Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-05-2014, 11:42 AM   #721
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
Carl,
Some people think surface area is everything. Not so. A big anchor near the surface could be pulled out whereas a smaller anchor buried deep w tons of seabed on top of it may not pull out w the same force.

Refer to what happened in the Fortress test. How can it be otherwise explained? A car applies power to the drive wheels on ice .. nothing happens. But on dry pavement ... Bad analogy? You can fly through the air easily but through the water you need more force. And in a seabed even much more. Perhaps the huge difference in the volume of seabed pressing down on the anchor is not anywhere linear giving a big advantage to the deeply set anchor.

But probably this big difference applies at wildly different levels in different bottoms. So Carl I think your "big is better" and "surface area is everything" philosophy probably applies more often. Quite likely most of the time.

But I can see where at times a smaller anchor may have greater holding potential.
__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 12:07 PM   #722
Guru
 
Northern Spy's Avatar
 
City: Powell River, BC
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Northern Spy
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 26
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post

By the way, does this mean you are finally willing to admit you are not a Zulu warrior???
__________________

Northern Spy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 12:36 PM   #723
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
This is the fundamental reason I go on about the only limitation I see in hoop style anchors - if they don't dive, their maximum hold is static so what you get setting it in 20 knots is pretty much what you'll get in 80 unless it drags and hits something solid.

Delfin, with respect, this is just not right.

Here is the Mantus setting deeper in response to stronger wind.

First is the initial set with the engine which is equivalent on my boat to about 25-30 knots of wind:




Next an actual wind force of 25-30 knots of wind. The anchor is very similar, but has set just a fraction deeper:




Next 45-50 knots and much deeper again:



Naturally the holding power increases as the anchor dives deeper.

Note: this is true of any of the rollbar anchors. The Mantus is just an example. I have seen the Rocna and others do exactly the same thing. In softer substrates they will be buried deeper again, but the same principal holds true. The anchor will dive deeper. This suggestion that rollbar anchors do not dive, bears no resemblance to what is observed in practice. In soft substrates the rollbar will disappear completely in strong wind.

Sorry no photos of 80 knots
Noelex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 01:02 PM   #724
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Noelex

Nice beach, now for those organic mud, gravel, rock and boulder piles I seem to find on the bottom more often than not. One anchor for all bottoms is my mantra and that is where the Chesapeake test and it's clones fall short.

Strong and heavy anchors, like a rugby or American football players have stood the test of time. Nothing magic that way but it doesn't lead to 37 pages and counting which is the whole advertising purpose.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 02:37 PM   #725
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Noelex

Nice beach, now for those organic mud, gravel, rock and boulder piles I seem to find on the bottom more often than not. One anchor for all bottoms is my mantra and that is where the Chesapeake test and it's clones fall short.

Strong and heavy anchors, like a rugby or American football players have stood the test of time. Nothing magic that way but it doesn't lead to 37 pages and counting which is the whole advertising purpose.
Bingo.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 02:49 PM   #726
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Carl,
Some people think surface area is everything. Not so. A big anchor near the surface could be pulled out whereas a smaller anchor buried deep w tons of seabed on top of it may not pull out w the same force.

Refer to what happened in the Fortress test. How can it be otherwise explained? A car applies power to the drive wheels on ice .. nothing happens. But on dry pavement ... Bad analogy? You can fly through the air easily but through the water you need more force. And in a seabed even much more. Perhaps the huge difference in the volume of seabed pressing down on the anchor is not anywhere linear giving a big advantage to the deeply set anchor.

But probably this big difference applies at wildly different levels in different bottoms. So Carl I think your "big is better" and "surface area is everything" philosophy probably applies more often. Quite likely most of the time.

But I can see where at times a smaller anchor may have greater holding potential.
I don't think we are disagreeing on anything, are we? Two identical anchors, one made of depleted uranium and the other aluminum. The heavier anchor will dive deeper and hold better than the aluminum anchor will. That's just physics. And, as anchors scale up and the weight per square inch of surface area also goes up the heavier anchor will simply be more efficient in digging deeper than the lighter anchor will. Maybe there is one, but I can't think of a situation where that would not be true.

Also dictated by physics is the fact that a hoop anchor will be inhibited in digging as deeply as a well designed anchor without the hoop. Whatever Noelex thinks his pictures reveal about the product he promotes, the above photos show me a hoop anchor that predictably never buries itself - even in sand. I have no idea whether that is simply the resistance created by the hoop, or that combined with the rotational force on the hoop causing it to tip the flukes more level than they would be otherwise. Does anyone think that a Rocna wouldn't disappear under the sea bed if you could remove the hoop after it had done its job to get the set started? If Noelex's photos were of an equal weight Sarca Excel, Spade or Ultra, the picture would be of a beach because the anchor would be gone.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 03:01 PM   #727
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
Carl
And buried 1" below the surface in sand is not what I'd call buried by diving.

And a short scope will keep an anchor from burying too.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 07:03 PM   #728
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Noelex,

I notice you have studiously, and in my mind dangerously, ignored the issues raised by Morgan's Cloud that roll bar anchors when filled with mud and subsequently forced to somersault can simply drag due to clogging.

Your vast experience of 7 years at anchor is better than the combined experience of the people who contribute to Morgan's Cloud (and others who have said the same thing) and you say anchors do not somersault but shuffle round. I note that this comment of yours has been contradicted by actual evidence. Possibly now you can concede you are wrong and the 75 pages of images and your comments lack credibility.

I also notice that in not one of your images of your set Rocna, which you suggest is well set, do we ever, not once, see a fully dived anchor - one that has disappeared completely. Yet other anchors disappear, my anchors completely disappear. The evidence is that you do not know how to set an anchor - or more likely your anchor is simply far too big (and simply cannot be set properly). Hold is dependent on depth, not weight of anchor, and your recommendation that your ridiculously large anchor is 'right' looks very suspect.

You have never once, to my knowledge, acknowledged the testing conducted by Fortress that show roll bar anchors in a poor light.

Frankly I think you are misleading the public by providing a rather glamorous dialogue omitting minor detail like, a clogged roll bar anchor might not reset, a ridiculously large anchor might be difficult to set deeply, like the shank of the Mantus has never been tested and shown to be adequate, like the roll bar on the Mantus can bend out of shape. Moreover you are quick to damn anchor for piling sand, yet you show images of Rocnas piling sand - but this is accepted.

You show anchors in the same anchorage and compare them - and are well aware that seabeds vary metre by metre - but this does not worry you, why spoil a good story with reality. Of course you only show convex anchors in a bad light and some of them you condemn (and look no better or worse than your favourites).

I can cherry pick and paste your images, as I guess you do, but why waste my time. If you want to compare anchors do it properly and stop appearing like a snake oil salesman. There are an increasing number of people who think you are a sham - which is a pity - you could have used those very excellent images for the good of Forum not for the good of a select and chosen few.

I am confidently expecting you t ignore this post - its too difficult for you to counter, and as in the past you will studiously ignore the dangers you are ignoring.

The issues that need discussion are:

Integrity of the engineering of the Mantus
Roll bar anchors clogging
The appalling performance of roll bar anchors in the Fortress tests
Your bias, without clarification, against convex anchors
Your ability to compare 2 anchors of different size, set different ways in different seabeds.

Your posts and your commentators on the thread look to have a focus, bias, that is unhealthy.

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 08:08 PM   #729
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,913
In all fairness...what makes Morgan's Cloud...whomever that might be any more of an expert on anchors and their good/bad features than anyone else? You keep making that referral but one example (reporting source) doesn't make it a fact.

Sure...great rep, lot's of miles, friends all around...but seriously...I've been around the block and never heard of them...but then I tend to follow commercial maritime work more than recreational.

Do you have dozens or more testimonials of roll bar anchors clogging to their detriment? If so please post.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 09:56 PM   #730
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Scott'

You must have forgotten:

Rocna Anchors

Read all the posts to the bottom, including that long and detailed post, #32. You will note that you contributed to the thread. Its close to home, its from TF. Its full of detail, warts and all.

But I agree - Morgan's Cloud are not well known outside their 'sphere' so the above posts bring it closer to home for you.

I'm not going to ask how many you want for statistical significance, as it should not be necessary - but I'll try to provide more later.

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 11:46 PM   #731
Guru
 
City: Hotel, CA
Country: Fried
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,328
Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1412567158.657465.jpg
Views:	65
Size:	66.7 KB
ID:	33421

__________________
Craig

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled - Mark Twain
CPseudonym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 12:49 AM   #732
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
Noelex,

I notice you have studiously, and in my mind dangerously, ignored the issues raised by Morgan's Cloud that roll bar anchors when filled with mud and subsequently forced to somersault can simply drag due to clogging.

Your vast experience of 7 years at anchor is better than the combined experience of the people who contribute to Morgan's Cloud (and others who have said the same thing) and you say anchors do not somersault but shuffle round. I note that this comment of yours has been contradicted by actual evidence. Possibly now you can concede you are wrong and the 75 pages of images and your comments lack credibility.

I also notice that in not one of your images of your set Rocna, which you suggest is well set, do we ever, not once, see a fully dived anchor - one that has disappeared completely. Yet other anchors disappear, my anchors completely disappear. The evidence is that you do not know how to set an anchor - or more likely your anchor is simply far too big (and simply cannot be set properly). Hold is dependent on depth, not weight of anchor, and your recommendation that your ridiculously large anchor is 'right' looks very suspect.

You have never once, to my knowledge, acknowledged the testing conducted by Fortress that show roll bar anchors in a poor light.

Frankly I think you are misleading the public by providing a rather glamorous dialogue omitting minor detail like, a clogged roll bar anchor might not reset, a ridiculously large anchor might be difficult to set deeply, like the shank of the Mantus has never been tested and shown to be adequate, like the roll bar on the Mantus can bend out of shape. Moreover you are quick to damn anchor for piling sand, yet you show images of Rocnas piling sand - but this is accepted.

You show anchors in the same anchorage and compare them - and are well aware that seabeds vary metre by metre - but this does not worry you, why spoil a good story with reality. Of course you only show convex anchors in a bad light and some of them you condemn (and look no better or worse than your favourites).

I can cherry pick and paste your images, as I guess you do, but why waste my time. If you want to compare anchors do it properly and stop appearing like a snake oil salesman. There are an increasing number of people who think you are a sham - which is a pity - you could have used those very excellent images for the good of Forum not for the good of a select and chosen few.

I am confidently expecting you t ignore this post - its too difficult for you to counter, and as in the past you will studiously ignore the dangers you are ignoring.

The issues that need discussion are:

Integrity of the engineering of the Mantus
Roll bar anchors clogging
The appalling performance of roll bar anchors in the Fortress tests
Your bias, without clarification, against convex anchors
Your ability to compare 2 anchors of different size, set different ways in different seabeds.

Your posts and your commentators on the thread look to have a focus, bias, that is unhealthy.

Jonathan
Sadly, I think one of the reasons anchor threads become passionate is because a significant manufacturer - Rocna - was caught intentionally deceiving the public in a way that was disgraceful. As a result, whenever someone relentlessly posts, a la Craig Smith, information that to someone with a bit of technical background or simple real world experience is clearly fallacious, hackles get raised and tempers along with them. For whatever reason, for every Fortress or Anchor Right doing testing to determine how to improve their product, or demonstrate its effectiveness, there is a manufacturer who enlists surrogates to fill the Internet with transparent b.s. that many, but clearly not all find disgraceful. I suppose all this means is caveat emptor. The world is full of charlatans promoting hot air and all buying decisions - especially those relating to anchors - should be undertaken with a skeptical mind.

I appreciate the input of folks like Jon Neeves, a.k.a. the Zulu warrior, who undertakes objective tests without affiliation to a manufacturer for providing information that can be helpful in making an appropriate choice. But as far as I am concerned, any manufacturer who engages in the kind of deceptive trade practices that Rocna has engaged in or that I suspect Mantus is engaged in should be shunned. Just my opinion.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 01:33 AM   #733
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
FWIW we had a conversation today with the folks who have the 40' sloop that recently moved next to us on our finger dock. They have a Rocna 20 as we do, and they just completed a cruise to the Desolation Sound area, so I asked them how their anchor did.

Turns out they bought the anchor in 2010 when they and the boat lived in the SFO Bay area. It replaced a CQR. They subsequently did a lot of sailing in Mexico and then across to French Polynesia before bringing the boat to the PNW. They said their experience with the Rocna has been outstanding. They said it has never failed to set, and compared to the CQR, they said it sets almost immediately as opposed to the CQR which always had to be dragged around a little bit before it would finally dig in and set.

They have used the Rocna in sand, mud, rock, and coral. In French Polynesia they rode out a storm in an exposed anchorage with sustained winds of 45 mph for several hours. There was a reef a few boat lengths behind them (they said it had not been the smartest place to anchor).

They said all the other other boats in the anchorage drug their anchors "all over the place" and had to use their engines to get themselves out of trouble, sometimes several times if their reset didn't hold. But they said they didn't budge at all during all this.

They've been sailing for many years in a whole lot of places along the West Coast, Mexico, and in the Pacific, and in their opinions (with no prompting from me ) the Rocna is the best anchor they've ever used.

Granted, this is just one data point. But as with so many of the similar user testimonials I've been reading over the years, the anchor's performance in real-life situations continues to defy all the theoretical drawbacks it's supposed to have as outlined in discussions like this one.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 02:09 AM   #734
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Marin,

I'm with you on most of this.

I think the Rocna works well. All the reports I hear of the Rocna in sand, particularly by people who have changed from a CQR, are glowing, really glowing. But it does not mean its 'the best' it just means its better than the CQR. I'm prejudiced as I know the background and I try, maybe unsuccessfully, to be fair Its not about the 95% of success stories. Its about the failures and the ability to admit that their might be 'weaknesses' and that these weaknesses might be overcome by having a different design (as well) ready and available.

There are enough stories to suggest that if the fluke clogs and if the wind changes then the anchor might not re-set. There is the Fortress evidence to suggest the anchor might not set in thin mud. We can all go into denial or we can consider that these stories might have some substance. If we accept they might have some substance then there are very simple measures to reduce the risks, use a Fortress in thin mud (not exactly onerous) and use 'another style' in clogging seabeds, Ultra, Spade, Excel etc - again, not exactly onerous.

But if we decide that the 'stories' of thin mud and clogging seabeds are a fairy tale we are in danger of misleading people less knowledgeable than us - and they might meet thin mud or clogging seabeds - and I do not think we can completely ignore the risks. My view is they are very real risks - I hope you can take a wait and see, be cautious, maybe make mention that it might be a risk, and not ignore it out of hand I know you are not selling anchors (unless Boeing are diversifying) so you have nothing to lose. Someone selling anchors might prefer not to see any mention of negativity - but this is real life, with healthy dissent and we independents have no financial interest - all we want to ensure is that people are not misled, people are aware there 'might' be risks - they should check and then make their own judgement. But I cannot agree that we sweep these problems under the carpet.

Jonathan

edit I do agree with Delfin, we are very sensitive to deceit in 'anchors' there is an underlying fear (actually its not a fear it has actually happened) that maybe some (in the industry) have not learnt and are still treating us like suckers.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 02:12 AM   #735
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
Don't see much difference between the old and new.

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 02:43 AM   #736
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
I will never trust an anchor Manufacturer again, I had to take my rocna of and replace it with an Excel.

Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 03:22 AM   #737
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 Djbangi View Post
Marin, I'm with you on most of this.

I think the Rocna works well. All the reports I hear of the Rocna in sand, particularly by people who have changed from a CQR, are glowing, really glowing. But it does not mean its 'the best' it just means its better than the CQR……...There are enough stories to suggest that if the fluke clogs and if the wind changes then the anchor might not re-set.

But I cannot agree that we sweep these problems under the carpet.

Jonathan
Jonathan, small but important point of order here, but all the reports of hoops and/or flukes clogging would, I strongly suspect, be of those on anchors with concave flukes. As far as I know, my Super Sarca is the only hooped anchor with a convex fluke. Thus far, and in bottoms with what I call 'weapons grade' sticky mud, my roll bar has never clogged.
__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 03:35 AM   #738
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Thanks for that correction Peter, just like Eric said, I cannot eat my cereal with an upside down spoon.

Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 04:34 AM   #739
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Noelex

Nice beach, now for those organic mud, gravel, rock and boulder piles I seem to find on the bottom more often than not. One anchor for all bottoms is my mantra and that is where the Chesapeake test and it's clones fall short.

Strong and heavy anchors, like a rugby or American football players have stood the test of time. Nothing magic that way but it doesn't lead to 37 pages and counting -----


------which is the whole advertising purpose.
+1

If your suggestions were to be found to be correct:

Are not advertisers meant to declare their financial interest? What are the moral or ethical implications to Moderators advertising, at all, and then same question but specifically on behalf of organisation that advertise on that Forum.

I'm simply a Veteran Member, which I think means I'm very old - we need a Guru to possibly answer the conundrum.


The Fortress Chesapeake tests made no claim to be anything but a one seabed test. They make no mention, that I have seen, that the results are in any way applicable to any other seabed. The make no claim to excellence, or not, of a Fortress in any other seabed. They published all the results (warts and all), they had independent observers on board.

It would be nice if they did the same in other seabeds - but I think they might have spent enough money already, maybe another anchor maker will step up.

Jonathan
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2014, 05:28 AM   #740
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 Rex View Post
Thanks for that correction Peter, just like Eric said, I cannot eat my cereal with an upside down spoon.

Regards Rex.
Yeah…hard to clog or overload an upside down spoon, Rex.

Ah…if that last post was meant to be a quote someone else made, but the ID of the OP was lost in the translation, I could go back in and add it for you if desired, as you won't be able to edit it yourself now.
__________________

__________________
Pete
Peter B 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 08:44 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