Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-04-2014, 02:22 AM   #681
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 Delfin View Post
Further, if the rollbar ends up piling up debris in front of it, holding is further reduced.

The advantage of the roll bar is that you dispense with the need for the bulky ballasted tip that is needed in anchors like the fixed convex plow models.

A bulky ballasted tip has to penetrate the substrate for the anchor to get any grip at all. On the other hand the rollbar is at the back of the fluke. Before the rollbar presents any resistance, the fluke has to be almost completely buried.

As the anchor buries more, the rollbar does present some resistance to the anchor diving, but I believe it less of problem than the bulky tip. The ultimate design is to remove both the bulk of the ballasted tip and the rollbar. Anchors like this (such as the Raya, Oceane and Sword) have tended to be slightly erratic (the Boss is a bit new to tell).

One of my reasons for taking photos is to dispel some myths.

Have a look at the photos and you will see plenty of examples of bulky tips especially on the convex plow anchors simply "piling up debris in front".

The Mantus has a thin rollbar so is obviously less likely to pile up debris if it was going to occur, but if you look at the photos I have taken of the other rollbar anchors it does not show this phenomenon. Even if we look at the Bugel which has a very thick roll I see no evidence of the roll bar "piling up debris" and lots of evidence of anchors with bulky ballasted tips doing exactly that.


A fixed convex plow anchor piling substrate in front of it:




A rollbar anchor:

__________________
Advertisement

Noelex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 03:27 AM   #682
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Noelex when you have images of the Raya, better used one - then I think you are in a position to comment. In the interim you are simply speculating and denigrating a product you know no more about than anyone else.

The roll bar of most concave anchors represents a surface area of 10% of the surface area of the fluke. Possibly you can explain why this does not have a significant effect.

Mantus themselves say that their anchor sets better without the roll bar and I have tried it and they are correct. On the model I tried I found it was 25% deeper in a sand seabed without the roll bar. This is something you can do yourself, I suggest you take the roll bar off your Mantus, set it and then sit at anchor for 3 or 4 days and take pictures on a daily basis. Then do the same, same place with the roll bar attached. This really needs to be done with winds veering through 180 degrees so that we can see its resetting ability, with and without the roll bar (as suggested by the suppliers). For real authenticity, as with all anchor testing - this is best performed with someone who is recognised and accepted as being impartial.

You mention convex anchors 'piling up the sand'. There are convex anchors you have never seen working, for example the Excel. When you have seen a statistical number of these you might then be in a position to comment. Until then you are simply guessing - and guessing with an anchor does not work. One might actually say you are trolling as you no technical basis for your comments.

I would much prefer that you do not speculate and extrapolate about subjects of which you know absolutely nothing.
__________________

Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 05:04 AM   #683
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Noelex Quoted:

One of my reasons for taking photos is to dispel some myths.

Have a look at the photos and you will see plenty of examples of bulky tips especially on the convex plow anchors simply "piling up debris in front".
End Quote:

As Long as I am a anchor designer I will complain when I see unjust and ridicules statements made in regard to unfair and unjust comparisons, whether it be a plow, rocna, Bugal, Ultra Fortress, Delta, because I understand what it takes to design an anchor, further I understand from designing anchors unless the testing is an apples to apples test you are—could be misrepresenting many designs that have served the industry for years.


One--You have a massive, some might say ridicules’ 57 Kilo Mantus anchor size on your boat, I think you said 14 ton and 48 feet mono .
Two -- That’s fine—you supply no evidence as to the comparisons of anchor weight or size.

Three- you dive on your anchor set. Then reset if you are not satisfied.
Four -- You talk about heaping as something roll bar concave anchors don’t do, heaping is a natural phenomenon when setting your anchor depending on how much you drag it in, (convex or concave)with a massive Mantus like yours its no wonder you have little heaping.


Five –Listing, this is your description of not such a good performance, again listing is a natural process with most anchors when setting, once fully set will normally self align, if you take a Spade anchor with the huge tip weight, listing allows this design to follow your boat around in the change of tide applying its maximum angle of attack to give less chance of breaking out in a change of wind or tide. Concave roll bars do the same but less.( providing they are of similar size)


Five—distance that it takes for anchors’ in comparison of your Mantus to set, THIS IS SO OUT OF KILTA, You are not setting them, your comparisons are just randomly dropping their anchors, smaller anchors take longer to hold, smaller anchors will drag further with the same throttle load, a smaller anchor with less weight will struggle more in harder substrate to set than a heavier one and take longer, drag further before set.


Now I really don’t care if you are offended by this but there are a lot of old and new designs in your comparisons that I believe are being misrepresented, you photography is commendable, your experience is unquestionable, but your "VERBAL" comparisons are way of the mark and unfair, “you know” I don’t know how good your Mantus is because of your flawed comparisons.


You should also clear up Djbangies query, you stated on the YWB forum that the Mantus set first time and didn’t drag in mud and weed, when going back over your statement on CF YOU CLEARLY STATED IT DRAGGED AND YOU HAD TO RESET IT, I know this as I have rechecked. This really bothers me.
One thousand 500 hundred sets with your Rocna, (Noelex how heavy is your rocna. ) Regardless it’s a great performance.


kind Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 08:17 AM   #684
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 don't like the Excel for the same reason we don't like the CQR. We won't put our faith in anchors with flukes streamlined in the direction of pull. We want the broadest, most resistant piece of metal opposing the pull of the boat as practical, not something that by design will slide through the bottom when you pull on it.

Yes, I know the theory--- as it moves forward it's also supposed to dig in deeper and so hold harder. But I've driven a tractor pulling a plow, and so far as I'm concerned, that's the wrong approach to take with an anchor design no matter how you fiddle the bends in the metal. There are already enough variables in anchoring. Using an anchor that "wants" to move forward is not something I want to add to the mix.
Marin, for someone as technically savvy as you are, you have a blind spot re this plough thing. The so-called plow, (I'll use the US spelling hereafter as it's shorter), type anchors are not really plows at all, they just resemble them, so the name sort of stuck. If, as you say, you have driven a tractor pulling a plow, as have I, (I learnt to drive on the farms Massey Ferguson doing just that), then you will have noticed the plow share has a distinct upwards and outwards curve in the upper part of the rearmost half, which is designed to turn the soil over and outwards. Also, it lacks the mirror image other half to balance it. Even so, if the curved part was less so, and it was balanced by a mirror image joined to it as convex type anchors are, and the whole machine was not supported on wheels which prevent it, the net effect of a plow would be to drive it so far down into the field no tractor, let alone a horse, could pull it far without grinding to a halt, or something breaking.

That…is the strength of the convex type fluke. The convex (better term) anchors do not have that pronounced outward curve, but are essentially two triangular shapes joined along the upper edge, forming a wedge, with varying degrees of downward angle, in the case of the S-Sarca, very little - it is only slightly convex, the Excel (and many other), more-so. This shape, (streamlined as you term it), parts the substrate, and the net effect because of the downward taper towards the tip, is indeed to drive it further and further down. If max hold is exceeded, and it does drag, it is slow and controlled and usually stays deep, with the seabed folding back over it, doing minimal damage to the seabed. I don't think one can explain it plainer than that. I have actually watched my anchor doing this in clear water, although I admit I have never seen the 'controlled' drag bit. As far as I know, it never has. I don't like to dive much in Moreton Bay - 'Jaws' the movie ruined me for that.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 08:35 AM   #685
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPseudonym View Post
I am in the market for a new generation anchor right now(actually windlass, roller and rode too) and the above statement of Marin's is honestly where the rubber meets the road for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPseudonym View Post
Small foredeck and no pulpit(nor desire for one) is proving to be a fun little jigsaw puzzle to solve.

That might give you an opportunity to install two rollers, somehow, so you could keep two different-style anchors "mounted" -- with perhaps a not-too-difficult rode-swap mechanism.

In my spare time, I've been studying on the idea of somehow adding another roller semi-elegantly so I could do that. No joy so far...

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 08:49 AM   #686
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex View Post
Marin if you are going to lump in the Excel as a Plough then I don’t see why you would prefer the Super Sarca?
Truth is neither plough... then if you still think the Excel is a plough then don’t try selling it to l the farmers, the trench fills in rather than plough out, this is very well demonstrated by the delta example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
The Excel is a new twist on an old idea, the CQR. The plow design, be it a CQR, Delta, Excel, etc. is streamlined in the direction of pull, and I simply believe that's a fundamentally bad idea. Sorry, but that's the way I feel.

Ummm... Seems to me part of this debate is "what's a plough?" (plow?)

Rex says the Excel is not a plough, Marin says it is.

Why is it not a plough? Why is it a plow? Explanations? Thoughts?

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 08:50 AM   #687
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,892
I just watched about an hour of videos of the three major roll bar anchors...pretty much they all do the same thing and do it pretty well if you can believe the videos (obviously the videos of NOT setting are pretty rare to non existant except in some "canned" testing). I'm guessing the videos show what these anchors were designed to do. They also debunk a lot of theories posted in this thread.

Watching the vids is good enough for me and with all the testimonials I feel pretty secure in my anchor selection....which could have been any of the newgen types/styles.

I suggest if you are actually thinking of believing some of the stuff posted in this thread....you spend more time looking at posted videos and make the decision for yourself.....a good read of the major anchor websites isn't a bad use of time either...but look at them all...you can see the marketing and the flawed thinking pretty easily...but in the end...they are all pretty well thought out and have proven themselves to a lot of cruisers with no "clear" winner.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 08:54 AM   #688
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Originally Quoted by Peter B

Marin, for someone as technically savvy as you are, you have a blind spot re this plough thing. The so-called plow, (I'll use the US spelling hereafter as it's shorter), type anchors are not really plows at all, they just resemble them, so the name sort of stuck. If, as you say, you have driven a tractor pulling a plow, as have I, (I learnt to drive on the farms Massey Ferguson doing just that), then you will have noticed the plow share has a distinct upwards and outwards curve in the upper part of the rearmost half, which is designed to turn the soil over and outwards. Even so, if the curved part was less so, and the whole machine was not supported on wheels which prevent it, the net effect of a plow would be to drive it so far down into the field no tractor, let alone a horse, could pull it far without grinding to a halt, or something breaking.

That…is the strength of the convex type fluke. The convex (better term) anchors do not have that pronounced outward curve, but are essentially two triangular shapes joined along the upper edge, forming a wedge, with varying degrees of downward angle, in the case of the S-Sarca, very little - it is only slightly convex, the Excel (and many other), more-so. This shape, (streamlined as you term it), parts the substrate, and the net effect because of the downward taper towards the tip, is indeed to drive it further and further down. If max hold is exceeded, and it does drag, it is slow and controlled and usually stays deep, with the seabed folding back over it, doing minimal damage to the seabed. I don't think one can explain it plainer than that. I have actually watched my anchor doing this in clear water, although I admit I have never seen the 'controlled' drag bit. As far as I know, it never has. I don't like to dive much in Moreton Bay - 'Jaws' the movie ruined me for that.


Pete
__________________


Quote from Rex:

I will tell you one thing Eric, Marin, Peter maybe a little biased because he likes his Super Sarca but he is mostly spot on with most of his knowledge as to how his anchor works, and again he has not learnt this from me, mostly observation over quite a lengthy time, I am truly surprised by his accuracy time over.

Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 09:00 AM   #689
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Quote by psneeld:

just watched about an hour of videos of the three major roll bar anchors...pretty much they all do the same thing and do it pretty well if you can believe the videos (obviously the videos of NOT setting are pretty rare to non existant except in some "canned" testing). I'm guessing the videos show what these anchors were designed to do.

Watching the vids is good enough for me and with all the testimonials I feel pretty secure in my anchor selection....which could have been any of the newgen types/styles.

I suggest if you are actually thinking of believing some of the stuff posted in this thread....you spend more time looking at posted videos and make the decision for yourself.....a good read of the major anchor websites isn't a bad use of time either...but look at them all...you can see the marketing and the flawed thinking pretty easily...but in the end...they are all pretty well thought out and have proven themselves to a lot of cruisers with no "clear" winner.

Rex replied

Scott very good coments, so why all the arguing? Flawed marketing, you must be talking about the othe blokes.

Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 09:23 AM   #690
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Quote from ranger42C

Ummm... Seems to me part of this debate is "what's a plough?" (plow?)

Rex says the Excel is not a plough, Marin says it is.

Why is it not a plough? Why is it a plow? Explanations? Thoughts?

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay

Quote from Rex:

Chris,
I have been over this so many times, Peter B basically summed it up, watch the environment vid on our web site, you can then judge.

Chris whilst you are there, I notice you are looking for bow roller arrangements, might be something there that will give you an idea.

Regards Rex.
Bay
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 10:52 AM   #691
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelex View Post
The advantage of the roll bar is that you dispense with the need for the bulky ballasted tip that is needed in anchors like the fixed convex plow models.

A bulky ballasted tip has to penetrate the substrate for the anchor to get any grip at all. On the other hand the rollbar is at the back of the fluke. Before the rollbar presents any resistance, the fluke has to be almost completely buried.

As the anchor buries more, the rollbar does present some resistance to the anchor diving, but I believe it less of problem than the bulky tip. The ultimate design is to remove both the bulk of the ballasted tip and the rollbar. Anchors like this (such as the Raya, Oceane and Sword) have tended to be slightly erratic (the Boss is a bit new to tell).

One of my reasons for taking photos is to dispel some myths.

Have a look at the photos and you will see plenty of examples of bulky tips especially on the convex plow anchors simply "piling up debris in front".

The Mantus has a thin rollbar so is obviously less likely to pile up debris if it was going to occur, but if you look at the photos I have taken of the other rollbar anchors it does not show this phenomenon. Even if we look at the Bugel which has a very thick roll I see no evidence of the roll bar "piling up debris" and lots of evidence of anchors with bulky ballasted tips doing exactly that.


A fixed convex plow anchor piling substrate in front of it:
The essence of any meaningful "test" purporting to compare two things is that the test applies uniform test conditions to the things being tested. For an example of a meaningful test, please see Fortress' methodology in the Chesapeake. Comparing the anchor set of your oversized Mantus that you select to post with an anchor 1/3 the size is completely meaningless. Add to that the different techniques applied to set the anchor by two different people - one of whom could as easily be a drunk Italian charterer as Robin Knox-Johnson and you have no test, just a very misleading representation of selective information that certainly appears to have a commercial intent. I don't think you are "dispelling myths", although you are creating some of your own. I just don't see a lot of people buying what you're selling on this Noelex.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 11:04 AM   #692
Art
Guru
 
Art's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Tollycraft 34' Tri Cabin
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 7,979
Ya know...

When parking any type vehicle, sometimes the "driver" (no matter how good/experienced they may be) needs to pull it out and readjust vehicle to correctly parked position/angle in location chosen. May even need to move-to/find a different location.

Similarly, when setting any type anchor, sometimes the "setter" (no matter how good/experienced they may be) needs to pull it out and readjust anchor to correctly set position/angle in location chosen. May even need to move-to/find a different location.

Brings me to this point: There are one heck of a bunch of well-designed anchors here trying to beat each other over the head regarding some really meaningless frivolities.

Three most prominent needs:

1. Anchor’s Good-Holding Design – There are a bunch to choose from that have been fully discussed in this thread… some better than others in certain bottom conditions… having one or two choices aboard is wise if boater plans to anchor in considerably differing bottom conditions

2. Anchor’s Design Fitting On-Board Storage Position – There are many anchor designs to choose from… get creative as to how/where your desired design “primary anchor” will be stored on your boat

3. MOST IMPORTANT NEED… Correct Anchor Setting Capability – If you think you can simply drop an anchor with its chain/line like a ton of bricks (off bow or stern), providing enough chain/line to establish sufficient scope… and then simply pull away by engine or shut down engine(s) to let wind or current set anchor for you – Well, Think Again! Then carefully read post #604 on page 31

In closing:

There are autos now that can park themselves via computer controlled actions. They NEVER make a mistake and NEVER need to reset vehicle. Until that becomes generally produced throughout auto industry – well – we simply need to be good at parking our own vehicles. Remember, there are many different model/design vehicles you can chose to own/drive; each has different qualities regarding parking characteristics.

So far (to my knowledge) – There is no boat and anchor combination that is (or can be) computer controlled accurately enough so that it can NEVER make mistakes while setting anchors (Anchor setting has plethora of more complicated dynamics than parking a car). SOOOO… learn to me a GOOD Anchor Setter with the design anchor you chose to use! Again, read post #604 on page 31 of this thread That’s the answer – What’s the question???

Happy Anchor Daze! - Art
Art is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 11:31 AM   #693
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
Ummm... Seems to me part of this debate is "what's a plough?" (plow?)

Rex says the Excel is not a plough, Marin says it is.

Why is it not a plough? Why is it a plow? Explanations? Thoughts?

-Chris
None of them are plows - at least in the agricultural sense - because they are all double sided. CQR apparently thought it good marketing to call their design a "plough" anchor, but it isn't a plow any farmer would recognize. But even if an anchor could be designed that could be set as a single sided plow, anyone who has bogged a four wheel drive tractor because they set the gauge wheel too high and had the plow start digging to China can attest to their holding power.

The purpose of the convex design of some anchors, at least as I understand the mechanics, is to allow the anchor to dive to more compacted conditions, pushing and compacting the soil to the sides. Hoop style, dragon tooth, concave anchors count on their holding by slicing quickly into the sea bed and piling up soil on the top side of the flukes and in front of the hoop. This works fine most of the time in most conditions, which is why people like them. But it is also why they frequently come out lower in holding capacity to well designed diving anchors in comparative tests. Promoters of this type of hook make a great deal of their quick set. But in a practical sense, what earthly difference to a boater does it make if while cutting deeper into the sea bed it is dragged back 10 feet while setting? Zero. Another way to think of this is to ask yourself which hook would you want holding you in a hurricane. An anchor buried 4 inches under the sea bed or one that the harder you pull on it, the deeper it goes to denser and denser substrate? True, there are infrequent conditions where the substrate is solid, and I suppose that is why many people argue that no one anchor design is best for all conditions.

It is also clear that the design of a good diving anchor is a lot trickier than coming up with a decent hoop style since the Delta always seems to be a pretty ho hum performer while the Excel appears to be outstanding. I'd also say that the Super Sarca seems to be a compromise between both designs - a diving anchor with convex flukes with a thin hoop.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 12:32 PM   #694
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
Marin, for someone as technically savvy as you are, you have a blind spot re this plough thing. The so-called plow, (I'll use the US spelling hereafter as it's shorter), type anchors are not really plows at all, they just resemble them, so the name sort of stuck.
Peter-- I know exactly how a plough anchor works. It's totally obvious simply by looking at it. Where an agricultural plough is one-sided and pushes dirt off to the side while moving (relatively) easily through the soil carving a furrow for the seed drill, the anchor is upside down and double-sided and by pushing dirt up on both sides, it theoretically forces itself down into the bottom to the point where it resists further forward movement, at which point your boat halts its backwards movement.

Good theory, works fine most of the time. BUT.... when i read about anchor performance from real people using real anchors in real situations (as opposed to tests which are fun comparisons but don't really tell you much that relates to the real world) what anchor do I read about that has the most instances of dragging? Well waddaya know, it's the plough. Most often the CQR, which makes sense as there are vastly more of them in use around the world than the other plough-type designs like the Excel, Delta, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that plough-type anchors are dragging all over the planet all the time. The friend I mentioned in my previous post has been using his good-size CQR for decades with very few problems in the often-challenging bottoms in this part of the world and he's totally satisfied with it. And in bottoms that favor the plough anchor's design theory, hey, great anchor!

I'm simply saying that from all the indications I've got--- mostly reading user comments over the years--- the basic plough concept is more prone to dragging than a design that presents a broad, unbroken, flattish surface at a right angle to the the direction of pull to provide the maximum resistance to movement through the bottom, aka holding power.

Bottom line (pun intended), I don't like plough-type anchors because I feel they add a negative potential to the already-huge list of variables involved in anchoring a boat. To my way of thinking, one less variable is a good thing.

BTW, I don't see why people here are so wrapped around the axle on the notion of an anchor piling up substrate in front of it. Seems to me that any crap an anchor piles up in front of it is that much more stuff resisting the forward movement of the anchor. Personally, I would absolutely love it if our Rocna bulldozed up a mound of bottom muck that was ten feet high and thirty feet long. Jammed into that wall of debris, the little devil wouldn't be going anywhere when the wind came up.

Back in the mid-80s on a film shoot I was directing I was given an opportunity to drive a new Cat D-10. The machine's operator sat in the cab with me and showed me how to operate it. It was being used to level huge piles of excavated dirt at an open-pit coal mine here in Washington. On my first try I dug the blade in a bit too deep and it pushed up a wall of dirt that stopped the machine. This with a 700 hp twin-turbo V-12 diesel. So to my way of thinking, piling up stuff in front is a good way to stop something moving.

PS--I prefer the "proper" spelling of plough, too.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 12:37 PM   #695
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
I think we are getting really close to everyone being in agreement on anchors.
__________________
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   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 01:17 PM   #696
Guru
 
Tom.B's Avatar
 
City: Cary, NC
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Skinny Dippin'
Vessel Model: Navigator 4200 Classic
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonstruck View Post
I think we are getting really close to everyone being in agreement on anchors.
LOL

I think it's hilarious how everyone wants to give a flying crap about another person's anchor. Why do you care at all if someone else thinks the anchor you use (or are paid to use as the case may be) is better or worse than yours? How does that affect you? ABSOLUTELY ZERO, that how much. You have yours... it works. Good on ya'. There is no liability if someone has a different anchor than you and it fails, and I would bet my extensive fortune you guys would have zero guilt from it. In fact, you would probably start an "I-told-you-so" thread just to prove how awesomely correct you were from the start.

Y'all really could set the example as a quality boating forum and be the first ever in human history to not argue about anchors. Meh, who am I kidding?
__________________
2000 Navigator 4200 Classic
(NOT a trawler)
Tom.B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 01:24 PM   #697
Guru


 
City: Full-time onboard
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Trawler
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom.B View Post
Why do you care at all if someone else thinks the anchor you use (or are paid to use as the case may be) is better or worse than yours? How does that affect you? ABSOLUTELY ZERO, that how much.
Well, actually...someone else's anchor is about the only thing on their boat that might very well affect me in an anchorage...
Jeffrey S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 01:41 PM   #698
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 Delfin View Post
The purpose of the convex design of some anchors, at least as I understand the mechanics, is to allow the anchor to dive to more compacted conditions, pushing and compacting the soil to the sides. Hoop style, dragon tooth, concave anchors count on their holding by slicing quickly into the sea bed and piling up soil on the top side of the flukes and in front of the hoop. .
This description does not bear any reality to how I see anchors behaving underwater.

Here are a couple more photos.

It is the non roll bar anchors that are "piling up soil on the top sides of the fluke".

These are not atypical presentations. It is just the way different anchor designs behave when you actually look rather than believing the spin.

There are exceptions, but your description of the underwater behaviour of anchors is not what is seen in practice.











Noelex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 01:52 PM   #699
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 Delfin View Post
Promoters of this type of hook make a great deal of their quick set. But in a practical sense, what earthly difference to a boater does it make if while cutting deeper into the sea bed it is dragged back 10 feet while setting? Zero.
This is fine if you have 10 feet of clear substrate for the anchor to set.
Anchors that take a long distance to set will also move further back as they dig in deeper if the wind picks up.

What if there is an obstruction? Say a clump of heavy weed, a rock, or some rubbish. These are common problems.

An anchor that sets quickly and moves backwards very little as it dives in response to stronger wind is a desirable feature.
Noelex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2014, 02:44 PM   #700
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom.B View Post
There is no liability if someone has a different anchor than you and it fails,
We watched (from the dock we were tied to) a strong wind wreak havoc among the anchored boats out in the bay. This was in a marine park where some boats were on permanent mooring buoys and others were anchored. For anyone familiar with the San Juan Islands, this was in Fossil Bay at Sucia.

Several anchored boats dragged their anchors and they got caught up in the rodes of other boats or the anchor lines/chains of the permanent mooring buoys.

This was a bit after midnight, and the flashing of lights, sounding of horns, revving of engines, yelling, and the sound of boats grinding and bashing together in the waves was something to hear. It went on for about an hour until the wind began to subside.

I have no idea of the dollar value of the damage done that night. The next morning revealed destroyed handrails, big gashes and scrapes in fiberglass hull sides, crushed caprails, a smashed swimstep and dinghy, a broken pulpit, and this is just the damage I saw and can recall.

So I think Jeff's observation is right on the money. What someone else is using for ground tackle, and how intelligently they use it, is very much of concern to the people in boats around them. At least to those who understand the variables at play in an anchoring situation.
__________________

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 PM.


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