mentioned in his story that he overheard a Fortress rep say, "Well, at least no one can say that the test was rigged." I am glad that the writer did not hear me wonder aloud about whether a nearby bridge was high enough to jump off of!

In soft mud we recommend setting our anchor at a short scope to insure that the shank does not sink below the flukes, but since no other anchor manufacturer makes this recommendation, we did not include it in our testing protocol.


Regarding Steve's very difficult test for the 10 lb FX-16, I sent a link of the video to our US Navy anchor design / soil mechanics expert and consultant, Bob Taylor, for his opinion.

Among his comments, he expressed a concern for the negative upward affect on this light anchor from the two attached lines, particularly when the boat was moving with some speed, and it appeared that one of the lines was under a fluke which would have prevented it from pointing down.

Add to this a short testing scope of 3.5 to 1, which would also create a vertical pull on the 10 lb anchor, plus a moving 34-ft / 15k lb boat and the word "challenging" immediately comes to mind for a description of the test for this light anchor!

But I encourage Steve to keep up the good work and maybe we should all create a site for donations?

Safe anchoring,
Brian
__________________

Fortress Anchors 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 10:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012