Choosing the Right Anchor for Your Trawler

Update,I anchored twice on my way to Craig.
1st night.
I tried another experiment w the XYZ * *..failed to set. I have one more experiment coming up. I used the Manson Supreme w 10' of 3/8 chain (heavy for my boat). The set was mushy and inconclusive in 70' of water w 200' of rode out (3-1). I'm developing a dislike for anchors that work (or for me mostly don't work) on their side. I went w it for the night.
2nd night.
Anchored in a huge anchorage in 20' of water. I was fed up w all my other anchors so just let go w the old Danforth and the 10' of 3/8 chain. It was to blow a bit that night so I set the anchor hard from the stern at half throttle in fwd gear. She rode fine of course but in the morning I pulled the anchor up w a considerable effort (needed a verticle rode and more than a bit of reverse gear) and got the smellyist, ugliest black and stickeyist black and smellyist mud I have ever seen. Took almost 1/2 hour to clean the anchor up sufficiently to bring it aboard. Later in the day the smell was still strong and I realized I had a small blob of the "stuff" on my shirt. So much for the perfect anchorage.






-- Edited by nomadwilly on Wednesday 4th of August 2010 12:05:13 AM

Took almost 1/2 hour to clean the anchor up sufficiently to bring it aboard.

Carry it in a hawse hole , and let mother nature , and gravity take care of the mess.

Or get a REAL (25-40A ) seawater washdown pump and blast away!

FF,Yea * *..that would have been great but * *..more stuff to buy! *.. and install. I've posted this picture before but it's a good example and while were at it * * ...look at that beautiful boat.
The guy is a regular here at Craig and I've seen him 500 miles down the coast too. He had us aboard a few years ago to see his Nobletec chart plotter and other stuff. I wouldn't have the boat though * *..can't see from the lower helm and I sure wouldn't want to be way up there in the flying wheelhouse.

Eric, can I ask why you seem to anchor in such deep water? Surely you can find sheltered places where you can get in closer, or are you cruising in the US equivalent of Fiordland. I admit where I usually cruise anchorages deeper than 6 metres are rare, here in Moreton Bay, off Brisbane, but in most coastal bays one can usually get in to a place where you can anchor in about 10 - 12 metres, ie ~ 40 feet in your units, without being too close to shore in case of wind shift. Don't you have any bays like that in your region, or are you so concerned about the old lee shore bogey you like to see the beach in the dim distance? Sorry if this seems to be a silly question, but I seldom hear of other people having many occasions to anchor in such deep water.

Hi Peter,When folks come up here for cruising and ask me what the most difficult part of cruising SE Alaskan waters is I always say "finding good anchorages". And the slower the boat the bigger the problem. I cruise at 6.15 knots. I'd like to send you some charts in explanation.
Deep is not really a problem. It's limited swinging room AND deep. I do seem to find such places don't I? At Blashky Is. I was within very easy rock throwing distance of the beach at mid tide as the wind changed during the night so I don't think the "lee shore bogey" would apply. Our 23' tides don't help anchoring either. I thought I'd (as they say) died and gone to heaven when I found an anchorage w almost unlimited swinging room and a flat 20'
bottom * * ..until I caught the mud. By the way I probably would have been better off w the SARCA anchor. The deepest I've ever anchored in was 85' and that was to avoid a VERY crowded (and small) anchorage w crazy small swinging room. Where is "Fiordland"? I thought it was here. You must be talking about Norway.
I read your other post * *...RUBBISH? * .. I'm fine w that from you Peter. Here is a picture of that anchorage I stayed at where I anchored in 70' of water. Where I was where the pic was taken it was 125' deep. I anchored in the end of the channel in 70' but I needed to scope the whole place as 1/3 into the end (from the east (right)) there was an underwater mount where the water was 20' deep on the spike and 70' deep 80' to the west (left) of the spike. Wouldn't want to find myself high and dry on top of that spike in the morning * * *...or in the middle of the night!


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Thursday 5th of August 2010 10:28:26 AM

Little swing room and DEEP! is usually controlled with either an installed second weight or a rode rider , to lower the extra weight , and make it easier to recover.

You show some lovely spots Eric, but I can also see you have to anchor in some mongrel places. Fiordland is in my land of birth at the bottom of the western side of the South Island of New Zealand. Google Map it. Lovely scenery - huge rainfall tho, surface of fresh on salt water makes it look almost black most times, but deep as buggerie as well - deeper even than most of where you go I'd think. You just can't anchor most places, you tie to trees on the edge. I can certainly see why you would go for the chain nylon set-up, and yes, the drum type winch probably handles that best for that much footage. Best of luck with that project. Keep us posted. My Lotus is coming out for anti-foul, and...finally I'm taking the plunge and having the hull re-sprayed with 2 pack Perfection, in a couple of weeks. I hope that will get rid of the yellowing under the bow you referred to, as she has it too - at least for a while. Then I can post a new ****e and briney avatar pic.

Right now I'm anchored in 57 feet of water in the PNW with a* 15 foot tidal range. As Eric says, this is not uncommon for this neck of the woods. My "deemed" max depth *is about 70 feet*at high tide with an all chain rode and a two to five* scope ratio dependent upon wind.

Hi Tom and Jan,Where on earth are you kids ?? 5-1 rode at 70' deep?? You've got out 350' of chain?
Glad your'e still having fun * * ...you are still having fun aren't you? I remember on trips south when one gets to Queen Charlotte Strait one's mission is to get home.
Ran the Willy over to Craig earlier this week and as of 4hrs ago she's on the hard. A good time to get rid of those unsightly brown stains and thanks to you I'll have no problem w that. Friday the sun quit and it poured. It's back to mist, showers, drizzle and rain. But the air is heavenly, it's not windy, too bright or sweaty hot. I love it!
Nice to hear from you.


Eric

You guys have an anchor called a Bullwagga in the US
Has anyone tried one??
I had one on my last boat and have kept it for this one even though it is one size smaller
It is the best anchor I have ever used however the bloke who made them is no longer in business mores the pity as I would have one for this boat if I could.

Allan

Allan,I have an anchor test done by Motor Boats Monthly magazine. They rate the Bullwagga along w at least 10 other anchors. It's performance (in the test) was about average at 5-1 scope and at 3-1 less than average. I saw pictures of it setting and and it's really remarkable that the Bullwagga hardly disturbs the sea floor at all. Amazing. Given enough scope it looks like it could one of the best setting anchors of all time. As they say * * ..not easy to store though.


Does anyone here use the Manson Supreme?

No Manson Supreme.

Saw my first and only Bullwaga this past trip, about a month ago and the owner told me it came with the boat but has been great.* Of course I don't know where he anchored but he had been up towards Prince Rupert, B.C. area.* I saw the boat at Sullivan Bay, B.C.**** Weird looking thing but he seemed to be happy with it.

I, this spring, installed a Rocna 15kg.* My old Bruce, 10kg, *was literally too small-a boo boo on my part.*Never dragged, but it would not even try in the flat kelp we often have here so the change.**** I'm happy with it so far, ask me again in 10 years.

C lectric,Yea * * ..I just can't get over how the Bullwagga fully set without disturbing the sea bottom much at all. The roll bar anchors make a hell of a mess as they plow a long groove. I don't see how they achive the performance levels the testers claim for them. I think the problem w the Bruce is that a lot of the time they stay on their sides and only involve 2 of their 3 flukes and sorta plow/drag along. Ok in good weather but not so good when the wind gets ripp'in I'll bet this was the dragging problem Marin had. An anchor often needs to plunge through layers of different density and textured sea bed to fully set. I don't have many positive thoughts about any of the anchors at this point. C lectric * ..10yrs is too long to wait but you should be good on that one as I know no one that isn't happy w it.

nomadwilly wrote:The roll bar anchors make a hell of a mess as they plow a long groove. ....I'll bet this was the dragging problem Marin had.

Click to expand...

They would if they plowed a long groove but they don't.* A rollbar anchor--- at least the Rocna--- generally sets within a meter (that's about three feet if you don't know) of where it lands.* I've seen some underwater video (not by Rocna) of a Rocna setting in a variety of bottoms and it was almost always buried enough to be set after moving about a meter.

Our Bruce always came up with mud evenly distributed on all three flukes even when it draqgged.* I don't think it was on its side, I think it's a design that does not scale down (based on what I've read of analyses of its design).* It's a great anchor when it's huge and weighs many tons.* When it's small and weighs 30-60 pounds the design doesn't work very well anymore.* You can scale an anchor down, you can't scale the bottom down with it.

*

Eric

the Bullwagga I had wan on a 26 ft boat.
I would throw it over the side in 20 ft or so depth and give it a pull by hand and it was set.
Next morning I would often have to pull it out with the boat.
This was on sand, mud and seagrass bottoms.
As I said I would have a bigger one for this boat if I could get one.
Mine stored on the bow roller no problems.

Allan

How about a pic of this bullwagga thingy, Allan? I've heard the name, but never seen one.

Oh, it's ok, I forgot to gargle, I mean google - googled it and up popped a website.* it's one mean-looking spikey kinda anchor.* I can see how it would work, but it would be a prickly customer to stow in a large size

-- Edited by Peter B on Monday 9th of August 2010 04:27:30 AM

Here you go Peter

http://www.navstore.com/bulwagga.aspx

Allan

https://www.marinestore.nl/downloads/documentatie/categorien/33/MBM Club ankertest mei 2007.pdf - powerandmotoryacht.com/.../boat-anchor-test/index.aspx

http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/Anchor Tests/Practical Sailor Large Anchor Tests.pdf




These seem to be quite informative. Enjoy











-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 9th of August 2010 09:15:14 AM

Can't figgur this out.
I did a little survey in my marina. Walked the docks out of about 300 boats over 225 had a bruce or a copy there of. Claw or no name.
I have one myself works great in my kind of bottom.
SD

Bruce anchors are by far the most popular anchors for powerboaters in the PNW. A lot of sailboats carry them, too, although the CQR seems to be the most popular for sailboats. This is why we replaced the no-name Danforth knock-off that came with our boat with a Bruce. Thousands of boaters in this area couldn't be wrong, right?

We had no quarrel with the setting capability of the Bruce. In that regard, it performed as advertised. The problem we--- and as we learned later many other people who anchor a lot---experienced was that the Bruce wouldn't stay set reliably. After dragging once too often and almost losing the boat the last time, we decided enough was enough and we changed anchors. So far---- realizing that you never drag until you do---- we have experienced no problems in the same situations where the Bruce proved to be a problem.

I suspect that in this region, with it's reputation for having many types of bottoms, some of them quite hostile to anchor designs like the Danforth, the Bruce--- which has been around a long, long time--- built its reputation for fast setting in a variety of conditions. Since our inside waters do not generally experience super-high winds, the (well documented) poor holding quality of the Bruce was rarely an issue. Getting the anchor to set in the first place was deemed much more important.

And boaters are like sheep--- when a product builds a good reputation everyone follows. It's why we had a Bruce on our pulpit.

But I believe it's an inherently weak design for an anchor when sized down for our boats. What is interesting is how many people on the Grand Banks forum--- most of whom seem to have Bruce anchors--- have been switching to the Rocna or other rollbar anchor types. And I'm starting to see more Rocna's (which are easy to get in this neck of the woods) in our marina, on boats ranging from other GB36s to a 50-foot Nordhavn on the next dock that gets used a lot.

Marin,"And boaters are like sheep--- when a product builds a good reputation everyone follows. It's why we had a Bruce on our pulpit". Sheep? *Hmmmmmm
Universally manufactures of Bruce type anchors recommend one size larger that most other types but you had a size SMALLER on your boat so how could you expect it to perform flawlessly? A 45lb is correct for your boat in standard anchors so a Bruce type on your boat should be a 55lb anchor. Lewmar, Sea Dod, Bruce or Manson Claw. I've been using an under sized anchor w little or no chain at scopes so low some on this forum have said "no anchor is supposed to work at that scope" and have received flawless performance.
The Bruce anchor is not weak Marin but one needs to use the size recommended. If you put too much weight on a Beaver aircraft it's performance will be weak too.
Check this anchor test out Marin. I thought I put it on that last post but I was in a hurry to get to Craig and work on Willy.
http://www.manson-marine.co.nz/Anchor Tests/Practical Sailor Large Anchor Tests.pdf


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 9th of August 2010 08:47:52 PM

Eric, Marin has admitted previously that his Bruce was perhaps a wt lower than ideal, but his point is valid re people doing what others do. If I was to walk out marina berths over here, checking out anchors, like Skipperdude did, then I know for a fact 5 out of 6 would still have a plough or CQR knock-off sitting on the roller. The simple reason the same - birds of a feather.... and the fact most go out of their way to avoid worrying nights at anchor with the possibility of dragging, so they never experience it, and can therefore quite rightly say, "my anchor has never let me down, so why would I change, and ploughs do sit well on a pulpit roller. As you say, if heavy enough, then in good conditions all the anchor does is sort of stake down the bitter end of the rode. Their real performance capabilities only come to the fore in nasty conditions, or dodgy bottoms - that sorts out the wheat from the chaff. In those conditions, most of the popular designs are indeed found wanting.

that sorts out the wheat from the chaff. In those conditions, most of the popular designs are indeed found wanting.

Most of the "popular" anchors have time behind them, Danforth from the 1940's , and the real AS Plow is far FROM UNPROVEN.

Weather some new chunk if iron priced as if an aircraft part will take decades to learn.

WEIGHT is always the key to good performance , tho some anchors work better in some bottoms.

Try 2 - 3 LBS of anchor per foot of vessel , and there is seldom a hassle.

Big Buck$ so use a float ball.

FF,Weight is valuable and good and one could say adding weight to any anchor increases it's performance but if you were to test all anchors whereas they had to be all the same weight many would perform many times better and/or worse than others. If one was to include a wide variety of bottoms even a wider range of performance would prevail. Look at the "maritimestore" anchor test I linked yesterday whereas the 16lb hydrobubble anchor did very well against many much larger anchors. And in the PS mud test my XYZ cleaned house but I can hardly get it to set. And if you want to get your mind really open the old Herreshoff Kedge dosn't do very badly indeed.
"Weather some new chunk if iron priced as if an aircraft part will take decades to learn."
What does that mean?
Peter B,
The sheep thing yes. Look at the many fish boats in Craig and see most have the extra heavy Forfjord anchor and a very heavy one at that. Why bother w all this anchor talk when all's ya gotta do is look around at what the other guys have. So much less time consuming than figuring it out for one's self that most people just observe others. So if your'e going to budget your time efficiently the sheep method is king. Then there's guys like me that like to analyze it to death and even do some testing too. To contemplate boating may be better than boating. The most fun I have is to walk the docks looking at and analyzing the other man's boat. Yes Yes to your last comment. I sure hope I don't need to sit out a 50 knot blow in a small or even a large anchorage w any of my present anchors (unless it was mud).


Eric


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Tuesday 10th of August 2010 10:01:04 AM

nomadwilly wrote:

*
Universally manufactures of Bruce type anchors recommend one size larger that most other types but you had a size SMALLER on your boat so how could you expect it to perform flawlessly?-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 9th of August 2010 08:47:52 PM

Click to expand...

Sorry Eric, but we had the size recommended for our boat by the Bruce chart, the operator of the local GB charter fleet, and even people who had GB42s but used the 33# Bruce on their boats.* So we did not have "one size smaller," we had the recommended size.* At least by the chart Bruce had in 1998.* Perhaps since then manufacturers of Bruce-type anchors have realized what a less-than-ideal design it actually is and have upped the recommended size chart.**

And since we have heard plenty of tales of holding woe from boaters with Bruces one and even two sizes larger than recommended for their boats, I stand by my belief that it is an ineffective design for the sizes of boats most of us have--- 30 to 45 feet.*

If my wife and I did our boating in a North Sea oil rig, I guess a*Bruce would be the anchor to have since that's what it was*designed for.*

When we were starting to consider the Rocna I called the Rocna folks in New Zealand and talked to someone in their plant for quite awhile about their anchors.* When asking about sizing for our boat, they said that their size recommendations are based on real-life experience with their anchors, so when they say that the recommended size for our boat is a Rocna 20 (44#) that means it is sized to hold the boat in the worst "non-abnormal" conditions we are likely to encounter.

Most anchor size charts call out the recommended size for "standard" conditions, which are pretty mild.* So many people go up one size.* Rocna said their size recommendations are for "worst" scenarios (but not including things like hurricanes and such).* So going up one size is not necesary unless you feel you are going to be anchoring in extreme conditions on a regular basis.

I do not know how the size charts for the other rollbar anchors--- Manson Supreme and Sarca--- are set up, but that's how Rocna told me theirs is calibrated.

-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 10th of August 2010 06:34:12 PM

FF wrote:

WEIGHT is always the key to good performance

Click to expand...

If this was true the Fortress would not work, but in test after test for years it is almost always at or near the top in terms of holding power.

As for setting, it's limited by its Danforth design but in the bottoms this configuration does well in, the Fortress does as well as the Danforth, yet at a fraction of the weight.

*

Hi Marin,I;m not sorry. I thought your Bruce came w the boat. And I can see how you thought you were doing the right thing but following the lead of people on the dock and charter operators was now and before a questionable example to emulate. Charter operators come out of the same school as apartment landlords * * ...minimum and cheap everything.
Manson puts you just above the middle of the 33lb range without any consideration for your boats way above average weight. That and the fact that they also recommend every-
one to get the anchor bigger than recommended. However if I had your boat w a claw Bruce type anchor I'd go w a 55lb anchor. With my newly purchased winch I was considering the 55lb Ray myself but of course w a very much lighter rode. I think the Bruce types are good anchors if one uses the Burce one or two steps up in weight. Here's a link *to an anchor test where a 1914 Herreshoff Kedge type anchor almost matched the holding power of the Bruce but the Herreshoff was 4lbs lighter. By the way I didn't get that "dragging on 2 flukes" business out of my head * * ..it came from that test of the 100lb + anchor test featuring the Manson Ray, Manson Supreme and Rocna. Interesting.
When you say "limited by it's Danforth design" I assume you refer to it's non rock status.
Skipper Dude,
Must be a bunch of sheep up there. Your'e the leader of the pack right? Dude * *..
What is the name of this anchor?


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Tuesday 10th of August 2010 09:19:01 PM

nomadwilly wrote:I thought your Bruce came w the boat.

However if I had your boat w a claw Bruce type anchor I'd go w a 55lb anchor.

When you say "limited by it's Danforth design" I assume you refer to it's non rock status.

Click to expand...

1.* No, our boat came with a heavy, no-name Danforth knock-off.* We got rid of it the second day we had the boat and replaced it with the 33# Bruce.* In 1998 this was the size recommended by Bruce for our 36' boat.* I have no idea if the charts for this type of anchor now recommend the next size up for a 36' boat.* Even if they do I don't believe it will make much difference.* Based on our and others' experience I am convinced the Bruce is a poor design for a small anchor and getting a heavier one just means you have a heavier, less-than-ideal anchor.

2.* You can chase weight forever.* A 55# anchor might work better than a 33# pound anchor but then a 75# anchor might work better than the 55# anchor.* My take on it is*why bother with*a heavy model of an*old-design anchor at all when there are newer anchor designs that work far better than the older designs at much lighter weights? * As I've said before, I want an anchor that I can haul up by hand if the windlass craps out and 44 pounds*is easier to haul than 55 pounds.* And when the 44# new-design anchor sets and holds way better than the 55# old-design anchor, there is no return on investment on the*old heavy one at all in my opinion.

3.* Your third statement is correct. The Danforth is very highly rated for mud and sand, not so much for weedy, rocky, kelpy, etc bottoms.* I would expect the Fortress to behave the same way as it's the same design.* However the Fortress does offer the ability to increase the fluke angle somewhat which could help it set in some bottoms.

As far as looking at what commercial fishermen carry, that is a somewhat flawed indicator.* Commercial fishermen are among the most conservative people on the planet and getting them to change what they've been doing for decades if not centuries is damn near impossible.* This is a big reason why fisheries management is so challenging and frustrating.* So it doesn't really matter if the kinds of anchors they use are outperformed by lighter weight, modern designs, they're not going to change come hell or high water.* So that's part of it.

Also, their boats can handle huge hunks of metal on the bow and they have the hydraulics to grind the thing up and down.* A D-8 Cat chassis will hold a boat just fine and that's sort of what they're carrying on their bows.* That and a lot of heavy chain or cable or both.* Fishermen subsribe to FF's weight theory--- the more the better.* And there's no question it works if you can get to the weight needed to make it work.

But I'm not a commercial fisherman so I'm more inclined to accept new ideas, and I don't have the boat or the system to deal with a big, heavy, awkward anchor.* Hence the Bruce, and when that proved to be unreliable, the Rocna.

Well, Marin summed it up pretty well there Eric. As to what that anchor is in the pic - it's a b****y great Danforth type - or a scaled down ocean-going liner anchor - which are also basically the Danforth/Fortress double fluke type anway, and typical examples of the weight over cunning design theory.

I*believe the anchor pictured in Eric's post is a Navy anchor.* Check out this link---

http://www.iboats.com/Attwood-Navy-Anchors/dm/cart_id.338055170--session_id.701481111--view_id.20725