Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-20-2015, 04:37 PM   #1
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
Anchor setting Videos

Rather than continuing to post my Anchor Setting Videos in the "Forfjord" thread, I thought I would start a new dedicated thread.

Here are the 9 previous Video's that you may have already viewed:

















__________________
Advertisement

__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 04:42 PM   #2
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
I have recently conducted 9 new tests on 5 new (to me) anchors.

-A 33 lb. Bruce COPY that failed to engage the seabed.

-A 20 lb. Genuine Danforth that performed fairly well.

-A 45 (50?) lb. CQR that took its sweet time setting.

-A 12 lb. Northill that set wonderfully but has low holding power.

-A 44 lb. Spade anchor that performed absolutely brilliantly.

Steve

Here are the Videos:

















__________________

__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 04:44 PM   #3
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
........and my most recent Video, a commentary about the 10 anchors that I have tested.

Steve

__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 05:45 PM   #4
Enigma
 
RT Firefly's Avatar
 
City: Slicker?
Country: Bumpkin?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,087
NOOOOOOOOOO.........

__________________
RTF
RT Firefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 06:02 PM   #5
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: Essex, Ct
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,087
Very interesting series of tests/videos. A couple of observations:

You should never try to set an anchor at 2.5:1 or even 3.5:1 as you did. Always set at least 5:1 and if you need a shorter scope for limited swinging room, then shorten scope after setting. Even poor holding anchors will hold decently if set at 5:1 and then reduced.

Even at 3,000 rpm and short scope I didn't see the end of the shank rising as I would expect it to do. How much force do you believe you were exerting at 3,000 rpm? Maybe not enough to lift the chain's catenary significantly.

If so the differences in 2.5:1 and 5:1 scope are negligible because the shank is horizontal in both cases, right?


Maybe a better test procedure would be to use all line rode to eliminate the catenary effect.

David
djmarchand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 08:07 PM   #6
Guru
 
angus99's Avatar
 
City: Valley Forge, PA
Country: US
Vessel Name: Stella Maris
Vessel Model: Defever 44
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,020
Great set of videos and a really clever way of seeing what's going on down there. Thanks.
angus99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 09:11 PM   #7
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
djmarchand, Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djmarchand View Post
Very interesting series of tests/videos. A couple of observations:

You should never try to set an anchor at 2.5:1 or even 3.5:1 as you did. Always set at least 5:1 and if you need a shorter scope for limited swinging room, then shorten scope after setting. Even poor holding anchors will hold decently if set at 5:1 and then reduced.

If one has an anchor that sets reliably and fully at say 3:1, I cannot imagine why setting the anchor at 5:1 would be of any benefit??? In fact, your technique would tend to mask a setting problem that may be present.

Even at 3,000 rpm and short scope I didn't see the end of the shank rising as I would expect it to do. How much force do you believe you were exerting at 3,000 rpm? Maybe not enough to lift the chain's catenary significantly.

Tough to say exactly how much force 3,000 RPM exerts. I did recently hold the boat stationary in reverse with 3,000 RPM against a gale with steady wind in the upper 30's (according to NOAA). I was surprised by this ability.

Be reminded that in virtually all the initial sets of these anchors, I was allowing the boat to develop significant momentum (2 knots). The resulting "snatches" were very abrupt and certainly produced much higher force (momentary) than the engine could produce.


If so the differences in 2.5:1 and 5:1 scope are negligible because the shank is horizontal in both cases, right?

Maybe a better test procedure would be to use all line rode to eliminate the catenary effect.

That would be an interesting test. Hard to say if that would better than tests that simulate real conditions/equipment.

Best test of short scope holding power would be to use a large and powerfull test vessel that is equipped with the ability to measure load. These types of test have been done many times. Lacking this equipment, I have focused on testing seting and re-setting ability only.


David
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 09:20 PM   #8
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by angus99 View Post
Great set of videos and a really clever way of seeing what's going on down there. Thanks.
Thanks angus,

My wife gave me the GoPro camer a couple years ago and I am sure this is the last thing in world she figured I would be using it for.

Who knows what other "tests" I can dream up. I suppose if I could somehow get the camera back, I could flush it down the toilet in order to see what's really going on down there too.

Steve
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 10:50 PM   #9
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: 5,786
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Great set of tests David, sorry, Steve. May I suggest you do the same if possible with a Rocna and the Sarca series, Super and Excel, if you can lay your hands them. Also, in view of the great performance of the Spade, the new Manson Boss, and the new Spade-like Rocna, (without a roll bar), called the Vulcan. They are very popular down under in NZ and Australia, but becoming more popular as more become available in the Northern Hemi. I am presuming you know the ones I'm referring to..? Anyone on here near enough to Steve to lend one..?

I personally have a 22kg (49lb) Super Sarca, and am very impressed with it, but many on here still have concerns re the tripping slot letting go at a bad moment. Has never happened to me in many hundreds of sets, and I found it interesting when you tried to demonstrate that with the Manson. It wouldn't do it with a reverse direction pull with the rode out, and you had to qualify things by saying to make it trip, one would need to take in all slack rode directly above, then power back over it, and I agree - that is precisely how and when it is meant to work. But seeing is believing, right..? Keep doin' what you're doin'.
Cheers,
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2015, 11:43 PM   #10
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
Thanks Peter,

I am interested in testing any and all anchors that I can get my hands on.

Rex of Anchor Right has initiated a communication with me about the testing of his anchor(s). Stay tuned.....

Steve

P.S. I quoted djmarchand above who's signature is "David" but my name is Steve.
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 09:18 AM   #11
Guru
 
READY2GO's Avatar
 
City: Marathon, Florida
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Walkabout
Vessel Model: 1978 Marine Trader 36
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 503
Panope, Thanks so much for sharing. I have wished for a long time anchor companies would do this rather than wasting our time with dragging anchors on a beach with a pickup truck. Nothing beats real world environment tests. I wish you were closer I would lend you my Sarca.

Thanks again!
__________________
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

www.mikeandsharondunsworth.blogspot.com
READY2GO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 10:25 AM   #12
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmarchand View Post
............Maybe a better test procedure would be to use all line rode to eliminate the catenary effect.

David
I did conduct a test of the Fortress anchor using a rode consisting of only 12 feet of 5/16" chain and the balance of nylon. Scope was 3 to 1. The anchor set immediately while underway at 3.6 knots. Certainly, chain catenary was providing very little "help" in setting.

Steve

__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 10:32 AM   #13
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: Essex, Ct
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,087
Steve:

I am not trying to nit pick your tests, just to understand them and offer some suggestions if you keep up this worthy exercise.

What most of us care about is an anchor that sets easily and holds well at reasonable scope. Some anchors don't set easily like the Delta, but will hold forever, at least in a straight line pull. Others set very easily (at least in sand like your tests) but lack ultimate holding power such as the Bruce.

Your tests favor the easy setting anchors like the Bruce, Spade and Manson because the tests are mostly on short scope and the anchor has to resist the momentum of a boat moving 2 kts in reverse. I am almost sure that a Delta would fail miserably in those conditions.

Also even though they probably weren't designed to do so, your tests don't say much about ultimate holding power. Some of the anchors dragged or pulled out when you applied 3,000 rpms but some didn't. I suspect that 3,000 rpms on your boat in reverse applies something less than 500 lbs of force. In studying other anchor tests, 500 lbs won't discriminate between the ok and great anchors.

From what I have seen, it takes a minimum of 1,000 lbs of holding power to be reasonably safe in high winds and preferably double that. I would be much more comfortable anchoring in a gale with a Spade or a Manson than a Bruce, even though your tests seem to indicate that they perform all the same.

I realize that you are not testing ultimate holding power, but your tests need to acknowledge that fact.


What might be interesting is to set the anchors at 5:1 at slow speed- less than 1 kt, which will probably let most that failed to set, set. Then decrease to 3:1 and see if they hold at 3,000 rpm. 3:1 is the shortest scope that I would attempt to use in a crowded anchorage.


BTW that was an interesting test of the Fortress with mostly nylon rode that you just posted. It grabbed when the scope was increased to 3:1 while moving at 3+ kts which is surprising.


David
djmarchand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2015, 11:43 AM   #14
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmarchand View Post
Steve:

I am not trying to nit pick your tests, just to understand them and offer some suggestions if you keep up this worthy exercise.

It's all good. Nit pick away!

What most of us care about is an anchor that sets easily and holds well at reasonable scope. Some anchors don't set easily like the Delta, but will hold forever, at least in a straight line pull. Others set very easily (at least in sand like your tests) but lack ultimate holding power such as the Bruce.

Your tests favor the easy setting anchors like the Bruce, Spade and Manson because the tests are mostly on short scope and the anchor has to resist the momentum of a boat moving 2 kts in reverse. I am almost sure that a Delta would fail miserably in those conditions.

Also even though they probably weren't designed to do so, your tests don't say much about ultimate holding power. Some of the anchors dragged or pulled out when you applied 3,000 rpms but some didn't. I suspect that 3,000 rpms on your boat in reverse applies something less than 500 lbs of force. In studying other anchor tests, 500 lbs won't discriminate between the ok and great anchors.

I am currently seeking load cell test equipment and will conduct a dock side bollard pull test when able.

I did recently hold the boat stationary in reverse against a gale (upper 30's, NOAA measured) at 3,000 RPM. Engine is 40 HP. Propeller is a fixed, three blade of 18" diameter. This propeller is larger than normal (for sailboats) but I was still surprised by this good reverse performance.


From what I have seen, it takes a minimum of 1,000 lbs of holding power to be reasonably safe in high winds and preferably double that. I would be much more comfortable anchoring in a gale with a Spade or a Manson than a Bruce, even though your tests seem to indicate that they perform all the same.

I realize that you are not testing ultimate holding power, but your tests need to acknowledge that fact.

Agreed. I should make that point even more obvious.

What might be interesting is to set the anchors at 5:1 at slow speed- less than 1 kt, which will probably let most that failed to set, set. Then decrease to 3:1 and see if they hold at 3,000 rpm. 3:1 is the shortest scope that I would attempt to use in a crowded anchorage.

Actually, the only anchor that COMPETELY failed to engage the bottom (Danforth COPY) did get tested at 5 to 1 scope and with a slow pull (Watch the whole video as scope is increased about half way through. See below).

The other anchor that only partially engaged (at scope of more than 3 to 1) was the Bruce COPY - an anchor type that normally does well at short scope. I believe this anchor failed because it is a bad copy/wrong shape. The Genuine Bruce of the same weight set instantly at 3.5 to 1


BTW that was an interesting test of the Fortress with mostly nylon rode that you just posted. It grabbed when the scope was increased to 3:1 while moving at 3+ kts which is surprising.

Agreed, It was surprising. And just to clarify, the scope needed to be increased because the anchor as trying to "fly" away from the seabed. At less than 3 to 1 and at that particular speed (and with that mostly rope rode), the anchor would never have made it to the bottom.
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 01:05 PM   #15
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,063
David,
Steve's tests may appear to favor certain anchors. I think it is entirely because he's using the anchors he has at hand. Nothing more.


"never" setting an anchor at less that 3-1 would be restrictive in the PNW IMO but some even in this area disagree w that. However I can think of only one. If I have room to anchor w more than 3-1 I will do so. The only reason that anyone will anchor short is because they have no option. But to imply that it is stupid or irresponsible is not taking reality into consideration.
Having said that there are obviously many that agree as numerous serious and extensive anchor tests have gone to a lot of trouble testing at 3-1. Also one should consider that setting and holding at short scope tells more about overall anchor performance than anything else. Most any anchor will hold at long scope but separating the good from the bad is much more easily done at short scope.

Something very important is the set long and shorten up style. I'm very glad you brought this up David. A good overall anchor will set and hold in most conditions at 3-1 scope. But I would submit that probably any anchor will benefit from a 4 or 5-1 scope set. It should set deeper and that clearly will allow the anchor to hold better at short scope when the rode is shortened up. It's a little extra work but an advantage unless the bottom (the biggest variable) won't allow the greater penetration advantage. This is nothing new but warrants repeating IMO. Glad you brought it up David.

The title of this thread is "Anchor Setting Videos". Steve, You, me and everybody else would like it to reveal much more but that's all it is and proclaimed to be.

These vids by Steve have revealed the tendency of the anchor shanks to stay on the bottom when short scope would seemingly lift up the end of the anchor shank making it much more vulnerable to breaking out. There was a TF guy a year or so ago that posted many pics of anchors set on the bottom whereas many shank tips (attach points) were right on the bottom or slightly under and the mid-shank and/or roll bars were above the surface of the bottom. That was a big surprise to me. I had often wondered how anchors set or held w the shank inline w the rode at short scope should pull the anchor out. Apparently the drag of the fluke and it's angle pin the end of the shank down. So the lever action that does this is very important. It's just amazing that it does so at short scope. Before these vids I had assumed that the shank picked up the angle of the rode at the attach point. It's exciting to contemplate that more revelations will over time occur.

These vids are wonderful and I hope Steve doesn't run out of steam. Thank you Steve.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 01:38 PM   #16
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
Thanks, Eric. I will keep testing for the time being. Tuesday, A friend is bringing a 100 pound Fisherman and a 44 pound Genuine Bruce for testing. I am also arranging a Delta and a big Mantus for testing. Stay tuned.....

Stve
__________________
If I visualize my boat without a mast, I see a trawler.
Panope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 02:33 PM   #17
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: Essex, Ct
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,087
I hadn't considered that the fluke was actually levering the shank down parallel to the bottom in these tests. That might be so. I also think that the relatively low pull force at 3,000 rpms lets the catenary of the heavy 3/8" chain keep it down as well. Both would go away as more force is applied or nylon rode used. In general once the fluke angle into the bottom gets levered up past horizontal due to short scope pulling, any anchor is going to pull out unless it is stuck deep in stiff soils that will resist the force.


And I meant I would never set an anchor at 3:1 not use one at 3:1. Although in hundreds of overnight anchorages, I don't think I have used less than 4:1 scope.


Rocna used to have a tiny anchor in a demo pull rig that they would set up at boat shows. You pulled the anchor chain by hand while it dragged across the sand bed. The anchor would usually not set until greater than 3:1 and would set deeply at 5:1 or greater. Then if you shortened the scope it would still hold well. That little rig probably sold a bunch of Rocnas over the years including to me.


BTW, on my boat I have progressed from a 35 lb Delta that came with the boat (holds well when finally set, but it is a bitch to set even at 6:1), to a 35 lb genuine Bruce that was given to me (sets every time but doesn't have as much ultimate holding power as the Delta) to a new Manson Boss that I picked up on Amazon at a ridiculously cheap price a few months ago. The Boss has a huge fluke area and a heavily weighted tip. I suspect that it will work as well at setting and holding as a Rocna I had on another boat. I will get to try it out next year.


It would be interesting to see setting videos of a Boss or Rocna's Vulcan. Unfortunately I am about 2,500 miles away or you could use mine.


David
djmarchand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 04:33 PM   #18
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panope View Post
...and a big Mantus for testing. Stay tuned....
I'll be watching for that one

Your friend probably won't go for it, but I'd be interested to see how a Mantus behaves without the roll bar.
__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 04:59 PM   #19
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,063
Murray,
I tried that w a Supreme. On the first deployment it must have landed up-side-down as it dragged along like a sack of tools. Haven't put my mod on to prevent that yet.

David,
I think I finally figured out how the Bruce is different than the Claws. They are made forged (I think) and are stronger. So the fluke tips and edges are sharper. I have a 33lb Lewmar that I've ground down resulting in much sharper edges. May bend or break off though ???
Re scope I've used 2-1 but not w any real wind.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2015, 06:11 PM   #20
Guru
 
MurrayM's Avatar
 
City: Kitimat, North Coast BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Badger
Vessel Model: 30' Sundowner Tug
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Murray,
I tried that w a Supreme. On the first deployment it must have landed up-side-down as it dragged along like a sack of tools.
Hi Eric.

On the Mantus site they show one being dropped without the roll bar, and it sort of 'glides' forward from the boat at about a 1:1 ratio (45-ish degree angle slope) landing pointy end down. Aren't you curious?
__________________

__________________
"The most interesting path between two points is not a straight line" Murray Minchin
MurrayM 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 12:47 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