Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-16-2015, 04:37 AM   #41
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Brian-- Sort of makes the case for all-chain rode doesn't it?
__________________
Advertisement

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 05:50 AM   #42
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 Insequent View Post
[I]……...Anchor designs are numerous, however, the weight of the cable, or anchor chain alone ultimately hold the ship in position. A ratio, relating to the length of anchor chain to the water depth varies depending on the size of the vessel, from 3-5:1. Each link ~200kg contributes to an anchors holding capacity. Depending on ocean currents and wind, ships may swing around the point at which the cable rises from the seabed.
See my post 27, P2. Suggests my impressions were probably correct, and yes, as Marin says, supports the all chain rode choice if practicable.
__________________

__________________
Pete
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 07:22 AM   #43
Guru
 
Insequent's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Insequent
Vessel Model: Ocean Alexander 50 Mk I
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
Brian-- Sort of makes the case for all-chain rode doesn't it?
Definitely for larger vessels. And I think for most of our pleasure boats as well, although at the smaller end of the scale and where tension anchoring is used (Northern Spy's post earlier) maybe it isn't necessary. Eric kinda proved he doesn't need it for Willy. But would he be more secure with chain....
__________________
Brian
Insequent is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 07:53 AM   #44
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,861
Ever hear the USCG captain of the port order broadcast to all ships in an anchorage to bring on line their power plants to avoid dragging when the winds rise ?


I think 35 knots of wind for the order is pretty common.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 08:05 AM   #45
Guru
 
Capt.Bill11's Avatar
 
City: Sarasota/Ft. Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Insequent View Post
Definitely for larger vessels. And I think for most of our pleasure boats as well, although at the smaller end of the scale and where tension anchoring is used
And that is the point I think. For larger vessels.

If the same was true for smaller vessels, (and by that I mean under say 200' or so) that chain does most all the work in keeping a smaller boat anchored, all you'd need is a mushroom anchor at the end of your chain to hold the chain down. Which in my option, after using several large ship style fluke or navy anchors on smaller vessels over the years, are little better than. In my experience with them they drag and don't set well even with all chain rode.

So in my opinion, while nice to have, chain alone isn't the be all end all of anchoring.
Capt.Bill11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 08:08 AM   #46
Guru
 
Capt.Bill11's Avatar
 
City: Sarasota/Ft. Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 5,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Ever hear the USCG captain of the port order broadcast to all ships in an anchorage to bring on line their power plants to avoid dragging when the winds rise ?


I think 35 knots of wind for the order is pretty common.
Yeah, cause fluke anchors, just like the Bruce :-), are known draggers.
Capt.Bill11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 08:16 AM   #47
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,861
Yep...because ...I don't think the ships really carry ground tackle to anchor in conditions that smaller vessels experience IN PROPORTION.

If they do experience proportional conditions, they have the crew to motor against the forces or get underway and head for sea.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 09:23 AM   #48
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
Clicking "Anchor Right Products" on the Anchor Right Australia website, brings up a group of pics of boats with anchors. One pic appears to be of a fair sized ship, in dry dock, but I could not get it to load and enlarge.
I see them but then in the list of anchors the largest shown is size 15-145 kg. Perhaps they do custom make larger just as Rocna does. I have emailed them out of curiosity to ask.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 11:02 AM   #49
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,706
How can an anchor be "best" if it's performance at typically short scope (3-1) is poor???

If you were to pick a "best" car it would have to perform at an excellent level in all commonly encountered conditions. With crowded anchorages .. and small anchorages .. and deep anchorages .. and 10 to 20' tides, how is one to do much anchoring w/o needing good short scope performance. In the real world that I know short scope performance comes up time and time again.
Most all anchors have excellent performance at medium to long scope. Many have excellent performance at short scope so why would someone choose an anchor that has been repeatedly shown to be weak at short scope?

The Manson Supreme has excellent SS performance and is only 5 to 10 % shy of the Rocna's spectacular long scope capability. A best anchor MUST do all things well and the only thing I can think of as a weak link for the MS is the roll bar fitting on the bow problem. But the Rocna has that problem too. The Anchor Right Excel could be the best anchor (or the Mantus and several others) but an anchor needs history and many anchors are lacking history or/and consistently suburb performance in many to most anchor tests. People value anchor tests. If not the Rocna would not be sold in large numbers ... and Peter Smith is very aware of that. The recent test linked in this post is obviously a response to the Fortress test this summer. And I think it's very slanted to the Rocna.

So the best anchor for certain people w boats compatible w roll bars may be a roll bar anchor but to be overall "best" that negative feature would be IMO unacceptable.

So in proven anchors what does that leave us for "best anchor candidates"? A steel Spade. But the Spade is recorded as weak at short scope. That leaves the Fortress and it is imperfect as well. There is no perfect anchor of course but the OP called for "best".


For a skipper willing to accommodate the roll bar installation problem one could have "best" in the water anchoring performance from only one anchor. Manson Supreme is the only one that performs supremely (pun intended) in all ways. So I'll label it best.
With the new Excell, a new Spade, Mantus and several other newbies history and anchor tests down the road could reveal a new "best" and even quite soon.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 11:45 AM   #50
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
Well said, Eric. But is the criteria for the "Best" performing anchor going to be holding power? In the recent test by the great folks over at Fortress, I think I recall that in the test of the FX-23, the unit burried itself beyond reasonable recoverability, becoming a sacrificial anchor. I love my Fortress, but is recoverability part of its anchor performance criteria? Does it fit most pulpits? What other performance criteria should there be in addition to holding power at this or that scope for a given boat with a given rode and an assumed "equal" bottom anchoring point? Nope....I don't think the playing field can be level enough to name a "best" anchor unless one unit is so far above everything else as to leave the rest in the dust (or mud, as it were).
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 11:56 AM   #51
TF Site Team
 
dimer2's Avatar
 
City: Houston
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Baobab
Vessel Model: Bayliner 4788
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,192
Well, I think Eric nailed it
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Bow pulpit.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	113.8 KB
ID:	42142  
__________________
No one who achieves success does so without acknowledging the help of others.
dimer2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 12:41 PM   #52
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,138
I am such a pot stirer
__________________
1988 M/Y Camargue Yacht Fisher
Alaskan Sea-Duction
MMSI: 338131469
Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/
Alaskan Sea-Duction is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 02:25 PM   #53
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by healhustler View Post
Well said, Eric. But is the criteria for the "Best" performing anchor going to be holding power? In the recent test by the great folks over at Fortress, I think I recall that in the test of the FX-23, the unit burried itself beyond reasonable recoverability, becoming a sacrificial anchor. I love my Fortress, but is recoverability part of its anchor performance criteria? Does it fit most pulpits? What other performance criteria should there be in addition to holding power at this or that scope for a given boat with a given rode and an assumed "equal" bottom anchoring point? Nope....I don't think the playing field can be level enough to name a "best" anchor unless one unit is so far above everything else as to leave the rest in the dust (or mud, as it were).
Healhustler, thanks for your comments. During the testing we lost an FX-37 after we loaded it up to 2,000+ lbs, and per the winch operator's calculations, it was buried 13 ft into the mud.

During retrieval, we were directly above the anchor and pulling at a 1:1 scope, but the research vessel moved sideways a bit, and the wire rope slipped between the horizontal and vertical rollers on the custom-made fairlead. At that point, we had metal on metal, and the wire rope snapped at 3,500 lbs.

Yes, I have heard previously the Fortress being referred to as a "sacrificial anchor" and it is certainly possible after a serious blow. Stories have been sent to us about fossils and dinosaur bones and even a Chinese gardener coming up with the anchors after a heavy storm, although that last one had to be an exaggeration.

Regarding the "independent testing" on Peter Smith's site, I have voiced objections to them about the inaccuracies concerning our product, but to no avail. Suffice to say that we will not be exchanging Christmas cards, once again, this year.

That said, I have read and heard stories about their anchor performing well for boaters, and kudos to them for making a product which has helped to keep boaters safe on the water.

All the best,
Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 02:32 PM   #54
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,706
Larry,
Yes of course holding power. But holding power accross the board under as many different conditions and situations as will be or should be encountered. Holding power in sand, gravel, rocks, grass and at scopes that are universally used. Holding power with or w/o a lot of chain weight. I've heard quite a few times that Kedges and Dreadnought anchors don't "need" chain. How true or to what degree I don't know. My Dreadnought does have a very heavy shank. Variables that the "best" anchor should be able to deal with gracefully ... or at least well. Again the best should be an excellent all around anchor. Another contender if Roll bar anchors are to be considered at all (and a good case can be made for not considering them) is the SARCA. Not the holding power king but a good performer at all scopes and with no faults that I know of except that it's a roll bar anchor. The very fact that the manufacturer didn't rest on the SARCA design and offered the alternative Excel speaks loudly that it wasn't a perfect design much like the Rocna and Vulcan.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 02:54 PM   #55
QB
Senior Member
 
QB's Avatar
 
City: San Diego and Gabriola
Country: USA and Canada
Vessel Name: Skookum Maru
Vessel Model: Ed Monk design #1924
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskan Sea-Duction View Post
From Active Cap't:
... and the Danforth was a poor version of the Fortress.
A strange comment, since they are essentially identical, except for recent marketing.
QB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 03:24 PM   #56
Guru
 
refugio's Avatar
 
City: Meydenbauer Bay Yacht Club
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Refugio
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by QB View Post
A strange comment, since they are essentially identical, except for recent marketing.
Really? Different materials, mud palms and 2 settings on Fortress. Great factory support too. 😀 Maybe fluke geometry is equivalent? Dunno.

I still have my FX-33 as a spare, and FX-55 in bag as ultimate spare.
__________________
Keith
refugio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 03:42 PM   #57
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
Here is an interesting compilation of some of the anchor tests.

Independent Anchor Performance Testing


Seems to cherry-pick data, after complaining about others cherry-picking data.

And perhaps I read too fast, but I think the West Marine chart is saying the Fortress pulled up to 5000-lbs, while the Sail Magazine article from the same tests says Fortress was a hair over 2000 lbs. The author goes on about aluminum being weaker than steel, "no less than two Fortresses were damaged and put out of action"... but in the grand scheme of things damage after 5000-lbs pull doesn't seem all that much a bad thing, to me.

He complains about comparisons being mis-matched because anchors are of different sizes... but then the data is presented in graphs that tend to downplay size and focus only on holding.

Interesting read, some of the factoids seem very useful by themselves, but some of the conclusions seem OK and others, not so much.

No surprises here, though.

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 04:01 PM   #58
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
Seems to cherry-pick data, after complaining about others cherry-picking data.

And perhaps I read too fast, but I think the West Marine chart is saying the Fortress pulled up to 5000-lbs, while the Sail Magazine article from the same tests says Fortress was a hair over 2000 lbs. The author goes on about aluminum being weaker than steel, "no less than two Fortresses were damaged and put out of action"... but in the grand scheme of things damage after 5000-lbs pull doesn't seem all that much a bad thing, to me.

He complains about comparisons being mis-matched because anchors are of different sizes... but then the data is presented in graphs that tend to downplay size and focus only on holding.

Interesting read, some of the factoids seem very useful by themselves, but some of the conclusions seem OK and others, not so much.

No surprises here, though.

-Chris
Like reading any of them. There is no such thing in life as totally unbiased. And then he is totally biased. Still some of the information is worth looking at. I did not realize who he was at first, but I'm sure not going to put things on a website that makes my own company look bad.
BandB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 04:58 PM   #59
Senior Member


 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: United States
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by QB View Post
A strange comment, since they are essentially identical, except for recent marketing.
QB, the design and dimensions of the anchors are close, but the materials, weight, manufacturing/machining/finishing are all vastly different. As previously noted, the adjustable shank/fluke angle is a big difference/feature, for which Fortress holds a US patent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
Seems to cherry-pick data, after complaining about others cherry-picking data.

And perhaps I read too fast, but I think the West Marine chart is saying the Fortress pulled up to 5000-lbs, while the Sail Magazine article from the same tests says Fortress was a hair over 2000 lbs. The author goes on about aluminum being weaker than steel, "no less than two Fortresses were damaged and put out of action"... but in the grand scheme of things damage after 5000-lbs pull doesn't seem all that much a bad thing, to me.

-Chris
Chris, there are many misrepresentations and omissions from those tests which were not reported on that site. As an example, you mentioned above that Peter Smith wrote "no less than two Fortresses were damaged and put out of action." which is totally false.

I could provide more details, chapter and verse, but I don't wish to air out dirty laundry publicly any further.

Additionally, I think he would be farther ahead to take the approach "all anchors are great, and mine is even better," rather than spend time disparaging other products.

Regards,
Brian
Anchor Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 05:40 PM   #60
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortress Anchors View Post

Additionally, I think he would be farther ahead to take the approach "all anchors are great, and mine is even better," rather than spend time disparaging other products.

Regards,
Brian
You're so right.

Everyone would be that, regardless of the business they are in. It never raises you up by putting your competitor down.
One can point out what makes their product great and simply say that's unique and the consumer will look at the other products and realize they don't have it.

I will say this. I strongly dislike companies or individuals creating additional websites to promote their product without full disclosure of the connection. It's done constantly and in poor form I believe.
__________________

BandB is online now   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 08:02 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