Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

ranger42c said:

Interesting... Are you saying if you anchored further out an a single hook, with enough scope to swing 360° if it were to happen, you'd be out far enough so there'd be other folks anchored there, too?

Or that you wouldn't trust any single anchor to the conditions there, since you're often gone (off the Tolly) for long periods?

Or both? Or neither? Or...?

Have to admit, I'm usually trying to be "creatively lazy" and all the work associated with a stern anchor doesn't entice.

-Chris

Click to expand...

Chris

SF Delta smallish back-sloughs, although relatively deep, are usually quite narrow... approx. 100' to 250' +/- wide.

Soooo, being that they are occasionally used as travel canals for small cruisers and sometimes ski areas for sports people and at times quiet fishing spots for one to three persons aboard small outboards there are seldom locations where a boat can be anchored in center for full swing capability. Even larger front-sloughs are seldom more than 4 to 6 hundred feet wide; and, usually much more traveled by many types of boats; not much swing-anchor room there either. Occasionally there are junctions where sloughs meet that provide expanses large enough for swing anchor technique. Those areas are usually heavily traveled and sometimes with too many anchored boats.

If we want to “anchor” for enjoying these desirous-to-us back-slough locations it is necessary that we anchor close to shore. Dual (bow and stern) anchoring is preferred… basically necessary!

Hope that clears the picture for your mind’s eye.

Search the net and you can locate SF Bay Delta maps… as well as great history stories. Interesting, great reads. There are over 1,000 miles of rivers and sloughs. The Delta’s sloughs are basically, entirely a man-made organization of levies that formed hundreds of canals for purpose of creating our nations “bread basket” for vegetable farms whose growth products exist/thrive on Deltas’ fresh water.

To better understand I suggest net-search for maps, pictures, historic stories!


Happy SF Delta-Research Daze! - Art

CaptBill11,
The interplane drag or compaction function clearly plays a role in resistance but the question is how much. In soupy non-viscous slimy mud it probably amounts to practically nothing but in hard clay like bottoms I'm convinced it has considerable effect on performance. It very neatly explains why the Rocna performs so poorly in soup compared to other anchors and so well in hard bottoms.

And I'm also convinced the roll bar tends to pitch the anchor up in it's fwd progress through the bottom. Drag applied high on the anchor will pitch the anchor up. I flew an ultralight that had a high wing and rudders at the wing tips above the wing. The rudders could be deployed simultaneously and that was the quickest way to do a whipstall .... Pitching the aircraft up very quickly. Drag high up in a vehicle does pitch it up.
Also the trailing edge of the Rocna is configured like an up elevator that (no doubt IMO also pitches the anchor up. The upturned trailing edge also creates more drag and hence more holding power. Fortunately the fluke overcomes most of that problem but the Rocna and to a great extent also the Supreme dosn't seem to penetrate below more than an inch or so under the surface. Most anchors in most bottoms probably don't penetrate much below the surface but the roll bar anchors are more limited than most ... IMO.

Art said:

SF Delta smallish back-sloughs, although relatively deep, are usually quite narrow... approx. 100' to 250' +/- wide.

Soooo, being that they are occasionally used as travel canals for small cruisers and sometimes ski areas for sports people and at times quiet fishing spots for one to three persons aboard small outboards there are seldom locations where a boat can be anchored in center for full swing capability.

If we want to “anchor” for enjoying these desirous-to-us back-slough locations it is necessary that we anchor close to shore. Dual (bow and stern) anchoring is preferred… basically necessary!

Click to expand...

Ah. Got it. Thanks for 'splaining.

-Chris

manyboats said:

CaptBill11,
The interplane drag or compaction function clearly plays a role in resistance but the question is how much. In soupy non-viscous slimy mud it probably amounts to practically nothing but in hard clay like bottoms I'm convinced it has considerable effect on performance. It very neatly explains why the Rocna performs so poorly in soup compared to other anchors and so well in hard bottoms.

And I'm also convinced the roll bar tends to pitch the anchor up in it's fwd progress through the bottom. Drag applied high on the anchor will pitch the anchor up. I flew an ultralight that had a high wing and rudders at the wing tips above the wing. The rudders could be deployed simultaneously and that was the quickest way to do a whipstall .... Pitching the aircraft up very quickly. Drag high up in a vehicle does pitch it up.
Also the trailing edge of the Rocna is configured like an up elevator that (no doubt IMO also pitches the anchor up. The upturned trailing edge also creates more drag and hence more holding power. Fortunately the fluke overcomes most of that problem but the Rocna and to a great extent also the Supreme dosn't seem to penetrate below more than an inch or so under the surface. Most anchors in most bottoms probably don't penetrate much below the surface but the roll bar anchors are more limited than most ... IMO.

Click to expand...

Eric, I think you are over-thinking the up-turning drag effect of a roll bar. To bury one of these type of anchors deep enough for the roll bar to be covered requires such force, which is concentrated in the horizontal pull on the shank, I doubt any elevating effect of the bar would even register, unlike the effects of control surfaces on an aircraft where much higher speeds are involved and the medium being travelled through is way less dense than bottom mud.

Most 'modern' anchors can be completely buried, by the vessel's engine or wind, in sand - roll bar or not. They can be buried such that there is no sign of the anchor and in some seabeds you can easily also bury 6' - 10' of chain, obviously including the shackle and any swivel.

In such circumstances the resistance of the chain, think of its surface area, is in effect infinite and the deeper the anchor dives the more resistance the chain produces (because more chain needs to be dragged down the deeper the anchor dives). The roll bar, though it is quite a large surface area, is finite - but once the anchor is righted - it is just drag (though it might contribute to compression).

eyschulman has the right idea, add a wire trace to the rode, between chain and anchor, and you will minimise this drag effect of the chain. Cutting out the swivel, or moving it 6' away from the anchor, would also help. Both the XYZ and HT Danforth have been supplied with a wire trace attached. There are safety issues with a wire trace - the integrity of the swages being the main one - but as long as you think of the trace as a consumable and are conscious of the problems - I cannot see any issues (only advantages). You can easily buy tested wire strops with swages. And again Practical Sailor had an article about the drag impact of chain and wire. Wire rodes are quite accepted on vessels 'in survey' its not a new idea (though a complete wire rode might be chosen for factors other than the aid it might give to the anchor setting).

If you are lucky to anchor in clear water over sand (not hard sand) you can see this effect quite easily as the chain 'disappears' into the seabed and there can be no sign of the anchor.

But why - in the Fortress Chesapeake mud trials - the Mantus did less badly, compared to the Supreme and why the Rocna was such a, consistent, disaster - given that previously one might have said they were 'similar' - remains something of a mystery. In the same way that the Ultra outshone the Spade. The more we learn about anchors, the bigger the differences between them and the less we seem to know!

Djbangi,
Interesting comment about the Mantus and a good thought provoking post.
I have some ideas and will share later.

Peter,
I don't think it would be difficult to bring reality to the surface in a lab or other scientific and objective means would be easy enough. But we're just talking about anchors and high tech labs aren't available for anchor research. We're just pulling anchors around in the mud or dragging them up on a beach in not very universal or specific circumstances. I intend to cut the roll bar off of my Supreme and drag it around some and see if changes anything for the better. Not only will a repositioning of the center of drag result but the CG will also change. However that's not the only modification I'm going to make.

But I disagree w you Peter. Not much speed is required have large effects on the drag of anchors. Actually almost no movement at all in a fluid like a seabed w an anchor buried. What I think you may be thinking of is the fact that a vehicle in a fluid like an airplane or an anchor not only has drag that will try to change the pitch (up or down) but a stabilizing effect from the vehicle. Most tailless aircraft have little pitch stability. I have flown at least 4 or 5. Most airplanes have long tails and horizontal stabilizers (the winglike thing the elevator is usually attached to). And anchors have shanks and flukes not to mention a rode pulling them in a certain direction. Like a sailplane being towed aloft by another plane.The rode is IMO most likely the element that limits the effect of pitch forces having reduced effect on an anchor. Because of that the pitch force and the result will be small ... but probably having some effect on the anchor,'so ability to pitch down and penetrate the sea bottom.

Recreational anchors, their reputations and their following is forged by real world experiences and not theories or tests.

Sub-sonic aerodynamics and water and mud have little in common when used in gross generalities as air is compressible where water and solids virtually aren't....plus speed certainly has an effect on drag in most situations.

Comparing the 2 is beyond my comprehension as a longtime Naval Aviator and Mariner.

SNAME, API, classification societies, military, and insurers have built all sorts of test rigs and devices used to design and model drag embedment anchors.

To say it can't or shouldn't be done is not true. But to make a business case for it is different all together.

For the real anchor geeks, take a peek at the Vryhof anchor manual.

I think the future of anchoring will be due to those that take advantage of the step changes occurring with sonar to identify the soil and substrate to choose the proper anchor for the conditions.

IMO - Only boaters that REALLY need to learn about anchors and anchoring techniques are newbies. Old salts, such as most in this discussion/thread already have damn good idea as to anchor designs and anchoring techniques. I any old salt doesn't know by now... then, it is time they took up a new R&R sport... other than boating and "hooking"!

Djbanji,
I've been saying the roll bar is not a positive thing. That it has some drag and that adds to holding power of an anchor but not nearly as much as a good fluke does. So I've been think'in other methods should be used to control the attitude of anchors. Hinged shanks work, ballast works and several other means have been used. The roll bar adds weight (at the wrong end (usually)) and it gives some roll bar anchors fit's in really soft stuff.

But in addition to the drag that is obvious I've said there is "interference drag". I've always thought it was not terribly significant but what if I'm wrong. What if the interference drag equals that of a fluke .. or even more. The Supreme and Rocna do perform very well on hard bottoms and I'm saying it could be the compaction between the roll bar and fluke that give them such high performance (in hard bottoms).

The Bugel anchor (as far as I know) was the first roll bar anchor and perhaps it's designer had compaction in mind. The hole or opening through which the substrate must go is small. Much smaller than all the roll bar anchors that came after.

Djbangi you wonder about the Mantus and it's very dependable performance that was'nt too bad (considering others like Rocna) in holding power either. So perhaps the roll bar is playing a bigger part in the actual holding power that I had thought. Is it possible that the large radius roll bar like the Mantus and SUPER SARCA has a greater degree of compaction (interference drag) because of the larger opening through which the substrate must go. Much much more substrate is forced through the opening because it's so large. Just like a larger dia prop works on a greater amount of air for more efficiency.

That could (remotely at least) help explain a larger roll bar performing better but the most significant thing that the test revealed about the Mantus is not holding power but dependability and consistency. Usually (IMO) that is more important than holding power. Both, of course is the holy grail but if 90% of anchors provide enough holding power then I submit that dependability and consistency are probably more important. Then (at least) the holy grail is attainable just by getting a bigger anchor. This is what I generally had in mind when I bought the Claw last fall. What I had in mind of course was flawed. But not terribly off the Mark.

But if the compaction function is considerably more effective than I had thought there could be more roll bar anchors in the future rather than less. And less is what I thought was best until I thought about the above.

Also the compaction function could play it's role in anchoring in other than roll bar designs. Consider a old iron rake w all it's teeth. There'd be a whole lot of compaction between all those tine's. Hmmmmmm

Art said:

IMO - Only boaters that REALLY need to learn about anchors and anchoring techniques are newbies. Old salts, such as most in this discussion/thread already have damn good idea as to anchor designs and anchoring techniques. I any old salt doesn't know by now... then, it is time they took up a new R&R sport... other than boating and "hooking"!

Click to expand...

Parents gave me a choice between a 10 speed bike or a boat when I was 10, I chose a boat as we lived on Tampa Bay at the time and it seemed the right choice.

Now I am 52 and have been "boating" for 42 years, I have owned many boats and still have three, if asked I say I have over 70 ft. of boat it's just in three packages.

I must however say that I learn many things everyday and while some may think of me as an "Old salt" I would consider myself a long way away from old.

I learn many things right here on this and other forums, from the collective wisdom and experiences (after separating the wheat from the chaff) of you guys and gals.

I respectfully disagree that only new boaters need to learn about anchoring or techniques, heck I have learned a bunch right here over the last 15 pages.

I really like my Delta primary it works well in my waters but have a Danforth 30# as a back up and an FX-37 for storm use. I learned that if in a muddy area I should most likely just use it (the Fortress) set at 45^ from the start and be set.

I have always questioned the term "lunch hook" I never understood why one would carry an anchor that they would only trust while eating a meal, I would rather have a primary anchor that would work regardless of the time of day.

Scotte I agree w most of that.

However I think the "lunch hook" probably applies to smaller boats that have their anchors stowed and handle their anchors by hand. I'm in that category and don't have a fixed anchor on my bow all set to go. So I have choice of what anchor (size and type) and at least one of two rodes. So if I was anchoring for lunch I'd use an 8 or 10lb anchor w minimal chain. Super easy to deploy and relatively easy to retrieve. Would be fine for lunch. Never done that though ... anchoring for lunch.

W a typical trawler it's a lot of work switching anchors and w a good power winch w a gypsy and a chain rode just press a button and up comes the anchor whether it's 35lbs or 90lbs.

Very few of us really have a lunch hook option and don't need it. However one could anchor a 35 to 40' boat w a 15lb Fortress for brief periods of time. Actually probably most of the time.

I've learned a lot too. Didn't know what a sundeck boat was before TF. I've learned much more valuable things too. And it's a bit like college in that much there was learned over coffee in the cafeteria. Chatting w peers is a great way to learn. Thank you Trawler Forum.

Product or group of products that run after a lead product to try and better it is usually because the lead product is already the "best" at what is needing to be accomplished.

Danforth dual transfer flukes with single shank design has with no need for roll bar and held "best" position in anchors for decades. There's a lot of different design anchors on the market trying to out-do Danforth... Need I say more?!?!

IMHO... The available 33 +/- and 45 degree shank to fluke angle of Fortress anchors may better Danforth's single 33 degree angle availability.

I'll find out when I purchase a Fortress FX-23 and spend time testing its 45 degree setting and holding abilities.

Also, I really like the reduced weight Fortress anchors provide. However, that lesser weight may make it less able to easily initially set than the approx. 2x heaver Danforth.

Should be an interesting personally performed anchor test. I've used Danforth for decades and trust the heck out of them!

Your comparison of Fortress and Danforth will be interesting to all of us.

Fortress appear to say that the 45 degree fluke angle is good for soft mud and that the 32 degree good for hard sand. Somewhere in between the 45 degree and 32 degree fluke angles 'cross over'. Obviously you do not know what the seabed is like but somewhere soft sand, very soft sand only soft mud the 45 degree fluke angle would still be the preferred option. It will be interesting to see how universal is the 45 degree setting.

As you already have a Danforth you seem to be in the lucky position to be able to keep a Fortress set at 45 degrees as the Danforth is already set at 32 degrees and living in area where both should be suitable.

It would be equally interesting to identify where the convex anchors restart performing but I suspect it will be difficult to persuade you to spend more money and test a Rocna, Mantus and Supreme at the same time

Djbangi said:

Your comparison of Fortress and Danforth will be interesting to all of us.

Click to expand...

Djbangi said:

Fortress appear to say that the 45 degree fluke angle is good for soft mud and that the 32 degree good for hard sand. Somewhere in between the 45 degree and 32 degree fluke angles 'cross over'. Obviously you do not know what the seabed is like but somewhere soft sand, very soft sand only soft mud the 45 degree fluke angle would still be the preferred option. It will be interesting to see how universal is the 45 degree setting.

As you already have a Danforth you seem to be in the lucky position to be able to keep a Fortress set at 45 degrees as the Danforth is already set at 32 degrees and living in area where both should be suitable.

It would be equally interesting to identify where the convex anchors restart performing but I suspect it will be difficult to persuade you to spend more money and test a Rocna, Mantus and Supreme at the same time

Click to expand...

Impossible! - LOL

Because:

I'm not in to spending my every hour aboard our pleasure craft performing anchor tests. We boat strictly for R&R as well as days of play-time swimming/cruising enjoyment.

That said; I am already very familiar with mud bottom in area we anchor and have "tested" several different weights/sizes of Danforth-brand as well as off brand Danforth-design anchors in that mud bottom. It should not take me long to understand how well (better, worse, or the same) FX-23 at 45 degree angle sets and holds in comparison to all the other basic Danforth style anchors I already used there numerous times. Plan to let you know my findings. I won't be reporting on results till mid/end next summer at earliest... Please, don't hold your breath!

Happy Boating Daze - Art

PS: read my post #364… “How I see an accurate, unbiased, virtual “blind test” can be accomplished regarding anchor types, models, and manufacturers”

I saw post #364 and squirmed at the money - which is why I thought you could feel really virtuous and perform a really valuable public service

Hope springs eternal

manyboats said:

Peter,
I don't think it would be difficult to bring reality to the surface in a lab or other scientific and objective means would be easy enough. But we're just talking about anchors and high tech labs aren't available for anchor research. We're just pulling anchors around in the mud or dragging them up on a beach in not very universal or specific circumstances. I intend to cut the roll bar off of my Supreme and drag it around some and see if changes anything for the better. Not only will a repositioning of the center of drag result but the CG will also change. However that's not the only modification I'm going to make.

But I disagree w you Peter. Not much speed is required have large effects on the drag of anchors. Actually almost no movement at all in a fluid like a seabed w an anchor buried. What I think you may be thinking of is the fact that a vehicle in a fluid like an airplane or an anchor not only has drag that will try to change the pitch (up or down) but a stabilizing effect from the vehicle. Most tailless aircraft have little pitch stability. I have flown at least 4 or 5. Most airplanes have long tails and horizontal stabilizers (the winglike thing the elevator is usually attached to). And anchors have shanks and flukes not to mention a rode pulling them in a certain direction. Like a sailplane being towed aloft by another plane.The rode is IMO most likely the element that limits the effect of pitch forces having reduced effect on an anchor. Because of that the pitch force and the result will be small ... but probably having some effect on the anchor,'so ability to pitch down and penetrate the sea bottom.

Click to expand...

Eric, what I meant by over-thinking the roll bar issue is that I just don't see the analogy with aerodynamics is really comparing apples with apples as they say. Also I really doubt this compression you appear to place so much stock in between the roll bar and the fluke actually happens, as the movement of an anchor through the bottom is just too slow - especially as compared to an aircraft in air, or even a craft through water.

Personally, I think the secret of the roll bar is purely to ensure speedy engagement of the bottom - no more - no less. (Rex may want to correct me on that - if so, I stand corrected). The fact the bar proved a disadvantage in this particular soft mud test for the Rocna and the Supreme to a lessor extent, could well be explained purely because of the lack of long enough 'rest to sink in' before force applied, and compounded because the axis of the roll bar of the Rocna, and the Supreme, (? to a lessor extent), points away from the shank, so are in a stable configuration if they land oorse up in soft mud and drag is applied fairly early, whereas the axis of the roll bar on a Super Sarca is actually vertical or even a bit towards the shank, so creating an unstable lie if it lands on the roll bar. This being precisely what you want, to make it roll over and engage the bottom - instability if it lands wrongly orientated. The small secondary fluke incorporated in the roll bar, (which is thinner than any other roll bar anchor anyway), contributes to this flipping effect.

Once the bottom is engaged the rest, as they say, is history - it digs in and sets - the depth being a product of softness of the bottom, and forces applied. As to how much drag resistance the buried rollbar then adds to that of the fluke - unclear - but definitely some, but it would be nowhere near enough to deviate the fluke upwards. Does that all make sense..?

Peter B Wrote:

Eric, what I meant by over-thinking the roll bar issue is that I just don't see the analogy with aerodynamics is really comparing apples with apples as they say. Also I really doubt this compression you appear to place so much stock in between the roll bar and the fluke actually happens, as the movement of an anchor through the bottom is just too slow - especially as compared to an aircraft in air, or even a craft through water.

Personally, I think the secret of the roll bar is purely to ensure speedy engagement of the bottom - no more - no less. (Rex may want to correct me on that - if so, I stand corrected).

The fact the bar proved a disadvantage in this particular soft mud test for the Rocna and the Supreme to a lessor extent, could well be explained purely because of the lack of long enough 'rest to sink in' before force applied, and compounded because the axis of the roll bar of the Rocna, and the Supreme, (? to a lessor extent), points away from the shank, so are in a stable configuration if they land oorse up in soft mud and drag is applied fairly early, whereas the axis of the roll bar on a Super Sarca is actually vertical or even a bit towards the shank, so creating an unstable lie if it lands on the roll bar.

This being precisely what you want, to make it roll over and engage the bottom - instability if it lands wrongly orientated. The small secondary fluke incorporated in the roll bar, (which is thinner than any other roll bar anchor anyway), contributes to this flipping effect.

Once the bottom is engaged the rest, as they say, is history - it digs in and sets - the depth being a product of softness of the bottom, and forces applied. As to how much drag resistance the buried rollbar then adds to that of the fluke - unclear - but definitely some, but it would be nowhere near enough to deviate the fluke upwards. Does that all make sense..?

Rex Wrote:

Peter you really amaze me sometimes as you are a practical thinker and pick up on things that many don’t, you are right, Super Sarca roll bar leans toward the shank (slightly forward as I put it) the roll bar is also thin so it cuts into the oncoming substrate and the forward force rotates the anchor to present the fluke tip very fast.

It is the first and only roll bar anchor a that has the forward leaning roll bar, plus it is the only roll bar that is solid rod also reinforced by ways of a secondary fluke to cope with sloppy gooey mud, as I have stated many times this secondary fluke lifts the anchor when upside down allowing the centrifugal force on the forward facing roll bar to take place, coupled with the Sarcas rear bar weight it works a treat , last but not least it is the only roll bar anchor design that is of ( convex fluke to separate and help disperse clogging.)


Roll bars that lay away from the shank create no physical, or centrifcal force, they can become a rudder when flipped upside down, collecting weed and mud presenting a slow drag.

The roll bar regardless of design in hard substrates is absolutely not an issue, don’t worry about the drag from the physics of the roll bar in hard substrates, it does not have to bury to supply adequate holding power, even in a storm providing you have the recommended anchor size.

You know many continue to talk up more anchor testing, I have spent many many thousands of dollars making sure that our anchors do as we say, I have spent many many thousands of dollars building our designs to acquired a standard, Brian’s company have done the same, I recon it’s about time that some of the knockers spent some of their own money to prove us wrong, between Fortress and myself you are looking close to fifty years of service to the Marine industry, must be doing something right, please once again, Read Read, Read and re Read Brains charts.

Your Expectations are high, nothing wrong with that, but so is our pride, either of us have never let you down and tell the truth as we find it.

Regards. Rex.

Peter It's hard for me to believe you don't think compaction or interplane drag dosn't even exist and of course the viscosity is way different but air and the sea bottom are fluids and the sea bottom is saturated w a low viscosity fluid .. water.

But of course the SARCA's roll bar in this regard (presumably) is way different than the other roll bar anchors because of it's difference in size and proportions. And as you point out the fore and aft position of the roll bar affects it's performance as a self righting roll bar. But this has nothing to do w compaction or it's effects.

I already understand the roll bar functions as you express. And the SARCA can afford to have a solid roll bar as it functions or even depends on an aft CG unlike most all modern anchors.

But if the compaction drag is more effective w a larger radius hoop such as a SARCA or Mantus it should benefit both anchors re holding power ... mostly in firmer bottoms. But I don't think it's so. I think it's more dependent on the bar dia. But I may be wasting my time w you as you seem not to even think drag from compaction "happens".

One last attempt. Think of a bridge w big piers for support. Imagine high water and the water surging through two piers. The water being pushed aside from one pier in the direction of the other is met by water being pushed toward it from another pier adjacent to it. The water is being jammed between the two piers. The jamming is the source of the interference drag. There's more impedance to the water flow than w two piers the same size standing alone w/o water being pushed toward it from another.

Rex wrote;
"Roll bars that lay away from the shank create no physical, or centrifcal force"

If so the Rocna would not roll upright and set .... as it almost always does.

And yes Rex we need more anchor testing. Well .. "need" is a relative term. It's man's nature and the essence of science to move fwd w imagineering, testing and progress. I probably would be happy w the world just the way it is unless I knew what the future held.

I could say if we stopped moving fwd our anchors will keep dragging ... other than SARCA's of course.

OK so I have offered a reason the Rocna did poorly in the test .. poorly compared to other anchors.
Compaction going south in low viscosity seabeds.
Lets hear another.
Perhaps Rocna users know something the rest of us don't?

Rex wrote;
"Roll bars that lay away from the shank create no physical, or centrifcal force"



Eric Responded:
If so the Rocna would not roll upright and set .... as it almost always does.

And yes Rex we need more anchor testing. Well .. "need" is a relative term. It's man's nature and the essence of science to move fwd w imagineering, testing and progress. I probably would be happy w the world just the way it is unless I knew what the future held.

I could say if we stopped moving fwd our anchors will keep dragging ... other than SARCA's of course.
__________________
Eric


Rex Wrote:
Well by commenting and then having to answer, my below comments could be seen as marketing, not a good look, I will be more careful with my commenting in the future.

Yes of course the Rocna will right itself, it has in most situations proven to be a good anchor, let me put it this way, when the anchor is upside down in absolute slop oozy bottom les goo the drag is at it s lowest point pulling rearward on the roll bar, this clearly shows up in Brian’s graphs, the Sarca’s roll bar in this position is at its lowest point two, difference being it is facing forward, the opposite direction ( pushing the Sarca IN A CENTRIFICAL DIRECTION) encouraging it to spin itself over rather than drag upside down.

But Eric this is what anyone would expect me to say, you have a roll bar, find yourself some absolute slop in half a meter of water , pull your roll bar anchor in firmly then flip it, then start dragging it rear ward slowly whilst upside down , very low cost demo.

(Eric) All anchors can drag, one thing I will say for you Eric you are all inspiring and I admire your enthusiasm, maybe I am just happy to relax for a while, we will see.

Regards Rex.

Djbangi said:

I saw post #364 and squirmed at the money - which is why I thought you could feel really virtuous and perform a really valuable public service

Hope springs eternal

Click to expand...

Dear Mr. "Eternal Spring"!

IMO: Cost of the test, as well as anchoring usefulness results from the anchor test... that I roughly outlined process of and provided estimated expenses for participating anchor manufacturers/companies in my post # 364:

1. "Bottom Sector" Anchoring Results - Cost of the anchor test and sales-results could be a bummer for the anchor designs that came in on the bottom of the list regarding preference or maybe even actual dislike-of-use by the fifty (50) "old salt" mariner number I recommend for clearly performing the (blind) tests. I imagine those "bottom of the pile" anchor manufacturers sales would take a sales-reduction hit! But - That's the chances your take, i.e. "all part of the game" if any manufacturer/distributor enters such a test because they and their engineers really think theirs is a greatly useful and well performing anchor product.

2. "Middle Sector" Anchoring Results - Cost of the anchor test and sales-results could be fairly OK for the anchor designs that came in on the middle of the list regarding preference or maybe even some actual enjoyment-of-use by the fifty (50) "old salt" mariners. These anchor companies will probably see not too much increase/decrease in sales volume being that their anchors had come in as middle of the rode (pun intended). Some consumers like purchasing middle of the road products and mid-road products often do have some features that even "Top Sector" products don't offer.

3. "Top Sector" Anchoring Results - This is where all costs and efforts to be in this anchor test can REALLY Pay Off! For the one, two, or maybe even three anchor manufacturers that are on TOP of the test result lists the readily available and consistently ongoing years and years of advertising/promotion resulting from marine articles, in-store flyer hand-outs, infomercials on the net, multi-person mariner testimonials... etc... etc could put a fire under their anchor product's sales like never before!

Just sayen!

Happy Anchor Testing Daze! - Art

psneeld said:

2 high tides and 2 low tides?

I Check Santa Monica real quick and it looked like that...which would be the same as the East Coast....

Gulf Coast can have some areas of unusual tides if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

It's high high, then low then high then low low and repeats.

We usually only get around 6' between the lowest to highest.

Seems pretty similar even though some days the one tide isn't close in the same size as the other in Santa Monica....the other place is Ocean City, NJ

I'm amazed at how close they are.

Oh Rex I should add that I exclude the anchors that aren't available in the US when I say this anchor's the best ect. And this is funny in view of the fact that I'm basically anti-roll bar on anchors but my first three choices including anchors from down under, two of the three are roll bar anchors. Hmmm?

And also in regard to the Fortress test I don't think anyone is thinking badly of the SUPER SARCA because it's a roll bar anchor and the Rocna roll bar anchor did poorly in the test. In fact you're probably wishing you had the SS in the test.

Another thing that has'nt received enough attention IMO is how extensive mud bottoms are. I personally think without doing any research that there's more mud bottoms than any other type. I suspect chart readings will support that. And if that's true it would place an enormous amount of importance on the ability of an anchor to perform in mud. But also there's mud and then there's mud. Probably a wide range of types of mud as well. I think the PNW is mostly mud but the eastern seaboard should be even more mud. But I'm sure places like Florida have a lot of sand. But sand is a lot like mud .... isn't it?

Is it true that Fortress after such a success is now going to sponsor testing in hard mud-hard sand -gravel-oyster shell and weed? I would appreciate that much more than soft mud. When possible I avoid soft mud and rock bottoms for anchoring. I do understand that some people boat where there is not much choice. My 12 years experience of gunk holing on the Chesapeake allowed for avoidance of the ooze with fair reliability. The test certainly points out that if you are anchoring in soft mush use a 45 degree Fortress. The test does nothing to establish which anchor is better for other bottoms and all around use. What would people think if the Fortress looked as bad in some of these other bottoms as the anchors that flopped in soft mud. If Fortress is not willing to test in a wide variety of bottoms it leaves a big dark hole and reinforces my suspicion that the whole thing is an advertising stunt specifically designed to emphasize the major strength of the Fortress, which was well known by the sponsors prior to the (stunt) test. Yes I am a major skeptic when it comes to modern advertising and political rhetoric. Its simple show me similar results in honest testing in the other common bottoms and I put a Fortress on the bow.

manyboats said:

Oh Rex I should add that I exclude the anchors that aren't available in the US when I say this anchor's the best ect. And this is funny in view of the fact that I'm basically anti-roll bar on anchors but my first three choices including anchors from down under, two of the three are roll bar anchors. Hmmm?

And also in regard to the Fortress test I don't think anyone is thinking badly of the SUPER SARCA because it's a roll bar anchor and the Rocna roll bar anchor did poorly in the test. In fact you're probably wishing you had the SS in the test.

Another thing that has'nt received enough attention IMO is how extensive mud bottoms are. I personally think without doing any research that there's more mud bottoms than any other type. I suspect chart readings will support that. And if that's true it would place an enormous amount of importance on the ability of an anchor to perform in mud. But also there's mud and then there's mud. Probably a wide range of types of mud as well. I think the PNW is mostly mud but the eastern seaboard should be even more mud. But I'm sure places like Florida have a lot of sand. But sand is a lot like mud .... isn't it?

Click to expand...

Eric, the sand we anchor in does not behave like mud. It can allow an anchor to bury, or there can be rock under it. As far as the mud we have in the southeast, the Chesapeake mud is in an estuary where currents don't usually run fast. The sediment there is much softer than some mud we encounter. In Georgia and South Carolina the currents can run very fast.
As a result in some channels the bottom can be scoured to a hard clay. Just about every situation is different.

eyschulman said:

Is it true that Fortress after such a success is now going to sponsor testing in hard mud-hard sand -gravel-oyster shell and weed? I would appreciate that much more than soft mud. When possible I avoid soft mud and rock bottoms for anchoring. I do understand that some people boat where there is not much choice. My 12 years experience of gunk holing on the Chesapeake allowed for avoidance of the ooze with fair reliability. The test certainly points out that if you are anchoring in soft mush use a 45 degree Fortress. The test does nothing to establish which anchor is better for other bottoms and all around use. What would people think if the Fortress looked as bad in some of these other bottoms as the anchors that flopped in soft mud. If Fortress is not willing to test in a wide variety of bottoms it leaves a big dark hole and reinforces my suspicion that the whole thing is an advertising stunt specifically designed to emphasize the major strength of the Fortress, which was well known by the sponsors prior to the (stunt) test. Yes I am a major skeptic when it comes to modern advertising and political rhetoric. Its simple show me similar results in honest testing in the other common bottoms and I put a Fortress on the bow.

Click to expand...

Agreed!

Come on Big Anchor Mfg Boys! Step up to the plate: Do a comprehensive anchor launch/set/hold/retrieve/store test that provides at least as much broad scope in anchoring diversity as suggested in my post # 364. Would not be too difficult to concoct a truly revealing anchor test sequence that encompasses a broad spectrum of needs boaters may experience over long period of time or even on daily/weekly/monthly basis.

You all could do it together. Will you though... is the question???

Winner(s) would be smiling broadly!! Losers may be looking for a job.

Who believes in their anchor enough to REALLY test it under all conditions and in old-salt mariner's experienced hands? I.e., whose got the balls to get this test sequence underway - be The Leader? If there were a few manufacturers who got into this test and publicized it with much fanfare it would nearly force others to join-in or be left-on the bottom - so to say! LOL

You either feel your anchor design is Simply Great - OR - You Know it Aint!

Grow some... step up to the plate!