Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-26-2014, 04:49 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Minutiae not withstanding, Nigel Calder offered the same anecdotal thoughts and opinions as one can read in the past few months of TF threads and posts on anchoring. Calder in fact says his opinions are anecdotal which is fitting with anchors and anchoring in real life.

Why is this? As noted by Calder and us here, each anchor site, winds and bottom are different. But all seem in agreement that new design anchors appear to be better.

Missing from Calder's article and often forgotten on TF is the simple anecdotal finding that a Too Heavy older design anchor works very well also. Advertisers in PMM don't like to hear this and Calder and writers don't get published if old fashioned things hold sway.
Agree, we tend to forget people sailed round the world, and still do, anchoring as they go using old fashioned anchors and they did not end up on the beach. I'm not going to define 'old fashioned' but I see lots of vessels in out of the way places using CQRs, Deltas and Bruces (or variants). The owners must be happy as by now they will have heard of 'modern' anchors (and I'm not going to define modern either!), they are ready available, in the grand scheme of things not that expensive (except for genuine CQRs) - but they do not change from those old fashioned to the modern types.

Anchors seem very forgiving and despite being old fashioned (or modern) nor set as current thinking demands they do seem to 'work' most of the time in most places.

But I'm not sufficiently convinced to dust off our old genuine CQR is favour of our modern product and we would not return to the idea that one anchor (old or new) suits every environment (which might bring us back to the Chesapeake tests?).
__________________
Advertisement

Djbangi is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 05:15 PM   #62
Veteran Member
 
City: Wherever the boat is
Country: Europe
Vessel Model: 48 foot sailing Yacht
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
But, did he drag, did he end up on the beach?
He did drag, on the first drop. My wife and I were having lunch aboard the yacht when the anchor let go. The drag was out to open water.

The photo was second attempt. You an see from the marks in the sand that the anchor has moved a reasonable distance about 9m (30 feet), but with the reversing wind the anchor did not end up too far from the starting point and the skipper was unaware of the change.
__________________

Noelex is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 07:54 PM   #63
Guru
 
Moonstruck's Avatar
 
City: Hailing Port: Charleston, SC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moonstruck
Vessel Model: Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelex View Post
He did drag, on the first drop. My wife and I were having lunch aboard the yacht when the anchor let go. The drag was out to open water.

The photo was second attempt. You an see from the marks in the sand that the anchor has moved a reasonable distance about 9m (30 feet), but with the reversing wind the anchor did not end up too far from the starting point and the skipper was unaware of the change.
What style anchor do you recommend for those conditions?
__________________
Don on Moonstruck
Sabre 42 Hardtop Express & Blackfin 25 CC
When cruising life is simpler, but on a grander scale (author unknown)
http://moonstruckblog.wordpress.com/
Moonstruck is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 08:22 PM   #64
Guru
 
hmason's Avatar
 
City: Westport, CT
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Magic
Vessel Model: Grand Banks 46 Europa
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,895
OMG Moonstruck, now you've done it.
__________________
Howard
Magic, 1996 Grand Banks Europa
Westport, CT and Stuart, FL
hmason is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 09:02 PM   #65
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: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
I think it would be safe to say "most anchors work well on most bottoms".

But also most here seem to think they need to be rigged for the mother of all storms. Just not so IMO. Especially w GPS anchor alarms. If an anchor drags just get up and put it back to let it drag some more. You're not going to die. At least if some good sense and good seamanship is employed.

Once I was holding fine in a 50 knot gale but the Krogen in front of me dragged down on us and I had to go out on deck in the dark and wind and rain and move up ahead of him because he just didn't. So you (like me) may have to reset even if you have the #1 anchor in your favorite test on a 10-1 scope w a heavy chain rode.

We use all kinds of anchors w different rodes and scopes and I don't recall anyone actually experiencing anything but inconvenience from a storm or whatever. Anyone's notion that you've got to have this anchor or that to survive is rubbish.
That, Eric, is one of the best statements on anchoring I've seen. Need I say more..?

No I won't…except to ask those more used than I am to using the GPS anchor watch, what sort of distance radius do you find works best, so as to not be too far, yet not be false alarming all the time..?
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 09:10 PM   #66
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
We use the length of the rode we have out plus the length of the boat, 40 feet.
Marin is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 09:24 PM   #67
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: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
We use the length of the rode we have out plus the length of the boat, 40 feet.
Thanks Marin, sounds reasonable. I guess I never developed the habit of using the GPS anchor watch because we tend to anchor in very unthreatening situations normally, and also the Sarca has never dragged, except one time when a huge rock managed to balance itself on the fluke. Wish I'd thought to photograph it, it appeared to defy the laws of physics. Maybe it was the weapons grade sticky mud..? One other time, I suspected we had moved a bit overnight, as we were still line astern of the for'd vessel, but a little further away than the rode I had out should have allowed. Clearly it had re-set if so, as we were still secure, but if I'd had the the GPS alarm set it would have confirmed it, one way or the other. I'll try to use it this time when we go out for the week next week, just to practice.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 09:26 PM   #68
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Going back to the OP's original comments, when I discussed the forthcoming PassageMaker article with the publisher, which included the debate between Nigel and Chuck, he felt that the most interesting story from the testing was that the new generation anchors performed so poorly, specifically the Rocna.

I disagreed, as I thought that not only was the performance of the much lighter American-made 21 lb / 10 kg FX-37 newsworthy versus the far heavier 35-46 lb (16-21 kg) anchors, but the most amazing story from the testing was the diminutive 10 lb / 4.5 kg FX-16 out-performing all of the 44 to 46 pound steel anchors, including the Claw, CQR, Manson Boss & Supreme, Mantus, Rocna, Spade, and Ultra at the very end of the testing.

This result served as indisputable proof that anchor design is a far more important performance factor in this type of bottom condition than anchor weight.

This key design feature is not only known to Fortress, but to other large anchor manufacturers who also make models with a wider shank / fluke angle for improved performance in soft mud bottom conditions, such as Baldt, Bruce, US Navy and Vryhof.

So while there are those who are critical of the testing for whatever reasoning, this important fact, which runs contrary to long time misconceptions about the importance of anchor weight, cannot be disputed or disregarded.
Anchor Brian is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 09:55 PM   #69
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Brian,
What I like most about the Fortress mud test is that it showed a mud bottom not uncommon at all triped up some anchors that many here felt were bullit proof. If you go back into the archives it will be seen that many here on the forum thought that their one late design anchor had excellent performance on all bottoms. This was very wrong IMO and the test went a long way to dispel this misconception. Thank you Brian/Fortress.

Peter,
I only use the anchor alarm when I think it's needed. Long before we retire I set the range short knowing the alarm will go off. When it does I set it out some .... typically 10 or 20 feet. When it stops going off I extend it a bit more and usually sleep well.

I've never had an anchor drag but I hit a rock about 2am swinging on our rode once on the west side of Pitt Is BC. We just drifted over and bumped it. I don't know why but it was loud. Bang. I was out on the bow in my shorts taking up some rode to prevent hitting that rock or others in the small anchorage. I let out too much scope. My bad.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 09:58 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post

So while there are those who are critical of the testing for whatever reasoning, this important fact, which runs contrary to long time misconceptions about the importance of anchor weight, cannot be disputed or disregarded.
I would hate to be thought provocative but I suspect that you will find that the results to which you refer might not be subject to dispute but no matter how valid will be disregarded. I would not insult members here suggesting they will ignore the results but in the wider population you have a struggle ahead as the results are at variance to popular thinking. Your results expose a weakness in some other anchor designs and both anchor makers and owners will passionately defend their design or choice, sometimes without reason and often contrary to evidence.

Thank you for the tests and opening a door to another facet of performance.
Djbangi is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 10:24 PM   #71
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
While the Fortess test has not changed our opinion about our current type of anchor being the best all-around anchor that's currently available on the planet, it did confirm that our choice many years ago of a Fortress to be our stern anchor as well as the second main anchor for our boat was a smart one.

What the Fortress test shows is that it fills a specific performance niche that our main anchor may be less than ideally suited for. So in essence we have covered a potential weak point in our line of defense by carrying a big Fortress on our swimstep. Good knowledge to have in our opinion, thanks to Fortress.
Marin is offline  
Old 12-26-2014, 11:40 PM   #72
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: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
I've never had an anchor drag but I hit a rock about 2am swinging on our rode once on the west side of Pitt Is BC. We just drifted over and bumped it. I don't know why but it was loud. Bang. I was out on the bow in my shorts taking up some rode to prevent hitting that rock or others in the small anchorage. I let out too much scope. My bad.
Eric, I would venture to suggest that having out too much rode for the circumstances causes more issues, in tight anchorages especially, than not having enough. Lets face it we spend quite a lot of effort usually trying to choose an anchorage with will provide a sedate night's anchoring, so survival conditions seldom encountered. Occasionally we get caught out, and that is when having a good anchor and the skill to set it properly really count.

But in most situations, the turn of the tide and the inevitable swinging round often causes issues, (as I have personally experienced on occasion), where someone a safe distance from you when they are downwind, comes back way too close on the tidal swing, because they have 'half a mile' of chain out, when there is very little wind. On one occasion the boat involved actually gently (fortunately) bumped us, yet the guy got so cranky he was going to punch my teeth down my throat for dragging onto him, yet he was the up-wind boat. Explain how I could drag up-wind and up-tide to me. We just moved - he was clearly a nasty person and I could see it would be a waste of breath to explain it was really his loop of redundant chain which had pulled loose of the mud suddenly, and then he came down on us.

However, I learnt something else that time. Re-anchoring in pitch black at night amongst a lot of other boats is something to be avoided if at all possible, as it is very stressful. In retrospect, I should have just stood my ground, and told him to calm down, analyse the situation, then take in some rode, while I let a bit more out, and we would have been ok.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 12:57 AM   #73
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
While the fortress data may show that weight and size of an anchor is not so important in soft mud it speaks nothing about other bottoms where weight and size may very well be an important factor along with design parameters. Unfortunately the data collected in soft mud while related to a common bottom in some areas is still very incomplete regarding bottom types and to many boaters an important issue. There are anchors that may do well in rock and not so well elsewhere and if testing such an anchor embarrasses other anchors so what. While one anchor type may not fit all conditions most boaters seem to prefer a good compromise that will work consistently in multiple bottoms where they boat. I know from many years of experience the Danforth works in mud. I also know it has its problems. My limited experience suggests that there has been a accelerating increase in the sales and use of the newer spade type anchors particularly on the more expensive mid and larger pleasure boats. Thumbing through any popular boating magazine noting which anchors are on the bows in articles and advertisements will attest to what I say, That the people at Fortress would like to at least see each of those boats also carry one of their anchors is no surprise and not necessarily a bad idea.
eyschulman is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 02:07 AM   #74
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: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
On this issue of the Rocna (and the Manson Supreme also, I think), performing rather badly in very soft mud, because of the roll bar catching in the mud and preventing it from flipping over as it should. I don't have a Rocna or Manson by the way, but to be fair, as Eric Manyboats mentioned further back, in a real world setting, ('scuse the pun), if it did not set properly first time in say soft mud, one would do a re-set until it did. There is no doubt that once set, it would then perform about as good as any of them, except maybe a Danforth/Fortress type, in that very soft substrate. Just sayin'.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 04:21 AM   #75
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
....in a real world setting, ('scuse the pun), if it did not set properly first time in say soft mud, one would do a re-set until it did. There is no doubt that once set, it would then perform about as good as any of them.....
Outstanding point. In fact, it rather diminishes the results of the Fortress test, or any anchor test, because they are all based on one try. They don't take into account the intelligence, logic, and common sense of a real boater in real life who will be in the "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again" frame of mind.

We probably won't need that big ol' Fortress on our swimstep in soft mud after all.

Thanks much for the injection of reality, Peter, into an otherwise armchair theory discussion. Wish I'd thought of it........
Marin is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 05:03 AM   #76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I must have made a mistake but I was under the firm impression each anchors was tested 5 times.
Djbangi is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 05:55 AM   #77
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: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
True, but each test was essentially the same for each anchor at each depth. Setting the modern types, especially roll bar anchors, is actually different from most other types, as I suspect you know. One usually just lets the boat's drift basically set the thing, then you can give it a bit of tweak later once it's settled as an optional extra. That is not how it was done in the Fortress tests. In other words, one gets used to what works best for any given anchor type. Trying to set them all the same way seemed fair enough, but as I said…in the real world...
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 06:42 AM   #78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I appreciate the comments, the dilemma as I see it was:

With 11 different anchors how do you determine the best way to suit each anchor (about which, the best way, there would be much argument). Whichever best ways you choose someone would argue 'this anchor was favoured' and 'another way would have been better.'

It removes some argument if all anchors are treated the same.

One of the much commented features of 'modern' anchors is that they set quickly and they are very user friendly. Drop a modern anchor, back up and if you are not careful they set so quickly the unwary can 'fall over' - or you at least spill the Chardonnay. If this is not true of modern anchors in thin mud (and it obviously is not) - I for one have never seen it documented.

So if modern anchors need special treatment in thin mud (which is possible and might be advantageous) - again - I have never seen it documented and if this special way allows them to set, as well as a Fortress (or even Danforth) why has it never been mentioned?

I agree - if I had been trying to set one of these modern anchors (in the real world) I would have lifted the anchor once it had not set after about 10m - and tried again and again - but after 3 or 4 tries I would have given up on that anchor, or location (but effectively this is what happened (except they were pulled for longer than necessary - as that was the protocol established).

I recall being at Pottinger (Macquarrie Harbour) watching a 46' vessel trying to anchor in thin mud, they tried 5 times (with a CQR). We set first time with a Fortress. They gave up in the end and went off and tied to some trees. I have pictures of them on the 4th or 5th attempt with the complete bow running in mud. Our choice was luck - this was long before Chesapeake, but since Chesapeake it has reinforced what we observed and experienced.



If it is possible to set in thin mud any of those under performing anchors to develop that same hold as a Fortress at 45 degrees, or Danforth, why the reticence - why is the technique being kept a secret. There was decades, if not centuries, of anchoring expertise on hand when the tests were conducted - no-one came up with a means to improve performance. The fact that a poor performance came as a revelation implies no-one had actually used these anchors in thin mud - or someone would have said, this is wrong, there is a better way.


Based on the current evidence I have to believe the results have validity. I am happy to be shown that the under performing anchors have been maligned - but nothing that has been said or done, and the tests have been debated many times, so far undermines the results.

None of this alters the fact that modern anchors are exceptional in heavier muds and sand (of many different types). What Fortress have done, in thin mud, is dented invincibility - and to my mind that is important. I have noted in the past that Fortress freely admit that their product is not perfect - it would be refreshing to see other anchor makers, or champions of specific brands, being equally candid - or showing me the error of my ways.


edit: Comanche fell into a hole and has lost 40 miles to Wild Oats. The wind is meant to go westerly which should favour C but a 40 mile lead is going to be difficult to eat into. For the slower yachts still working their way down the mainland coast there is a 30 knot NEly forecast - which should prove a bit more testing but should not be too onerous.

They are talking of a WO finishing late tomorrow afternoon Oz time. So maybe midnight TF time.
Djbangi is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 07:23 AM   #79
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: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
djbangi, what worries me is we still have maxi yachts like Investic Loyal suffering 'hull damage' and having to pull out, just bashing into a not-that-bad sea. You would think, after all these years of hi-tech carbon fibre construction, they would have got delamination, (the presumed issue), solved to the point of being a non-issue in anything but really extreme conditions. Yes, I guess they were pushing it, as they had apparently overtaken the leaders in the night, who presumably sailed a bit more conservatively. But all the same, it looks like they are building them a bit too flimsy in order to save weight these days.

Talking yachting however, as an aside as it were, that Volvo 65 hitting a coral island just northeast of Madagascar is a bit of a wake up call as to how important it is to not rely on electronic charts but to regularly compare with paper charts as well. I do, even out on Moreton Bay here. I always have the Beacon to Beacon map book open. It is better than charts, as updated yearly, although I have just heard this year is the last edition. That's sad.

Back to the Volvo race. Apparently they were not zoomed in enough for this coral atoll to show on the electronic GPS chart plotter, in the zoom state they were in it looked like an undersea mount apparently - until they hit it - hard..! I would have been marked on a chart for sure. Now they are faced with an enormous salvage problem. One thing they don't need there now is an anchor, I guess.

Sorry thread hijack over.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline  
Old 12-27-2014, 07:26 AM   #80
Veteran Member
 
City: Wherever the boat is
Country: Europe
Vessel Model: 48 foot sailing Yacht
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
So if modern anchors need special treatment in thin mud (which is possible and might be advantageous) - again - I have never seen it documented and if this special way allows them to set, as well as a Fortress (or even Danforth) why has it never been mentioned?
In very soft mud Fortress themselves recommend a different setting technique for their anchors. The instructions can be found in the "Safe Anchoring Guide" which can be downloaded here:

Fortress Anchors – The World's Best Anchors! – Safe Anchoring Guide

It is worth reading even if you do not have a Fortress as is has some good general advice.

However, the very soft mud anchoring technique is a method specifically for Fortress and Danforth anchors. It is designed to open the blade of hinged anchors to allow them to set better in very soft mud.

" Some soft mud bottoms have a sticky consistency which makes it difficult to set an anchor. If soft mud setting problems occur, try setting the anchor initially at very short scope, for example 2:1. Then, increase the scope to at least 5:1"

It is not clear from the write ups I have seen, but it appears that Fortress did use this technique (on all anchors) for some of the trials.
__________________

Noelex is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:28 AM.


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