Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-04-2014, 01:19 PM   #221
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Outstanding work, Brian, thank you and your company very much.

I'm sure you will clarify how you characterize the different datum, for example, that you didn't keep dropping in the same spot into a sea bed disturbed by the prior drop.

What day did the cable break on the FX 37 45 deg? If not day 1, then what do you think is going on with the FX on that day?

Prepare yourself for the inevitable comments that Chesapeake mud is atypical of anchoring conditions.
Delfin, once a datum, or fixed starting point, was determined in the locality of the testing area, we then used an azimuth (image below) where we returned to that starting point after each pull, and then we simply went in a different direction, insuring a fresh seabed.

The cable broke on Day 3 for the FX-37. On Day 1, either the anchor fouled, or (which I believe was more likely) we were simply not following our own instructions on setting a Fortress in soft mud, which is to initially set the anchor using a shorter scope to insure that the shank does not sink below the flukes (image below).

Regarding the atypical soft mud bottom in the Chesapeake Bay, please find below Bob Taylor's comments. As previously mentioned, Bob consulted for us on this project and he was a anchor design and soil mechanics expert with the US Navy for over 40 years:

There are some large bodies of water with primarily mud bottoms. They include the Gulf of Mexico (not behind barrier islands where the bottom can be sand), Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Norwegian Trench, South China Sea and most harbors. Most lakes have soft seabeds as well simply because the bottom material is derived from runoff or river deposit.

And thank you for your kind words as well.

Brian
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	azimuth.png
Views:	65
Size:	14.5 KB
ID:	32627   Click image for larger version

Name:	Soft_Mud_32:45.jpg
Views:	59
Size:	42.5 KB
ID:	32628  
__________________
Advertisement

Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 03:18 PM   #222
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post

But this is a mud test as far as I know and many will poo poo it as not applicable to most anchoring situations. However I anchored many times on the BC Coast w an anchor that such a wide fluke tip I assumed it wouldn't set in anything but mud but it set every time. Must be a lot of mud up there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post

Prepare yourself for the inevitable comments that Chesapeake mud is atypical of anchoring conditions.


FWIW, I've found Chesapeake mud to be the norm here in our area of the Chesapeake

-Chris
__________________

__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 04:25 PM   #223
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by healhustler View Post
Such an interesting comparison. Graphed as it is, one can almost sense what is happening during the pull. It could be deduced that in a storm situation, the Fortress may become a sacrificial anchor in that kind of mud. Would a limitation on the degree of fluke angle have helped? The most experienced Manatee cruiser we know of with 24 loops and four down-island voyages carries a 150 lb. Danforth on his bow as his storm anchor. Looks like an educated choice.

Thanks to Brian and Fortress.
Healhustler, I agree with your sacrificial anchor observation, it is certainly a possibility. Rob Nilsen is the chief engineer and winch operator aboard the Rachel Carson, and after observing the preliminary & public testing, he can offer a firsthand viewpoint on this topic. If anyone cares to contact him, his e-mail address is: rnilsen at umces.edu

At the narrower 32 angle the Fortress will simply not bury as deeply, and it it is likely to be similar in performance to a comparably-sized Danforth.

I apppreciate the thanks!

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 06:52 PM   #224
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,714
theories as to why the Rocna did poorly .........

The roll bar no doubt offers some resistance but far below what a good fluke would do. If the roll bar was removed there wouldn't be much left. I think the roll bar in normal (harder) bottoms performs better as a result of interference drag. It's similar to the drag caused on a bi-plane by the interference between the wings. The fluid has to be jamed between the wings. With the roll bar anchors the fluid must pass between the roll bar and the fluke. Same kind of drag/resistance. I submit that the resistance on some harder bottoms may be about the same total resistance as other anchors but in soft mud the interference drag drops to very low levels and the Rocna falls flat. It made a poor showing on another anchor test in mud.

Also I don't know but I suspect that the throat angle on the Rocna is too low to promote penetration deeper than 8" or so. Other anchors also have this problem and many look much like the Rocna w/o the roll bar. If the throat angle is increased the fluke tip angle re the passing of the bottom under it becomes less ideal and setting problems arise.

Just theories and my opinions of course.


I must also say that the Supreme and the Mantus didn't seem to suffer much from the mud OR the roll bar. So much for my theory it seems but there may be more to it. If you took the roll bar off of the Mantus there would be even less of it left and the Supreme is about the same (in that reguard) as the Rocna.

Has the Mantus been in a harder bottom test? It's so expensive it probably dos't matter.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 07:26 PM   #225
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
What is interesting about the data is that if you were in the Chesapeake, or somewhere with a similar seabed, then for many of the anchors you would soon find they simply did not work - no matter how many times you tried them. It would be obvious that if you wanted to overnight you would need to move to another location with a different seabed (or change your anchor). But some of the anchors do appear to develop hold and it would not be unusual for many to think they were safe for whatever weather came their way that night. This in fact is incorrect as the ABYC data correlated with the graphs clearly demonstrates that the hold is illusory - if not downright misleadingly dangerous.

Nearly all anchor testing is conducted in hard seabeds, and harder and harder seabeds seem to be used. Even today people are hammering the superiority of specific designs by evidence in one seabed alone (- good marketing, but honest?) Obviously not everyone anchors in soft mud (not for that matter in rock hard sand) - but there must be a point - in seabed softness - where this demonstrated superiority of the Fortress at 45 degrees loses its impact (and the 32 degree fluke angle become appropriate). One has to wonder where that crossover point might be - might it be somewhere in 'soft sand' and that some of these anchors (tested by Fortress) might be similarly lacking in performance in good clean soft sand.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 07:38 PM   #226
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
It's similar to the drag caused on a bi-plane by the interference between the wings. The fluid has to be jamed between the wings. .
I'm not going to get into the details here, but your biplane between-the-wings drag theory holds no water. Or air in this case. What you are assuming happens, doesn't happen.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 07:50 PM   #227
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
I see the similarity
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ZW1G8354.jpg
Views:	71
Size:	78.6 KB
ID:	32631  
Attached Images
 
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 08:49 PM   #228
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,714
Thanks for the props Scott.

What is it that you don't understand about interference drag Marin?
This form of drag exists at the upper outboard end of a typical small Cesna's wing strut. It takes force to cram a fluid between two members.

But it takes much greater force to get fluid around an anchor fluke. However if the roll bar was to take on a concave shape not unlike a concave anchor fluke (like that of the Supreme) perhaps a roll bar anchor manufacturer could make the roll bar more useful. Maybe even in mud. We have a lot of mud.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 09:21 PM   #229
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
What is it that you don't understand about interference drag Marin?
.
If the air is "squeezed" between the upper and lower wings of a bi-plane as you claim, you would have higher pressure against the upper surface of the lower wing which would, in effect, reduce or eliminate the ability of that wing to force air down, which would mean that the lower wing would not be contributing much or any lift, which since a bi-plane needs the lift from both wings to fly, the bi-plane wouldn't.

Your analogy was very well illustrated visually a couple of posts earlier by psneeld.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 09:52 PM   #230
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,184
Eric, maybe that's not the best example and we're arguing semantics here. Of course the biplane flies and needs both wings to do it. I've never heard the term 'interference drag' in my aerodynamics or aircraft design courses, in my pilot training or aviation career, but that may be an matter of semantics. How about if we substitute 'compressibility' to the example and examine it at an extreme.

Yes, there is air compression involved in the creation of lift and if two airfoils were stacked too close to each other, one wing could diminish the effectiveness of the other airfoil. But, thank God, that's not how planes are designed or built. Imagine a biplane with the wings stacked 2 inches apart.

The bottom airfoil's top (low pressure) surface would 'interfere' with the top wing's lower (high pressure) surface and neither wing would create the amount of lift it's capable of creating if the wings were separated. The high pressure air would migrate into the low pressure area, negating the lift. But that's not "interference drag', it's just crappy design!

Now, weren't we talking about anchors?
__________________
Al

Custom Google Trawler Forum Search
FlyWright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 10:41 PM   #231
Guru
 
caltexflanc's Avatar
 
City: North Carolina for now
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Small Incentive
Vessel Model: Boston Whaler 130 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,801
The results to me were unsurprising and jibe with my view of the various styles I am familiar with, given that this was merely a straight-line test of anchors all set using the same technique (as may be opposed to the proper technique for a given anchor). Not to mention that the technique for any particular piece of ground tackle varies by anticipated conditions, including wind strength and clocking of both wind and current. Seems like most people judge anchors by the "I lower it down and it grabs fast, or not" standard.
__________________
George

"There's the Right Way, the Wrong Way, and what some guy says he's gotten away with"
caltexflanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 11:46 PM   #232
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,714
FlyWright,
I think it is the best example. Perhaps you know it as "interplane drag". And interplane drag has nothing to do with airfoils or lift.

If you have vertical struts between the wings on the biplane there will be interplane drag created between them. The drag of two struts is greater than the drag of the two struts measured w the struts out in open air. There's the drag of the two struts measured independently plus the interplane drag.

And the drag caused by pushing a fluid between things is greater than twice the drag of the fluid going around the same two "things" by themselves.

Fluid going around a roll bar would pass more easily under the roll bar if the fluke wasn't below it (restricting the downward movement of the mud). So the mud must speed up for a moment and that takes energy that translates into resistance ... the mission of an anchor.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 12:32 AM   #233
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
That was a great explanation, Al.

Eric, I have only heard of two types of drag when it comes to aircraft. Parasite drag, which is the drag you get when you stick your arm out the window or lower the landing gear, or put a strut between an upper wing and a lower wing, and induced drag, which is the drag that is produced by the act of creating lift.

I have never heard the terms "interference" drag or "interplane" drag applied to aerodynamics, although that doesn't mean they aren't.

With regards to anchors, I can understand how the rollbar on a rollbar anchor could resist the anchor's tendency to dig deeper into the bottom. However, I think the degree of resistance will be due totally to the consistency of the bottom.

In videos, one can watch a Rocna bury itself into wet sand until the entire anchor has disappeared and the sand has actually closes back over it. I would imagine one would get the same kind of underwater video with a Sarca, Manson, or Bugel.

On the other hand,with a harder or firmer or denser bottom I would expect the anchor to dig its fluke in very solidly but then stop traveling down once enough of the roll bar had entered the bottom to resist any further movement.

With regards to very soft, oozy mud as in the Chesapeake test, I don't know that the design and principle of the rollbar anchors would be of much value at all. Not that they might not dig in enough to hold you. But if they did, I suspect it would be a total fluke (pun intended).

The very soft nature of the bottom would defeat the whole principle of the rollbar anchor's action--- lying on its side and then using leverage against the bottom to knife its fluke down into the bottom and then rotate to present the width of the fluke against the direction of pull.

With real oozy stuff, I doubt the necessary leverage against the bottom could even be generated, so the anchor would simply become a piece of metal sculpture that would drag along and maybe dig in a bit and maybe not, depending on how it landed and positioned itself with the drag began.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 05:02 AM   #234
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Yes the anchor test is very similar to many that I have seen, there is also a big difference from power setting your anchor as to having a continuous static pull to determine max holding power.

As an example, when static testing anchors they will dig in until clogged, you will see evidence of this on all the graphs, maximum holding power then it falls away, whilst the anchor is continued to be dragged over its given test distance its holding power again peaks, falls away,( clogging ) what this does is show how much of a problem clogging can be for a given anchor design when testing, I say testing as in normal deploying clogging may not be an issue in producing holding power.

Another stand out problem when testing that can cloud the results, if the anchor is dropped side on to a hole or deep crevice, even if it’s a roll bar design that somehow lands upside down in a situation like this can drag upside down when statically pulled, its roll bar can act like a rudder burying its roll bar and stay upside down for quite a distance until it drags out of the impression, where as when you just lay your anchor its orientation can be corrected simply by the boat movement.


I notice many of you would like to see anchors behaving in change of tide, well in a change of tide most picture their anchor pulling around and out, this is rare, what actually happens with the older style anchors if they do pull out and not reset it is because of wear, a major part of the problem and most times the culprit, I have tried to film this and found it not only extremely dangerous but you cannot see anything anyway worth filming because of sand, mud and the like being stirred up, unfortunately in strong wind or change of tide is when anchors let go.

From what I have seen is most anchors simply just don’t pull out whilst circling in a change of wind or tide, it does happen but is rare, breaking out is mainly caused from anchoring in thick weed or on bedrock, also bad over setting practice can create a weed ball-clogging preventing the anchor from properly taking hold, drifting direct ally over the anchor and flipping it is more of a common problem to drifting, especially in oozy mud.

Many of our old anchor designs suffered from very broad blunt toes, if you couple this with wear, when flipped they just struggled to reset in any strong wind, but beware with some roll bar anchors thinking you will solve the problem, Remember this- all anchors can drag upside down given the right circumstances, some roll bar types will be holding a fluke full of mud and when flipped sink upside down full of sticky mud, end result you will drag, depending on how strong the wind is you may just continue to creep without knowing why, the bigger- higher profile of the roll bar- there is a benefit , it will sink deeper and you will drag slower, (Remedy to right the anchor) pick up reverse and give it a burst.

Interesting Rocna has the lowest holding power of roll bar designs in this test, if anyone is thinking of condemning its performance take a look a closer look, it’ has the smallest roll bar of all, this small role bar when statically pulled clog’s easily and could roll to one side under continuous drag, this is not a true demonstration of Rocnas performance, if it was they would be returning them in droves.

All in all from what I have seen in Brian’s testing it is very similar holding power results as to what our testing Authorities ROBERTSONS have produced, I think Brian has done a great job and if there is any reflection as to the performance of good or bad for whatever reason they are the results, if anchor designers fail to show or give confidence to the customer by way of design, strength or demonstration so be it. What it does show is what each design can offer you under a grueling test, you can make a comparison, it’s there for all to see,

Regards

Rex
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 07:21 AM   #235
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
What is interesting about the data is that if you were in the Chesapeake, or somewhere with a similar seabed, then for many of the anchors you would soon find they simply did not work - no matter how many times you tried them. It would be obvious that if you wanted to overnight you would need to move to another location with a different seabed (or change your anchor). But some of the anchors do appear to develop hold and it would not be unusual for many to think they were safe for whatever weather came their way that night. This in fact is incorrect as the ABYC data correlated with the graphs clearly demonstrates that the hold is illusory - if not downright misleadingly dangerous.

Nearly all anchor testing is conducted in hard seabeds, and harder and harder seabeds seem to be used. Even today people are hammering the superiority of specific designs by evidence in one seabed alone (- good marketing, but honest?) Obviously not everyone anchors in soft mud (not for that matter in rock hard sand) - but there must be a point - in seabed softness - where this demonstrated superiority of the Fortress at 45 degrees loses its impact (and the 32 degree fluke angle become appropriate). One has to wonder where that crossover point might be - might it be somewhere in 'soft sand' and that some of these anchors (tested by Fortress) might be similarly lacking in performance in good clean soft sand.
Dibangi, your first paragraph was spot on, and as you know Chuck Hawley was with West Marine and aboard the boat in 2006 when they ran their tests that were published in four boating magazines.

The bottom conditions back then were much harder soils, and several of the 35 lb or so steel anchors achieved pulls of 5,000 lbs (the maximum) and in turn they would be able to hold the boats for which they were recommended by their manufacturers in 30 knot wind conditions (per the ABYC chart), and with holding power to spare.

Chuck was aboard for this testing, and we noted how the performances of these much heavier steel anchors (44-46 lbs) basically fell off a cliff in soft mud, as we rarely saw a pull reach 1,000 lbs, and many of the higher loads resulted in the anchor breaking free and then never re-engaging the bottom.

This brought to mind the observation of our late founder, who said once that "oftentimes when an anchor breaks free from a sea bottom, it might no longer an anchor, it is just a ball of mud and sediment....with no sharp edges to penetrate back into the bottom." That can certainly be the case in soft mud, which gets compressed from the pulling and adheres to the anchor.

For maximum safety, the ABYC chart and the information from this testing should be duly noted and taken into consideration by boaters who might be anchoring in a soft bottom when they are sizing an anchor and are deciding on the best brand/type.

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2014, 11:50 AM   #236
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,714
Trying to better understand the results of the test I went back to an early post on this thread and read what Brian wrote;

"The plan is to pay out the chain and wire rope to a 5:1 scope + 100 feet (resulting in about an 8.3:1 scope) and then pull back the 100 feet at a rate of 10 feet per minute, so the pull duration will be 10 minutes.

I assume the test vessel was firmly anchored and the anchors winched in to the vessel as described above.

Scope wise it seems the far left of the graph is 8-1 approx and the far right is close to the end of the test and at considerably less scope.

Most of the anchors did poorly at the beginning of the pull and peaked near the end. Since scope was always at or above 5-1 that part of performance was sort of equaled out or generally eliminated. Unlike all the others the CQR peaked (if you can call it that) very early on and then it's showing was over.

The Delta and the CQR were weak at the end of the pull and I wonder if scope had anything to do with it. The Mantus developed it's maximum well before the middle of the pull and failed to do more however the graph lines never dropped very low like most of the other anchors. After 2 min into the pull it gave (basically) 300lbs of resistance and never fell below that. Most of the Mantus's pull lines are almost flat. Like a good very small anchor would do. Not real weak but no supreme performance either but it's slightly less than middle of the road performance never became poor or a failure. And almost always ahead of the Rocna.

The Danforth put in a stellar performance despite an seemingly obvious breakout. I have a 35 lb Danforth and perhaps I should be looking it's way. Danforth has been extremely strong in the small boat marketplace since the late 40s and here we are in 2014 still admiring it's great performance.

I'm trying to pick out trends and similarities in the test results. I think more is to be learned from tests that way than looking at a single anchors performance.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 01:42 AM   #237
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Brian,

The policy of the majority of vessel owners who know about anchoring advocate carrying a larger, heavier, anchor than the sizes recommended by the anchor makers and many suggest 2 sizes larger. Your results appear to suggest that in the bottom in which you tested its design rather than size as, in terms of weight (a common measure of size) the lightest anchor is the best, most advantageously seen when using the incorporated design flexibility of the higher fluke anchor. But even ignoring weight - it seems that the fluke design of the Fortress and Danforth is far superior to other unweighted anchors, Supreme, Boss, Rocna etc.

Looking at the plots it seems very unlikely that most of the anchors tested could ever approach an ability to 'hold', say a 40'-45' vessel in 30 knots of wind even if they were doubled in size - as (if double the size gives double the hold) doubling nothing is still nothing. (Commonly to double hold you would need to double the surface area and doubling surface area usually results in a much more that twice increase in weight).

Were you able to test any of the armoury of anchors you had at your disposal in smaller, or larger sizes?


Rather than buying one bigger anchor (than recommended by anchor makers) one might conclude carrying more than one anchor, of different designs, might be prudent?
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 02:26 AM   #238
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
Brian,

The policy of the majority of vessel owners who know about anchoring advocate carrying a larger, heavier, anchor than the sizes recommended by the anchor makers and many suggest 2 sizes larger...............................
Rather than buying one bigger anchor (than recommended by anchor makers) one might conclude carrying more than one anchor, of different designs, might be prudent?
It seems well accepted you select an anchor 1-2 sizes larger than the maker recommends. I recognize if your boat is heavy for length, has greater windage, falls between anchor sizes, or is used in extreme conditions, you select a larger one. But generally, I expect the anchor maker wants to sell you as much anchor as possible, and for your safety(and his own protection) conservatively recommends an adequate and safe size in his range.
I`m interested in comment, especially from our anchor builder members.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 04:29 AM   #239
TF Site Team
 
Bay Pelican's Avatar
 
City: Chicago, IL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bay Pelican
Vessel Model: Krogen 42
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
But generally, I expect the anchor maker wants to sell you as much anchor as possible, and for your safety(and his own protection) conservatively recommends an adequate and safe size in his range.
Don't know what actually is behind the size recommendations. I have assumed the manufacturers keep cost comparisons between anchor brands in mind. Thus the manufacturer knows the owner of a 36 ft boat will see that the Rocna for his boat costs X and the CQR for his boat costs Y and may make his decision in part on price. The manufacturer also knows that a certain percentage of consumers will go up one size (or two) and he can capture that market as well.
__________________
Marty
Bay Pelican is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2014, 07:43 AM   #240
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
Every year thousands of boats anchor in the Chrsapeake mud with all kinds of anchors through pretty nasty thunderstorms and whistling Nor'westers following fall cold fronts.

There are dozens of publications that cover the Chesapeake area and even more boating organizations that exist there.

If "most" anchors failed to meet the needs of "most" boaters...I think we would hear more from "real world testing" than a dynamically positioned vessel winching in anchors.

As several said including me...the results in general came out about as expected based on each anchor design. From years of reading and cruising...I think I'm OK in saying that many cruisers prefer anchoring with one big (usually oversized) anchor but carry several anchors. The selection usually includes at least one of the "Danforth" style because of their noted holding power when properly set.

With those few generalities...I don't see much that this test will change in the minds of most cruisers out there.
__________________

psneeld 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 06:18 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