Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-10-2014, 06:12 AM   #121
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
Hmm. The list doesn't appear consistent with the ending paragraphs.
Please see below image with a chart taken from this test, and note inches or feet the anchor moved during the reset tests.

Brian
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Reset Results in Sand.jpg
Views:	79
Size:	95.0 KB
ID:	31913  
__________________
Advertisement

Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 07:51 AM   #122
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
Brian, why no Rocna or Manson Supreme or Manson Boss..? Surely they were available, even if Sarca wasn't..?
__________________

__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 08:00 AM   #123
Guru
 
Hendo78's Avatar
 
City: Perth
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: M/V SOLSTICE
Vessel Model: Hendo "Special"
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,275
Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
Brian, why no Rocna or Manson Supreme or Manson Boss..? Surely they were available, even if Sarca wasn't..?

Cause they would have kicked a** and made the testers brand look bad perhaps? Just bring facetious :-P


Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum
__________________
***I use and recommend ANCHOR RIGHT Anchors***
Hendo78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 08:01 AM   #124
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by READY2GO View Post
Brian,

When will the results be in?
We added an extra day to our public testing (Friday) in order to check out a new protocol, and I just returned home yesterday (Saturday). I believe we have 60 or so data sets of performance results, and I am hopeful that we can release charts this week. We also have many stills and hours of video, which are being edited now, to share as well.

I can offer a general overview of what we learned and what occurred:

- I believe that every anchor was humbled at some point during the 4 days of testing in this soft mud bottom, including ours. During the first day, when many from the media were present, and on the first pull, the Fortress did not set. Instead, it basically surfed across the bottom and flat lined on the gauges.

Our protocol called for us to pay out 5:1 scope, then add 100 feet to about 8.3:1, and then pull back the 100 feet to 5:1 at a rate of 10 feet per minute, giving each anchor 10 minutes to engage the bottom.

By this setting method, we were ignoring our own advice on how to initially set a Fortress in soft mud, which was to use a shorter scope of 2:1 or 3:1 to insure that the shank did not sink below the flukes (see image below).

During another test, the same thing occurred with the Fortress, although this time near the end of the test, when the scope was shorter and the shank started coming out of the soft mud and the flukes engaged the bottom, the Fortress began spiking high loads (1,500 lbs or so), but our protocol called for all tests to be stopped at 600 seconds (10 minutes) and the test was ended.

We noticed that some of the other anchors were flat lining as well, and after all anchors were tested 4 times over 3 days, we devoted the last day to trying a new protocol, which called for us to pay out about 2:1 scope, and then give each anchor a "bump" until an initial load of 200-300 lbs was reached, and then pay out to the 5:1 scope + 100 feet and start pulling.

We thought we might learn something that could improve setting performance in soft mud, which we could then pass along to owners of the other anchors in this test.

- For the most part, the "new generation" anchors did not distinguish themselves as better performers than the "old generation" models in this soft mud bottom. In fact, a serious concern was raised as to whether a new generation anchor would be able to orient itself, either at all or even slightly, if it landed on the roll bar.

One of the new generation roll bar anchors was particularly prone to having this occur (the charts will indicate which one), as it appeared to either slide through the soft mud upside down or possibly slightly off to the side, and the fluke never engaged the bottom in the downward position.

We tested a 45 lb concrete mushroom type anchor, and its pull readings were almost identical with the flat line readings of this roll bar anchor.

- There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior. First, there is no "upside down" landing possibility, and the long stock (narrow round rod) insures that the anchor stabilizes quickly on the bottom.

Secondly, the larger surface area from two flukes will provide greater resistance and ultimate holding power. The Danforth HT, which weighed 35 lbs (20% lighter than the other 44-46 lb steel anchors), held above 1,500 lbs, while a couple of the other steel anchor models had spikes of around 1,200 lbs, but they quickly broke free afterwards, likely due to their lack of surface area.

Additionally, getting the Danforth and Fortress anchors back aboard after the testing presented the greatest challenge by far. I have heard the comments about these anchors breaking free during wind shifts, but after burying them in this soft mud bottom, and seeing the difficultly getting them out at a 1:1 scope, it appears impossible that they would ever break free at higher scopes, and no matter what the direction of pull. Period.

Attached is a chart from a Fortress pull in which the wire rope was snapped at 3,500 lbs during anchor recovery. This occurred after the test had been stopped and the wire rope had slid off one of the vertical rollers of our custom fairlead, and grinded on a metal portion of the fairlead when the anchor was under the boat and off to starboard.

- Baldt, Bruce, Vryhoff, and the US Navy all manufacture anchors with wider shank / fluke angles for soft mud bottom conditions, and the 45 angle pulls with the Fortress (when the flukes did engage the bottom) served as further proof of this required configuration for superior anchor holding capability in this type of bottom.

After nearly 4 days of testing, and after each anchor was tested 5 times we decided to toss out the 10 lb FX-16 at the 45 angle that we had brought aboard to see how it would do, and I believe it hit a peak of 1,500 lbs and held. It took at least 20 minutes to get it back out, and it came up absolutely packed with layers of the bottom, including soft mud, oyster shells, and harder mud with sand.

Right before recovery, the winch operator calculated that after subtracting the freeboard + water depth from the chain + wire rope that the FX-16 anchor was buried approximately 13 feet into the bottom. Amazing.

More to follow.

Brian
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	FX-37@45 degrees.jpg
Views:	63
Size:	152.9 KB
ID:	31916  
Attached Images
 
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 08:03 AM   #125
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
Brian, why no Rocna or Manson Supreme or Manson Boss..? Surely they were available, even if Sarca wasn't..?
This test was from 2001, before these anchors came to the market, I assume.

Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 08:10 AM   #126
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,487
Nice work.
__________________
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 08-10-2014, 11:00 AM   #127
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
This is in response to Mark's comment on post #120.
"Hmm. The list doesn't appear consistent with the ending paragraphs."

Mark ....
No because they had other elements of performance in the test. Not a good idea in a way as it muddies the water considerably but the magazine was trying to indicate the best anchor for people to buy. It would be a very extensive anchor test indeed to attempt to test all aspects of anchor performance on many anchors.

Fast fwd to the Fortress test as it's narrow in focus as I understand. Holding power in a specific place w a difficult muddy bottom w specific anchors. Should be much easier to relate to and understand.

I'm wondering where Brian and his Fortress team is. Perhaps the CQR beat all the others out and they don't know what to do about it. That would be funny.

I am, however expecting an anchor test that's much more objective than most of the past. But before we see the results we should perhaps realize that this test will not in my opinion tell many or anybody what anchor they should buy but maybe some anchors that we thought were close to worthless (I personally know of no such anchor but many do) have some very positive performance features. In short it should be interesting and revealing.


This is an edit,
I didn't see the next page of posts because this forum frequently enters a thread NOT on the last page. I've deleted several to many posts because of this irrational feature of this forum's habit of entering a thread on the next to the last page instead of the last page. Seems to me forum talk should be like other talk .... He says I say he says ect. Janet (or who ever) why on earth does the mechanics of entering a thread not take one to the place where the present conversation is taking place? .......... The last page.

I am leaving my post as I think what I said may be still of interest.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 11:35 AM   #128
Guru
 
healhustler's Avatar
 
City: Longboat Key, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bucky
Vessel Model: Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post
Quoted in part.
- There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior.
God help us. Art will never let us live this down.

Still, just what Brian has shared is super important info for me, as I have always worried when anchored in thick, soft mud in a blow. In those conditions, given the results, I'd probably dispatch my Fortress or Danforth ILO the other anchors now, but a trip-line to the bottom of the shank might help matters in retrieval. I' rather not loose an anchor, but I'd rather that vs. my boat. I might just pick-up an extra used Danforth.

Looking forward to the published results. Thanks for being so transparent about the protocol, Brian.
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 02:25 PM   #129
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post
Please see below image with a chart taken from this test, and note inches or feet the anchor moved during the reset tests.

Brian
Brian I did and also noticed the Bruce did quite well too. Actually most anchors in this test did well I think. Even the CQR reset but lost 9' in the process. If it did that every time I'd be happy.

Brian that's very interesting about the shank falling into the mud ahead of the flukes. Who-da-thunk?
I think setting at short scope has advantages w other anchors as well. It would determine whether an anchor presented itself to the bottom right side up (vertical) or laying on it's side. Many of the modern anchors are designed IMO to always or mostly set on their sides like Rocna, M Supreme, Delta, Ultra, Spade and others. I think the SARCA usually sets right side up but it would depend on the scope employed when setting was attempted whether or not an anchor went at it sideways or vertically. I think I could cut off the roll bar on a Supreme or Rocna and dependably set it every time by laying it out carefully before backing down. Without their roll bars the anchors would penetrate deeper and hold better. One would need to drop the anchor until the bottom was reached, pull it up a bit and start backing. not long after way was made lower the anchor until you felt bottom and then lower more rapidly as you went along. Rapid enough to increase scope as you went. Slow enough to achieve the best setting attitude and prevent the anchor from laying down on it's side. The anchor would be forced into a very favorable attitude relative to the throat angle and the scope so it would be prevented from laying over on it's side ... or up side down. So one could use anchoring technique instead of the roll bar to control the attitude of the anchor. The weight of the roll bar could then be applied to the fluke where it would do much more good. Just my opinion.

But there would be no guarantees if your anchor pulled out at 7-1 scope in the middle of the night and needed to reset on it's own at long scope. May not do it. And if it did there would not be any need for the roll bars.

I would provide saw blades for all interested.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 02:31 PM   #130
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,116
I got one other thing out of the preliminary commentary. That is not for any of us to get too cocky about our anchors as in certain conditions all of them will fail to take sometimes. Always double check. Set an alarm and be aware that there is no perfect anchor.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 06:48 PM   #131
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I would confirm that tests do indicate that if you cut the roll bar of an anchor (or in tests simply do not attach the roll bar of a Mantus) then once set it will increase its hold (because the roll bar resists setting). Unfortunately the roll bar is there for a reason and a Mantus without its roll bar landing on its back or side will never, ever, self set. I assume that because the roll bar is included on the Rocna and Supreme there are occasions when landed on its back it will not self right (if the roll bar were absent). I'd conduct tests but cutting the roll bar off destroys an anchor unbolting it leaves the option of putting it back!

In soft mud, and in many other seabeds, it is simply too murky to identify whether an anchor has landed correctly and is able to self right but if the anchor lands upside down and the roll bar sinks into the mud - I'm not sure how you know, except the anchor will never set, until it reaches a sufficiently hard seabed that the roll bar than then perform. Obviously if your roll bar anchor, and other anchors that demand a hard(ish) seabed for its self righting effect to work, do not set and hold you can always try again (and again). Not actually one of those scenarios I'd enjoy at 2am in the rain.

The query then arises - say you get it to set and for whatever reason, tide or wind, the anchor pulls or or sommersaults? What then

Brian seems to be saying the Danforth/Fortress or Fluke anchors if set correctly (it will be interesting to see how this is defined (for fluke anchors and the rest)) they set so well that the fears of tidal or wind changes are simply not evident - they set so well they are simply so difficult to retrieve - thus they will not pull out.

I'll raise the question - Brian seems to suggest that the smaller Fortress set so well that it was exceptionally difficult to retrieve. As he makes a point of this difficulty of the small anchor is it being suggested that the small anchor actually developed more hold than the bigger anchor set the same way? Maybe small anchors, if able to develop hold, work better than bigger anchors in this type of seabed?

Brian is being very cautious with defining how any of the other anchors perform - but reading between the lines none seem to come close to the Fluke designs, in soft mud.

Anchors are a compromise - but if you anchor predominately in soft mud then a Fluke anchor might be the prefered choice for a primary?
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 06:54 PM   #132
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,864
Do we know that a "Danforth type" in soft mud may not land on it side/stock and just be pulled around in some ineffective fashion also?
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 08:17 PM   #133
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Scott,

I think it's being assumed and I see no reason not to join in the assumption. There is a Danforth type anchor I think called a Brittany and has no stock. In tests it did have trouble w orientation.


Djbandi,
After the roll bar anchor penetrates the sea floor the roll bar becomes a negative element of it's design regarding performance. Unlike ballasted anchors like the Delta and Spade whose weighted tips help performance even after setting. So if you can force the anchor to penetrate the sea floor w/o the aid of the roll bar performance wise you're way ahead.

On a trip to Alaska in 03 we had a not very large Claw anchor that was difficult to on two occasions to retrieve and took considerable time. I'm sure we had it set deep and if there had been a blow we probably would have not dragged at all. So it's possible a small anchor buried deeply could provide great performance. But it's true we may have just snagged something.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2014, 09:48 PM   #134
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: 3,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
Do boats only 'clock'? What happens in a tidal river (which might have the soft mud in which Fortress appear to be testing, have tested). What happens when a storm cell passes over and you are unfortunate enough to have the center of the cell pass directly overhead (so sudden wind shift through 180 degrees)?
Here is an example of what you are talking about, I think. Boat has spent a day or so moving with the current, only nominal if any wind. Oftentimes, it may just be laying to the chain. Then bang, a squall comes up and through very suddenly. Rode goes taught, direction changes rapidly. Holds out there for the squall, squall goes away, back to old arc.

__________________
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 08-10-2014, 10:03 PM   #135
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djbangi View Post
I'll raise the question - Brian seems to suggest that the smaller Fortress set so well that it was exceptionally difficult to retrieve. As he makes a point of this difficulty of the small anchor is it being suggested that the small anchor actually developed more hold than the bigger anchor set the same way? Maybe small anchors, if able to develop hold, work better than bigger anchors in this type of seabed?
Djbangi, if we are comparing Fortress anchors, then during testing the 10 lb FX-16 reached loads of 1,500 lbs when set at the 45 angle, and the 21 lb FX-37 around 2,300 (per chart posted) - 2,500 lbs.

Both were very difficult to retrieve, as per a prior post we snapped the wire rope one time trying to get the FX-37 back aboard.

Below is an image of the FX-16 after a retrieval. You might note that the chain is also gunked up pretty good with mud.

Brian
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_2093.jpg
Views:	76
Size:	167.9 KB
ID:	31948  
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2014, 02:00 AM   #136
Rex
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 119
Whilst the question on roll bar design is yet again being discussed and is relevant to Bryans comment ( Re Rocna hoop not righting itself and dragging upside down) Frustrating for me, the Sarca was developed some twenty two years ago and is still not distinguishable--UNDERSTOOD in its unique design, the Sarca is convex, not concave, the sarcas weight is distributed over its rear, the turned down toe digs in then starts to lift the weight of the rear, as the anchor Rhode applies tension this rear weight becomes an absolute driving force , this is why the Sarca's reputation of holding, seemingly regardles of what it is deployed in. has with stood this onslaught of roll bar anchor claims and designs.

The roll bar is not hollow, it’s quite thin and is solid, far less of a restriction when burying itself deep, further the roll bar faces forward-- not rearward,"unlike its competitors" the roll bar is also fixed solidly to the rear of the Sarca’s shank, not exposed at the extreme weakest point, now we have heard a lot about the roll bar anchor designs dragging upside down in mud, not so with the Sarca as it has a patented secondary fluke that basically does nothing until the anchor is upside down, also we found in firm bottom types it is not needed, we found some twenty years back when developing the Sarca , any roll bar design when upside down in very soft mud can stay upside down without this secondary fluke that lifts the anchor and rolls it over.

Now hears one for you, try and get your head around this, all roll bar anchors on the market , yes even the bugal, the roll bars face--tilt rearward, when upside down mud and weed slide to the most central and lowest position of the roll bar, remember the roll bar is now upside down facing rearward. you now have a trailing rudder, the more mud and weed the less chance of the anchor righting itself. I did say the secondary Fluke was patented.

If you look at the Sarca it has a secondary fluke plate, further the roll bar faces forward so as when upside down the mud and weed is now forced up-- toward the main fluke not down to the central position of the roll bar as the other roll bar anchors have.


For a long time now I have been saying explaing why the Sraca is not like any other roll bar, Bryan has helped me to prove what I have been saying, and of course Peter B new this anyway. Now I have a headache.

Regards Rex.
Rex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2014, 02:36 AM   #137
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I think there is a misconception that because an anchor has a roll bar it performs the same as other roll bar anchors, equally some suggest erroneously, that all convex anchors perform the same way. This is simple ignorance and misleading and possibly dangerous - as to suggest a cheap unbranded fluke type (aka Danforth 'type') is the same as a genuine Danforth or Fortress is wrong (and dangerous). We would do ourselves a considerable favour if we did not bunch 'types' together and if a concave anchor performs well, give it its brand name.

A SARCA is convex and roll barred and to categorise it as being in anyway similar to a Delta (convex) or Rocna (roll bar) beggars belief as equally a concave Spade will perform differently to a concave, say, Supreme and/or Ultra.

Edit,

I thought about this post a bit more:

I'm as guilty as the next person, I often refer to 'roll bar' anchors (oddly I never in my own mind thing this includes the SARCA) - and a Rocna, Mantus and Supreme, to name but 3 are all, equally different.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2014, 02:39 AM   #138
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
Caltexflank post 134.

Great example - I wish I remembered to take images like that!

Edit

I thought about this one as well:

Interesting image - when the squall comes through the boat moves right outside the 'clocked' circle - presumably just straightening out the catenary, as when the squally passes the boat returns to the original clocked circle. If the anchor had moved we should have seen 2 offset circles.
Djbangi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2014, 07:04 AM   #139
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,515
Quoted in part.
- There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior.

60+ years of good worldwide operation should have been proof enough.

Best part of the testing is that antique Danforth and CQR are still hard to beat.

For anchor out folks who stand to loose an anchor every so often this is great news.

Many used but servicable anchors can be had for about a buck a pound so having 4 or 5 anchor sets stowed below doesnt break the bank.

The $15 a pound watch fobs may be pretty ,

but give me a used Danforth 35H or 60H or 60 CQR when the wind blows and I will sleep better.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2014, 07:25 AM   #140
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 211
I missed something, somewhere - not sure how I missed the overwhelming praise for the CQR?
__________________

Djbangi 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 01:44 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