Anchor slot/hole

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:

I've only used the Manson Supreme several times and aren't thrilled w it judging how it sets. What do the experts on your float say about it Marin?

Most of the anchoring "experts" I've talked to tend to favor "old generation" anchors since that's what they have, have used for years if not decades, and trust.* However I am seeing more Rocnas on boats around here, from sailboats to a 50' Nordhavn, and a lot of people on the GB owners forum have switched or are switching to them.

I don't know that I've read any specific comments saying the Manson's setting characteristics are less than ideal.* The only argument against them I recall reading are the comments about the slot I related earlier.

I suspect that with the appropriate rode, scope ratio, and setting technique, a Manson is a satisfactory anchor with regards to setting and holding.* The slot is the iffy item, not the basic anchor.

If one tries to use an inappropriate rode or too short of a scope or both I believe any anchor type short of a submerged tower skidder will prove to be problematic.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 01:27:46 AM

 

[markpierce]

Marin wrote:

... *I am seeing more Rocnas on boats around here, from sailboats to a 50' Nordhavn, and a lot of people on the GB owners forum have switched or are switching to them.

They're behind the times.* They need to spend two or three times as much and get the Ultra anchor from Quickline to be up-to-date.

*

 

[Codger2]

Marin wrote:If one tries to use an inappropriate rode or too short of a scope or both I believe any anchor type short of a submerged tower skidder will prove to be problematic.

Good statement. Let's try changing just a few words.

If one uses an appropriate rode, & a scope that is long enough or both, I believe any anchor type, short of a submerged tower skidder will prove to be adequate.** (yes/no?)

*

 

[Marin]

SeaHorse II wrote:

*
Marin wrote:If one tries to use an inappropriate rode or too short of a scope or both I believe any anchor type short of a submerged tower skidder will prove to be problematic.

Good statement. Let's try changing just a few words.

If one uses an appropriate rode, & a scope that is long enough or both, I believe any anchor type, short of a submerged tower skidder will prove to be adequate.** (yes/no?)

I don't really agree with that because I think some anchor designs are just not suited for some bottoms.* I personally don't think the Bruce design is suited for ANY bottom when scaled down to the size most recreational boaters use, but a perhaps more universally accepted view is that the Danforth design is not well suited for rocky bottoms or weedy bottoms.* So even with the right rode and scope this anchor may not set or hold well in those conditions.

Eric's continued attemts to anchor using off-the-shelf anchor types with a lightweight rode and a short scope I feel are self-defeating because what he's trying to do simply won't work reliably because he's flying in the face of physics, if you will.* A lighweight rode and a very short scope CAN work if you have a massive anchor that by its sheer size and weight will keep the boat in position.* Unfortunately, an anchor of this size will probably be too large and too heavy to carry conveniently on Willy's bow.

*


-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 12:32:57 PM

 

[Nomad Willy]

That would prolly be a 44lb claw, a 15lb Fortress, a 55lb Forfjord, a 35lb Delta, CQR or Danforth, a 25lb Spade, Sarca, Manson Supreme or Rocna or a 10lb Bubble.
"CAN work if you have a massive anchor that by its sheer size and weight will keep the boat in position.* Unfortunately, an anchor of this size will probably be too large and too heavy to carry conveniently on Willy's bow." Your'e suggesting I have both the heavy anchor and the heavy rode and throw in a winch too. If I was to get all this ground tackle I'd be out $6,000 dollars and add 500lbs to the bow of Willy. Unacceptable. The 15lb Fortress would probably hold Willy in a 50 knot blow w a rope rode at 5-1 scope. That's getting very close to acceptable so maybe if I use my Supreme w 12lbs of lead on the end of the shank I could anchor in rocks or hard grass. The possibilities sends my mind running everywhere. I think my best Idea is a 33lb claw w the 12lb lead ballast on it's shank w a small electric winch and all line rode. That would be $600 and less than 100lbs. Perhaps 10' of 1/2" chain but I don't know if I could easily pull that last 10'. Unless I think of something better I'll prolly try that.

*

 

[Marin]

Eric---- I don't think the fundamental flaw in your quest is the type of anchor but your idea of using a very short scope, a minimum of weight in your rode, and a fairly light anchor. I completely understand your reasons for wanting to do each of these things, but I think you're running up against physics. Or geometry. Or both.

The conditions you've set for yourself seem to me a bit like the fellow who says "I want to build an airplane that will haul 10 people plus baggage but the wing span can only be 18 feet because that's how wide my hangar is." I think there are some things that simply don't work well regardless of the compelling reason to do it, and I believe you may have hit on one of them.

Most boaters, including the experienced ones who cruise a lot and anchor out frequently, seem to have a single setup they use under almost all conditions and it works great for them. Anchor sets well, stays set, doesn't drag, and so on. But so far as I've been able to tell, none of them are doing what you're trying to do. They use an appropriately sized anchor for their boat (or bigger), they use an appropriately-weighted rode, be it all-chain or combination, and they let out the amount of scope that's been proven for decades if not centuries to work. If this rig requires a powerful windlass to haul itl up, they have a powerful windlass. If they encounter an anchoring situation that this rig doesn't work for--- extremely deep anchorages with little swinging room, for example, they anchor someplace else.

It's interesting hearing about your attempts to find the solution to your challenge, and if you come up with one that truly works well I think what you learn will be of value for all of us. But at this point, anyway, from what you've related so far, he deck seems very much stacked against you.

What do you think?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Very Very well put Marin. Especially "I want to build an airplane that will haul 10 people plus baggage but the wing span can only be 18 feet because that's how wide my hangar is."Makes me look a little foolish and I usually don't really like analogies but that's a good one. I like things the way I like'em. I decided I didn't want any seawater on my engine so I put all the seawater stuff elsewhere***** ....no problem. I don't want chain in my anchor locker, on my deck or anywhere. Don't want anymore weight than necessary and I actually have had anchors work well at less than 3-1 scope. I don't like the gypsy that does chain and line both. I think it must do damage to the line despite what some say. And unlike you I don't believe that the boat half of an all chain rode does anyone any good.So add my stubbornness to the equation as well. But I better cave in on someth'in here fairly soon as we're going to do a lot of boating this summer. That's honestly what I think**** ....since you asked so nicely.

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote: Makes me look a little foolish
I don't think it makes you look foolish at all because you are approaching the issue with what seems to me to be a high degree of thought and logic. And I do understand the reasoning behind what you're trying to do.* I just wonder if what you're aiming at isn't hittable.

The good news is that, whether you want it or not, *you have a completely workable Plan B.* This is to use a "conventional" setup of a right-size and weight*anchor and a long, right-size rode. This may preclude your anchoring in some of the places you'd like to anchor using your super-short scope, lightweight rode and lightweight anchor theory.* But as long as you have Plan B available, you can work on trying to gin up Plan A without the risk of being caught out*with no other option.

*

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

Eric
You are an experienced boat operator. Only you know the capabilities of Nomad Willy. Sometimes these threads get carried away for the sake of argument (imho). Rather than let myself and others argue the merits of brand XYZ, anchor flavor of the week- go with what YOU know works. A good compromise of safety and cost for your situation. Refuse to let the yachting establishment
dictate or make you second guess your choice.
Just because something is "old" and we are used to it, does not mean it is wrong or won't work.
You won't put your rig in harms way intentionally. Any anchor and rode that lets you sleep at night is the right choice. That is real "insurance". As Helen Keller said "security is an mostly an illusion"

 

[Peter B]

nomadwilly wrote:PS,

Peter,** your'e boat looks bigger from the stern but better from the bow.
________________________________________

Eric, she's swinging on the Sarca trying to reproduce this breaking out of the anchor thing.....
Seriously tho, Eric, what weight is your manson?* Like Marin, I also tend to feel you are backing yourself into a corner trying to meet all your particular criteria - something has to give, and the weight of the anchor is probably one.* Personally, I would love to see you fitted out with a number 5 Sarca, (mine is a number 6, 20kg (44lbs), and even if there are no US distributors yet, that may change.* However, you have a Manson Supreme, and looking up their website, the ideal M/S for your vessel is their 25 lb one, but I suspect you bought one smaller than that.* I think you worry too much about weight up front really.* My suggestion would be, either go with your nylon rode and 30 feet of 3/8 chain, and then put on the end of it your (?12 lb) Manson, but purchase an Anchor Buddy or equivalent, (type of sliding weight which can be lowered to the sea floor in iffy conditions, however there is debate re their effectiveness), or better still, sell your present M/S, and get one in the 25-30 lb range, better suited to your boat, and keep it simple.* You could feasibly hand pull a 25 lb'er, but your drum windlass idea would be better and much more enjoyable.* But please stop frigging round with all those other outmoded/weird designs....

*


-- Edited by Peter B on Thursday 27th of January 2011 07:34:12 AM

 

[Codger2]

Sailor of Fortune wrote:
Sometimes these threads get carried away for the sake of argument...* go with what YOU know works.....
Just because something is "old" and we are used to it, does not mean it is wrong or won't work.

Amen, brother.

*

 

[Codger2]

Peter B wrote:" I think you worry too much about weight up front really. "

I disagree. To keep the bow as light as is practical is a good seamanship. I have a horror story about an idiot (me) that had too much weight in the bow but lived to correct the problem." And that's all I have to say about that."

*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Well Peter,* your'e not going to bust out much w your rode hang'in straight down. Ha Ha "I suspect you bought one smaller than that" Yes. It's listed at 15lbs but weighs in at 17. My scale is correct and I think anchor weight should be advertised correctly so I'm not impressed and yes I should have the 25lb MS but it's prolly 27 or 28lbs???? I can pull the 17lb fine w 10 or 12' of chain but I'm going to get a Fortress so I won't need the MS very often. I really want a 33lb Manson Ray but they cost $900.

AND I'd need a winch to haul it up.

Sailor of Fortune,** Yes it's easy to align one's thoughts w bigger boats when one associates w those that have bigger boats. Willy's 8 tons but has only average windage.
I almost NEVER anchor in lumpy water. Almost always calm but 50kn winds are not rare. So the Fortress that will replace the original Danforth on the boat should be at least adequate up to that (except rocks) or more wind. And at 60+ I'd need to spend the night in the wheelhouse w any anchor. Your advice is excellent. Get out of the computer talk (mostly of larger boats) and take stock of my specific requirements. Your good judgement is no doubt one of the reasons you have the job you have. Thanks for sharing.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Thursday 27th of January 2011 02:50:34 PM

 

[Peter B]

SeaHorse II wrote:Peter B wrote:" I think you worry too much about weight up front really. "

I disagree. To keep the bow as light as is practical is a good seamanship. I have a horror story about an idiot (me) that had too much weight in the bow but lived to correct the problem." And that's all I have to say about that."

Good point Walt, but realistically, for Eric to have a mainly nylon rode, plus 30 ft of correct weight chain, then a properly weighted anchor up front, we are still not even talking of much more than the weight of a man on the foredeck, and I think a 30 ft 8 ton boat is more than up to that without unsettling pitch behaviour, surely.* He just seems to be going round and round in unnecessary circles over this anchoring business, trying as Marin said, to make the physics fit the scenario he wants, rather than the inevitable other way round.

*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Good point Peter but the Danforth has proven to me it's short scope abilities and later if I feel the need for chain I can attach a 12lb lead weight to the end of the shank and that should hold the shank down as well as about 24lbs of chain. Setting the anchor hard instead of light will also increase my level of performance. A deeply set anchor dosn't require as much catenary. Peter, I don't have the desire to have the correct or proper weight of chain but I do have the need to have things that work. By the way Peter, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if one welded up those slots in the SARCA it may out perform the Rocna and maybe even the Fortress. I still don't see any SARCA outlet in the US.

 

[FF]

I disagree. To keep the bow as light as is practical is a good seamanship.

Good theory , but in reality ???

Our 50 ft Lobster boat is VERY light for its size under 10 long tons .

My bride is about 110 lbs and it is imperceptible to see the bow go down when she walks forward.

So a 60 CQR ans a 60 Danforth might in theory be better stowed in the bilge ,

but to me its better Seamanship to have them instantly ready in bow rollers.

 

[Peter B]

nomadwilly wrote:Good point Peter but the Danforth has proven to me it's short scope abilities and later if I feel the need for chain I can attach a 12lb lead weight to the end of the shank and that should hold the shank down as well as about 24lbs of chain. Setting the anchor hard instead of light will also increase my level of performance. A deeply set anchor dosn't require as much catenary. Peter, I don't have the desire to have the correct or proper weight of chain but I do have the need to have things that work. By the way Peter, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if one welded up those slots in the SARCA it may out perform the Rocna and maybe even the Fortress. I still don't see any SARCA outlet in the US.

I know it does, with the slot just like it is Eric.* However, I am begining to wonder, if one didn't mind waiting a bit, whether it might not be a worthwhile investment for you to order an approriately weighted Sarca, (as advised by the company for you boat's weight and length), and even just pay the shipping yourself....?
Give them a call/email, whatever - I'd be really interested to hear the outcome.... Maybe you might prod them into getting a North American agent...?
http://www.anchorright.com.au/products/show-anchors?id=7

*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter,
I sent an inquiry to the SARCA people. I also reviewed the web site. It seems the SARCA penetrates deeper than the Manson Supreme. The MS seems to plow along the just below the surface making a mess of same while the SARCA looks really good digging deeper and presumably holding better. Looks good to me.

 

[Peter B]

Eric, I'll be interested to hear what they come back with to you. How hard can it be to get a 33 odd lb anchor shipped from here to there if not in a hurry...? Looking at their chart you would need the #5 =14.8 kgs = 33 lbs, or the #6, like mine, which is 22kgs = 48 lbs, but they would advise on that. If your boat is 8 ton, then it's heavy for a 30 footer, and might need the bigger one. It would mean a power winch also however, or you'd kill yourself hauling it. But I promise you this, if you did it, and the winch, with a gypsy suitable for chain/rope rode, (allowing for the depths you anchor in and not wanting too much weight up for'd), you would neeeever regret it, and you just loooove anchoring out. Failing that - same setup as above, but suitably sized Rocna, which you can get. Pity about the Manson Supreme, but what Craig Smith says fits with what I have researched as well. You might say it is a knock-off or hybrid mix of the Rocna and Sarca, and copies which are hybrids are definitely sus in my view. But hey, it could be your 'other' anchor for off the stern, where you have to hand pull and don't want heavy. I know we are talking decent money here, but what more important piece of equipment after the engine is more important for that good sleep?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Hi Peter,
It's Sunday and I hav'nt heard anything. Perhaps tomorrow. Yes, a 33lb SARCA should be fine. If the shipping isn't crazy maybe I'll go for that. Would mean a bit of chain and at least a capstan to get the metal close enough to hand pull the last bit of the rode. I like the way the SARCA digs down a bit w/o plowing so much through the hole in the roll bar. But I don't believe it's ideal to test anchors out of the water. The sand behaves differently when it's not submerged. Don't like that big hoopy thing on the bow though. I just noticed the SARCA only provides the slot**** ...no optional hole or short slot. Just an observation*** ...don't see it as a problem. I could put the SARCA on deck. Your'e boat looks bigger from the stern. Are you planning on some trim colors to break up some of that white paint?
A color less saturated would look best I think.

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:

Yes, a 33lb SARCA should be fine. If the shipping isn't crazy maybe I'll go for that.

Eric---FWIW when we had decided to buy a Rocna I talked to the manufacturer in New Zealand about which size would be best for our boat.* I also asked them about shipping.* This was some five years ago or so.* They said they did not recommend shipping any anchor over 20 pounds from New Zealand because the shipping costs above that weight were astronomical, almost equalling the purchase price of the anchor.* That's when they recommended that we buy our Rocna from Suncoast Marine in Vancouver, BC.* They had started making the Rocna there as well, so for us the shipping price was the cost of the fuel for us to drive from Bellingham to Vancouver and back.

I have no idea what shipping costs have done since then, but be prepared for a pretty high quote for shipping a 33# anchor plus the crate they'll put it in from that part of the world to Alaska.

*

 

[Peter B]

Ok Eric, so challenge them why they are not exporting to the US of A, with the huge market there? You might mention their main competitor, Rocna, is already there....?