Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-25-2014, 02:15 PM   #481
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
UNLESS--- the bottom is so mushy and oatmeal-like that it presents no surface against which the anchor can develop that sideways slicing force (leverage) that knifes the fluke into the bottom.

Since Peter Smith was not anchoring over an oatmeal bottom down in the southwest Pacific, he wasn't concerned with developing an anchor for his boat that would work in mush.
Marin, actually he was concerned, as per this write up from the "Meet the Designer" page on their web site:

"Pete, together with Jo and their son Craig, sailed Kiwi Roa from England to New Zealand during the period 1994 – 1998. Although extremely well set-up, Kiwi Roa experienced frequent problems when anchoring. Soft mud areas such as the English East Coast, the Chesapeake, and the Delaware Bay presented particular problems.

Pete had used every type of anchor known to man. Kiwi Roa carried a 110 lb CQR, an 88 lb Delta, and a 110 lb Bruce, but there was always a feeling of insecurity."
__________________
Advertisement

Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 04:55 PM   #482
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
Early in the thread I believe it was established that a lot of people anchored in Chesapeake Bay and a lot of people found it to have a troublesome bottom for anchoring. Not a place that boaters don't go because it has an oatmeal bottom. I think Fortress established the fact that their anchor is not only superior to all others that have been tested in firm bottoms but in very soft bottoms as well.

Now if I can figure out how to pay for it and mount it on my bow ...

Most bottoms are mud so why not have a Fortress as a primary and a rock anchor like a Claw for other occasions?

Marin I think everyone knows what the roll bar is for. At least what it was designed for but after this test we now know that in real soupy bottoms it dosn't work.
__________________

__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 06:08 PM   #483
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
...but after this test we now know that in real soupy bottoms it dosn't work.
No two anchoring situations are the same. So our single experience with our Rocna in a very soft bottom most likely bears no resemblance to the Fortress test.

But soon after we removed our Bruce and replaced it with the Rocna, we tried it out in the softest mud bottom we know of in our area, which is the north end of Chuckanut Bay near Bellingham. This bottom routinely defeats anchors like the Bruce (including ours), CQRs, etc.

We had almost lost our boat to a lee shore when strong winds arrived hours earlier than forecast and our Bruce had failed to hold us. So we were very keen to learn how our new anchor would do in the kinds of situations in which the Bruce had done poorly.

This was purely a test to see what would happen with our new anchor-- we weren't staying the night or trying to ride out a storm.

We set the anchor on a 7:1 scope in about 25 feet of water. Once we had established that the anchor had set and was holding we put both transmissions in reverse and, after taking the slack out of the chain, slowly ran the engines up to about 1400 rpm, all the while watching the shoreline for signs of movement. The all-chain rode was snubbed via nylon V-bridle to our two foredeck cleats; no strain was put on the pulpit or windlass gears.

We held this power in reverse for three or four minutes. The boat did not move, so we went to idle, broke the anchor out with the boat, retrieved it along with half the bottom of the bay and went home.

As far as we were concerned, the Rocna did just great in the soft mud of this particular bay.

Again, I don't intend this one-off, unscientific, uncontrolled, undocumented "test" to refute the findings of the Fortress test. It's just a single, anecdotal experience. But the fact it was a real experience in a real and specific bottom that had given us problems in the past with a different type of anchor was sufficient to verify to our satisfaction that we had, indeed, graduated to a vastly superior anchor.

And to date, we have had no reason to change our belief.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 06:09 PM   #484
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
Still trying to figure out why "most bottoms are mud" has become the theme here when in reality (after perusing the Chesapeake nautical charts for awhile) many places that I have anchored and plan to anchor are actually something "else" than soupy whatever that has become the Chessie Devil.

If I have a choice in survival tools...the one that is in my pocket...why would I pick a "hammer" or a "screwdriver" or a "hacksaw"...when I can chose a swiss army knife or a leatherman tool?

Sure if building a deck and my job is to hammer...carry a hammer....

So IF ...I need MAXIMUM holding power in just ONE of the bottom types in the Chesapeake...then I would hang a fortress/deanforth on my bow...but that just ISN'T the case..
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 06:53 PM   #485
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Marin,,

Sometime I reaaly do wonder

This is on the Rocna website

Quote

Pete, together with Jo and their son Craig, sailed Kiwi Roa from England to New Zealand during the period 1994 – 1998. Although extremely well set-up, Kiwi Roa experienced frequent problems when anchoring. Soft mud areas such as the English East Coast, the Chesapeake, and the Delaware Bay presented particular problems.

unquote

They not only encountered soft mud many, many times it was such a problem and stuck in their memories sufficient that it deserved a special mention. Its not even as if the geographical areas are small - but it appears now to have fallen outside the safe design perameters of the anchor.


Now, to add to the problems these quotes appeared on another forum but you can check the link.

quote


http://www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/...spade-anchors/

Author: Don Joyce
Comment:
We have a 100 kg Rocna on our catamaran and have experienced dragging on two occasions: Both involve being set directly over the anchor by a thunderstorm related sudden wind shift, while being anchored in very thick mud. Apparently the anchor tripped and wouldn't reset because the center of balance was shifted back by the hoop-trapped mud. On both occasions, we could only reset the anchor after hauling it up and clearing all the mud off with our boat hook. Listening to the windlass as the anchor was being hauled convinced me that the mud and anchor together were on the order of 200 kg....yet we "sailed" through the anchorage…



Here is an additional comment received today:

Author: Don Joyce
Comment:
To be fair, we were on short scope around 4:1 to 5:1 due to limited swinging room. We usually have what late comers to an anchorage call "excessive" scope of at least 10:1. The excessive scope held us firm on the Rocna in Maine during Irene when several of the complainers around us dragged.

I did write to Rocna to suggest they need more weight in the tip. I will add some weight myself when we get the anchor galvanized.

A response to this comment:

http://www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/...spade-anchors/

Author: John
Comment:
Hi Don,

Thanks very much for coming up with that vital information. We are hearing of an increasing, albeit still small, number of these incidences with the Rocna. It's particularly disturbing that this happened with such a large anchor.

I think this danger is something that every Rocna owner needs to be aware of, so thanks again.

See all comments on this post here:
http://www.morganscloud.com/2011/11/...hors/#comments

unquote
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 07:07 PM   #486
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
I went to the website and the TOTAL reference to the DelBay and Chesapeake was that those areas presented their own special problems. Is there a another reference to those areas that I missed?

It DID NOT say that they encountered mud many times and that was an issue...in fact it's a stretch to infer much out of such a simplistic statement.

In MANY areas in the Chesapeake if you move closer to a "bar" and away from the middle of a silted in area...the bottom becomes "sticky" as noted on the charts and my experience. Even my low holding power Bruce did fine when I used my "nautical chart reading knowledge".

Now with my "even better according to the tests" anchor I should have nothing to worry about.

As far as an anchor type needing to be "unfouled" at some point in their life...I've used many but the unusual...and they all have an Achilles heel or two.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 07:13 PM   #487
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
I went to the website and the TOTAL reference to the DelBay and Chesapeake was that those areas presented their own special problems. Is there a another reference to those areas that I missed?

It DID NOT say that they encountered mud many times and that was an issue...in fact it's a stretch to infer much out of such a simplistic statement.

In MANY areas in the Chesapeake if you move closer to a "bar" and away from the middle of a silted in area...the bottom becomes "sticky" as noted on the charts and my experience. Even my low holding power Bruce did fine when I used my "nautical chart reading knowledge".

Now with my "even better according to the tests" anchor I should have nothing to worry about.
Regarding Anchors: When you least expect it - Expect IT!

Jus Sayen...
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 07:23 PM   #488
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
I went to the website and the TOTAL reference to the DelBay and Chesapeake was that those areas presented their own special problems. Is there a another reference to those areas that I missed?

It DID NOT say that they encountered mud many times and that was an issue...in fact it's a stretch to infer much out of such a simplistic statement.

In MANY areas in the Chesapeake if you move closer to a "bar" and away from the middle of a silted in area...the bottom becomes "sticky" as noted on the charts and my experience. Even my low holding power Bruce did fine when I used my "nautical chart reading knowledge".

Now with my "even better according to the tests" anchor I should have nothing to worry about.

As far as an anchor type needing to be "unfouled" at some point in their life...I've used many but the unusual...and they all have an Achilles heel or two.
Scott,

its a quote, no more, no less. But it was suggested the Smiths did not encounter mud, this was not correct - they encountered mud and the experience was sufficiently important they made mention.

How you want to interpret what they said is up to you.

You can equally draw you own conclusions as to the quotes on the Morgan's Cloud website. If you want to ignore it fine, if you want to consider it fine. Its unto you to interpret not to complain when someone draws it to your attention.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 07:51 PM   #489
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
Complain? That's only your interpretation of my pointing out how much info in this thread is taken out of context or in one beyond what is actually made.

Where is it said they never encountered mud?

Not from me...but it also doesn't say they encountered it many times...only when they did it presented "particular" problems.

After living and boating a long time on the Delaware bay...I would love to know where they encountered their problems because many know that there's not many places a person is going to anchor in Delbay if there's more than a gentle blow. Maybe at best hiding behind a lee shore (even that's rare).... if that goes to what "particularl" circumstances they encountered too...
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 11:08 PM   #490
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Scott,

Did I misquote:

This was quote I posted

quote

Pete, together with Jo and their son Craig, sailed Kiwi Roa from England to New Zealand during the period 1994 – 1998. Although extremely well set-up, Kiwi Roa experienced frequent problems when anchoring. Soft mud areas such as the English East Coast, the Chesapeake, and the Delaware Bay presented particular problems.

unquote.

The second word of the last sentence mentions 'mud' and also, previous sentence - 'frequent'.

If you are not sure and need clarification (and feel the need to belabour your point), please contact them direct and let us all know. It seems clear to me and I am more than happy with my interpretation, wrong though it might be.

That's the trouble with sloppy English, prone to an interpretation by the reader.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 12:56 PM   #491
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
I believe the voyage on which the Smiths encountered mud problems on the Chesapeake occurred prior to Peter's developing the Rocna. Not positive, though.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 01:16 PM   #492
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
I believe the voyage on which the Smiths encountered mud problems on the Chesapeake occurred prior to Peter's developing the Rocna. Not positive, though.
Since it is clearly spelled out in Smith's bio that he had problems with the Bruce, CQR, and Delta anchors aboard his boat, and notably while anchoring in soft mud bottoms, then it is not much of a stretch to think that he would have later designed the Rocna, and tested it thoroughly, to resolve those problems.

And even if he hadn't, then why not? It is not as though soft mud is difficult to find in bays, lakes, rivers, seas, etc. around the world.

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 02:28 PM   #493
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Here is an interesting observation for all to interpret as they will. I just went through the October issues of passage maker and Yachting magazines. I ticked off the type of anchors I could identify on the bows of boats ,articles and all adds new and used. I classified anchors in groups #1 plow and spade or shovel type. #2 Bruce #3 navy or variation. #4 Danforth type which would include Fortress. Here is what I found. Yachting 30 type ones(plough-spade)-six #2 Bruce-five #3 Navy and ONE Danforth seen on back page in a picture of a costa Rica marina. Passage Maker 36 #1 plough-spade. 9 #2 Bruce. 4 #3 navy. ONE #4 Danforth on a George Buehler Diesel Duck. Where I do personally see Danforth anchors is at local marinas in the northwest usually on older boats some not so well maintained. My impression is that in general where people are putting money into their boats the primary anchor on the bow is not a Danforth type and I have no idea how many boats have a fortress in the bilge or anchor locker. I certainly get the impression that valuable medium and larger boats certainly the types that would fit the categories of trawler - motor cruiser and express are not sticking fortresses on the bow as primary anchors not in my area nor in Yachting or Passage Maker. I have owned and used Danforth anchors including the Fortress and consider them very good but not as a primary. Setting and resetting is my major complaint. If I have a good all around primary out an aluminum fortress or spade as a secondary set from my dinghy works for me. If I anticipate a hurricane three Danforth anchors set as a Port Washington mooring with lots of scope, otherwise the Danforth stays out of the water and off the bow. So what would I do in soft mud. Same as I did for 15 years when I gunk holed on the Chesapeake two anchors if I expected TS or significant wind.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 03:13 PM   #494
Guru
 
Capthead's Avatar
 
City: Long Beach, CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Heads Up
Vessel Model: Grand Banks 42 Classic
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 950
I Think the whole anchoring thing is driven by cruising area. In my region we anchor in the Pacific off an Island. We don't have mud bottoms, we don't have protected waters like the PNW or SF. We have the Pacific Ocean and a sand bottom. Our tidal range is from 6 to 8' depending on time of year and we anchor with a 3 to 1 scope. We get close to each other and anybody thinking 5 or 7 is going to collect boats on the swing.

Looking at the boats in any marina here you'll see CQR on sailboats and mainly Danforth types on power. I don't use all chain I carry 100' and I have anchored outside the Avalon harbor where the shelf has a very steep drop off. It's 100' where they start the anchorage and goes deep fast past that area. I anchored in 100' plus with my danforth and ony 100' of chain and I never moved with a 3 to 1 scope. I did a 180 swing and back, It held.

I'm reading all kinds of stories and can't relate. Like I reported earlier my friend on a 50 plus Pathfinder broke his bowsprit with a Fortress and when he got it up it looked right out of the box. That's a tough anchor. I can say, the way they made his bowsprit was cheezey. You can cover cheap crappy plywood with FRP and gelcoat.

It's great read though. I'm ready
Capthead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 06:21 PM   #495
Veteran Member
 
City: Laconner
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 67
Here is what I posted from a similar thread a couple months ago. Also in the same thread I had the same observations in mud. The anchor I believe kept digging and with much effort I had to break it out. I really don't know why you wouldn't want to use a anchor that sets well, takes abuse, is lite weight, etc.

We cruised for two months this Summer in Northern BC and we set in rock, mud, short scope situations etc. I pulled up bottom debris and was thankful I could manipulate the anchor to deal with it. The anchor is getting pretty scratched up from the abuse and I wonder what the Fortress warranty covers.




With mild amusement I have been enjoying the banter regarding this topic. For many years I had a fantastic Danforth type for my large (65 foot) boat. We cruise extensively throughout Washington and BC. About 10 years ago during a refit this heavy anchor disappeared. Needless to say I was heartbroken that the anchor I had come to know and trust was gone. The yard said to purchase any anchor I desired and that they would pay for it. I researched, called people that had different styles suitable for my vessel. I ending up going with a Fortress FX-85



I was concerned with something this light holding me in the rocky grounds we are often in. Fortunately I found a lot of my concerns to not be. The anchor has performed how it should and I couldn't be happier. The lightweight design makes it easier to clear if it comes up fouled with a log or cable.



In mud I have held easily in current and wind. Even when they are opposing. Often we are the only boat in the group to have a hook down and I have slept comfortably. One weekend we had almost ten boats all good size safely secured.
Bigsalmonfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 06:26 PM   #496
Veteran Member
 
City: Laconner
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 67
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1411770367.309350.jpg
Views:	76
Size:	71.6 KB
ID:	33194

Not sure if this came through but here's the anchor
Bigsalmonfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 07:12 PM   #497
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Bigsalmonfish,

Great image, great looking boat!

And that looks like a real anchor!

edit, Do you have another anchor on the other side?
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 07:20 PM   #498
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
People are saying they would not use a Fortress nor Danforth because the fluke might 'lock' and that this would be a danger in a change of tide (or change of wind). Strangely some of these same people will quite happily use a roll bar anchor that Morgan's Cloud are finding will clog and not reset on a change of tide (or change of wind direction).

Do people have selective memories.

One thing the Fortress tests underline is that if their product is well set, and maybe the same is true of a Danforth, the problem is not the change of tide - but retrieval. And if they are so difficult to retrieve (actually only needing patience) why are they going to pull out on a change of tide (or wind).
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 07:27 PM   #499
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsalmonfish View Post
Attachment 33194

Not sure if this came through but here's the anchor
Bigsalmonfish

If you haven't already... Show us an array of picts of your boat. I really like her snoot!

That Fortress F-85 anchor is one Big Mama Jammmma, I can see why you hold so good on the hook. I am sorry you lost your beloved Danforth... but, looks like you've done one better.

With size of anchor you carry... must have been a front end loader to place the heavy ol' Danforth into a sizable truck.
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 10:34 PM   #500
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
I know my concern with danforth/fortress style anchors is their inability (in my experience) in smaller sizes to penetrate grass, seaweed and shell jams where I have done the majority of my anchoring for the last 50 years.

Now...maybe I need to rethink all that now that I have graduated to larger vessels that would be using 100 or so pound danforths /fortress equivalents that may penetrate better and the average clam/oyster shell is just too small to clog it up.

That's a distinct possibility...but then again I have read several tests and many opinions that state there are still better all around anchors out there for daily use .

So....there I go...wandering off into the cruising grounds...happy that I have chosen an anchor that makes me feel secure...fully knowing that if a real blow comes on...I can shackle a Danforth up ahead of it and maybe survive the big one.

But I sure as heck don't have a selective memory any more than others and I know what I have experienced on many a pleasure and commercial vessel when it comes to anchoring and know whose opinions I trust and those I really don't.
__________________

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 06:22 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