Chesapeake Anchor Holding Power Test

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Is there something like an article, or a website, or a phone number I can call where I can find out what anchors are supposed to dig, dive, float, travel, cruise, etc....etc

I don't ever think I have ever heard that before and I sure need to brush up on that concept...

Heck,I always just thought that anchor was designed to pent rate as far as it could...only being stopped by a substrate to hard or not enough force.
 
psneeld said:
Is there something like an article, or a website, or a phone number I can call where I can find out what anchors are supposed to dig, dive, float, travel, cruise, etc....etc
Click to expand...

Yes. Try http://www.anchors.performance_eval...ve/cruise-characteristics/USgeosurvey_lab.gov

This site graphs the performance of every known anchor from a rock to a Rocna in every known bottom condition. The information is from real-life, US government tests. No speculation, guesses, unproven theories or suppositions were used in the creation of the graphs. Only actual observation under all known bottom and weather conditions was used.

Every known type of vessel was used in the tests. So to use the graphs first find your specific vessel make and model, scroll down to the specific type and size/weight of anchor you are interested in, enter a scope ratio and then scroll to the right to see graphically how that anchor performs in every known type of bottom in every known type of weather and water conditions.

The latest upgrade to the graphing system allows you to enter your make and model of vessel, define a bottom type, define the weather and water conditions, and select a scope ratio. Then hit "Find" and the site will come up with the best anchor type and size/weight for your specific boat under those exact conditions.

it's a great tool. We used the Beta test version many years ago to select the best anchor to replace our unsatisfactory Bruce. I'm surprised Eric hasn't come across it yet as it would remove all speculation about any anchor in any bottom in any condtions with any vessel using any scope.

The current version uses CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) to show exactly how each anchor moves into and through every bottom type. So you can see exactly how the shape of an anchor affects how it sets, digs deeper, and moves under different pressures (you can select the load on the anchor to see exactly how it will behave under that load. Very cool.)

The site is constantly being upgraded as new boats and anchor combinations are tested. So don't be surprised if the site fails to open on your first try. Keep at it, though. Eventually it will open and you can take advantage of the incredible amount of testing that the government has done to date.
 
Last edited:
Without speculation it would be rather boring. Wouldn't need anymore anchor threads .. for that matter wouldn't need any forum.
 
psneeld said:
Is there something like an article, or a website, or a phone number I can call where I can find out what anchors are supposed to dig, dive, float, travel, cruise, etc....etc

I don't ever think I have ever heard that before and I sure need to brush up on that concept...

Heck,I always just thought that anchor was designed to pent rate as far as it could...only being stopped by a substrate to hard or not enough force.
Click to expand...
I don't think that the idea of an anchor designed to bury itself as you pull on it is that controversial or obscure a concept. A fisherman anchor is not designed to dive under the surface, nor I think is a Forfjord. A Danforth type, definitely. An Ultra/Excel/Spade, yes. A Rocna/Manson/Mantus, well maybe, but the vertical hoop will inhibit that so whatever the intent, they don't dive as deep as other designs.

This, I think, is what a diving anchor looks like:

Presenting SARCA Excel - YouTube

And this is the very good non-diving Manson Supreme as an example of the hoop preventing it from diving any deeper that 8" or so:

Manson Supreme Anchor: Underwater footage of instant setting nature - YouTube
 
psneeld said:
I think the edges are important for how they set...after that the forces of burying overwhelm whatever little tilting force they may exert.

Just because I hold a party sized helium balloon doesn't mean I will float away.

You really have to run some numbers of the forces involved...and I'll bet the manufacturers did....probably more accurately than some assumptions and eyeballing...and I'll bet the anchors continue to dig deeper just fine even with the winglets...just like the hoops that pictures clearly show don't tilt the rollbar anchors back upwards.

It's all about force...not guess.
Click to expand...

:thumb::D
 
Marin said:
Yes. Try http://www.anchors.performance_eval...ve/cruise-characteristics/USgeosurvey_lab.gov
Click to expand...

Having a problem with the link.....tried to cut it up even and search but nothing that sounds right is coming up....

Whose website? US Geosurvey???

I'm still looking for something that says when an anchor is designed to stop burying itself...I didn't see anything on the Manson or Rocna sites...you know a statement like..."designed to reach max holding at XXX depth buried...indcrease holding power can be achieved by XXX (something like using cable versus chain or something)"....

But I haven't yet...still looking.
 
Last edited:
I like my how-far-up-the-shank test. Had many occasions when mud was half way or more up the shank of my Delta. I recall it happening to a lesser extent way back in the day on the CA Delta with an old Danforth type. Let it "soak" for awhile, that's the ticket, do the initial set, pour yourself a drink, relax. Then come back and power down on it. Then stay a day or two.
 
psneeld said:
Is there something like an article, or a website, or a phone number I can call where I can find out what anchors are supposed to dig, dive, float, travel, cruise, etc....etc

I don't ever think I have ever heard that before and I sure need to brush up on that concept...

Heck,I always just thought that anchor was designed to pent rate as far as it could...only being stopped by a substrate to hard or not enough force.
Click to expand...


Try 1-800-ONA-HOOK

:)

But yes, ref what I'd think is a good goal: penetrate as far as it can... only being stopped by too hard a substrate or not enough force. Exactly.

Around here that'd have the whole shank and maybe 3-4' of chain buried, too.


Marin said:
Yes. Try http://www.anchors.performance_eval...ve/cruise-characteristics/USgeosurvey_lab.gov
Click to expand...


:)



caltexflanc said:
I like my how-far-up-the-shank test. Had many occasions when mud was half way or more up the shank of my Delta.
Click to expand...


That's the test we routinely use, too. And our shank routinely brings mud up, sometimes almost all the way up to the swivel. I can't always prove the shank was actually buried that far, though...

-Chris
 
psneeld said:
Is there something like an article, or a website, or a phone number I can call where I can find out what anchors are supposed to dig, dive, float, travel, cruise, etc....etc

I don't ever think I have ever heard that before and I sure need to brush up on that concept...

Heck,I always just thought that anchor was designed to pent rate as far as it could...only being stopped by a substrate to hard or not enough force.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what an anchor is supposed to do. The design of the anchor may help initial penetration. However the same design features that help to quickly set an anchor with little tip weight can become an impediment to that same design penetrating as deeply as a differently designed anchor.

The function of the hoop in the Manson video above is obvious. It puts the anchor in a position where the tip can dig in. Then, as it is pulled, the anchor starts diving, and as it does the soil begins to compress as it passes through the hoop because the concave fluke is directing the soil in that direction (compare to a Super Sarca where the soil is directed away from the hoop). This is frequently a virtue, except in those cases where the soil doesn't compact, in the which case the hoop becomes a backboard tipping the anchor out of the soil. Otherwise, it merely becomes a surface horizontal to the direction of pull adding something to drag, but also generally preventing deep burying when compared to an anchor without a hoop. The hoop, like virtually all design features has advantages and disadvantages, which doesn't seem like a concept that needs much brushing up on.

The advantages of a burying anchor can be seen from the Fortress tests. Once configured correctly, the Fortress buried deeply, generated the highest resistance and brought up material from well under the sea bed surface. The next best seems to be the Mantus, whose thinner hoop wasn't much of an impediment to diving in the soupy mud, followed by the Ultra which has most of its weight in the tip. All kinds of trade offs involved, which come into play differently depending on the type of sea bed you're dealing with.
 
Ya know...

I've watched lots of anchor setting vids, including the two on Delfin's post # 814 of this thread. One extremely meaningful item I consistently notice is that the manufacturers' setting tests mostly utilize a nearly parallel with ground-surface rode angle while pulling to display setting capability of their anchor. In my estimation that skews things out of sync with reality of 5 to 1 or even 7 to 1 scope/angle that anchors need to set with during real-time anchoring procedures. Of course, if rode is fully heavy chain with oodles of scope, and anchor is not pulled back-down upon to aggressively (at least at first during setting sequence), then the shank of anchor would stay more parallel to bottom surface which would more closely resemble the test video occurrences. However, many boats do not have full-on chain from boat to anchor. Instead they have 10’ +/- chain with the rest being line; also, many do not provide ample scope. And, many boaters do not know very well how to “whisper” to an anchor while setting it. Therefore… I do not put full stock into results seen regarding on-screen-close-up pictured results of most anchor setting videos. :facepalm:

In comparison to the plethora of what I feel are skewed anchor setting close-up videos:

It is my feeling that the “test(s)” having results to be most relied upon were and are performed by Brian of Fortress Anchor. His tests were performed under very close to real life anchoring conditions and in comparison to many anchor types in same conditions under strict anchor setting guidelines. :thumb:

In too many videos: Pickup trucks pulling anchors along surface with rode parallel to ground does not a realistic-boating anchor set condition make.

Just sayen!! :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
ranger42c said:
Try 1-800-ONA-HOOK



That's the test we routinely use, too. And our shank routinely brings mud up, sometimes almost all the way up to the swivel. I can't always prove the shank was actually buried that far, though...

-Chris
Click to expand...

In all this discussion Chris, remind me what anchor you have?

How else do you think mud could get up on the shank of a fixed shank anchor? Now on that old Danforth I spoke of, I suppose if the rode was dead slack over a long period of time the shank could get some mud on it.
 
Art said:


In too many videos: Pickup trucks pulling anchors along surface with rode parallel to ground does not a realistic-boating anchor set condition make.

Just sayen!! :popcorn:
Click to expand...


Art, I could be wrong about this, but the pickup truck pulling was not all about setting. It was mostly about holding power. Notice that at that scope all the anchors set. I think another type test would be better for setting an anchor.

Plus the tester, Robinson, is an independent tester. The yellow cage vehicle is their design.
 
Last edited:
Moonstruck said:
Art, I could be wrong about this, but the pickup truck pulling was not all about setting. It was mostly about holding power. Notice that at that scope all the anchors set. I think another type test would be better for setting an anchor.

Plus the tester, Robinson, is an independent tester. The yellow cage vehicle is their design.
Click to expand...

Yo, Don - We both could be wrong bout everything we say in terms of anchor calisthenics! :thumb: - LOL

Then maybe I should change my wording just a bit... although... if it were holding and not setting they meant to primarily represent, I wonder why each film has nearly equal time in showing setting (some times even more time for setting) as to the holding accomplished thereafter? Why not have anchor pre set and focus longer on holding?? Vids still by majority have rode pulling pretty much parallel to ground which would (in a positive manner) affect holding as much as it would setting regarding any anchor design... as compared to real life 5-1 (or less) to 7-1 or more scope allowance.

Sooo... here's my just a bit changed wording: "Pickup trucks pulling anchors along surface with rode parallel to ground does not a realistic-boating anchor set [or holding] condition make.

:speed boat::D Cheers! - Art :dance:
 
In the instruction pamphlet that came with our Rocna way back when, the use of all-chain rode was strongly recommended. Perhaps for the angle of pull reasons you describe....
 
Marin said:
In the instruction pamphlet that came with our Rocna way back when, the use of all-chain rode was strongly recommended. Perhaps for the angle of pull reasons you describe....
Click to expand...

I believe so, Marin. Heavier the rode (particularly full chain; larger the link the better - for added weight) then more parallel with bottom will anchor shank remain. Therefore better angle for anchor fluke(s) digging into bottom. This basic physics fact is reason Fortress Anchor's 45% angle adjustment capability works so well for setting and holding. Fortress 45% shank to fluke angle makes up for shorter rode scope and lighter weight rode... such as short chain attached to line.

As has been know for centuries: "Angle of the dangle is directly proportionate to hypotenuse of the square" - LOL :lol:
 
Moonstruck said:
Art, I could be wrong about this, but the pickup truck pulling was not all about setting. It was mostly about holding power. Notice that at that scope all the anchors set. I think another type test would be better for setting an anchor.

Plus the tester, Robinson, is an independent tester. The yellow cage vehicle is their design.
Click to expand...

Don, just to clear up one possible confusion, the short beach test videos Delfin put up did not show the DATS yellow cage machine for standardised testing Robinson used - that's on the Anchorright website videos, best seen in the 'snatch test' video, I think you'll find.
 
Last edited:
caltexflanc said:
In all this discussion Chris, remind me what anchor you have?

How else do you think mud could get up on the shank of a fixed shank anchor? Now on that old Danforth I spoke of, I suppose if the rode was dead slack over a long period of time the shank could get some mud on it.
Click to expand...


Our main anchor is a pivoting SuperMax, one size smaller than recommended for our boat weight. (Brought it over from our previous boat.)

I only meant that I've never dived on the anchor to see for myself. Sorta too muddy and murky here, usually, to be able to see well enough to mess with it...

-Chris
 
In the spirit of Marin's post regarding the government web site for anchors, and Chris / ranger42c's toll free anchor number, here's a very scientific holding power test of (2) Fortress FX-125s, with unfortunately disappointing results:

 
Fortress Anchors said:
In the spirit of Marin's post regarding the government web site for anchors, and Chris / ranger42c's toll free anchor number, here's a very scientific holding power test of (2) Fortress FX-125s, with unfortunately disappointing results:

Click to expand...
With respect Brian, I think that only illustrates one of the problems with the Fortress design. My understanding is that if a wind shift had occurred, and the SUV had reversed course and backed over the pallet, it is even less likely the Fortress would have held in those conditions.
 
Brian - All I can say: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Delfin said:
With respect Brian, I think that only illustrates one of the problems with the Fortress design. My understanding is that if a wind shift had occurred, and the SUV had reversed course and backed over the pallet, it is even less likely the Fortress would have held in those conditions.
Click to expand...

Delfin, quite possible. However, with all due respect in return, if a wind or tidal shift had forced the SUV in reverse, and it ended up centered directly over the FX-125 pallet, then those anchors might have slowed further movement and there might have been a more positive outcome to this comprehensive, real world test.

Brian
 
Fortress Anchors said:
Delfin, quite possible. However, with all due respect in return, if a wind or tidal shift had forced the SUV in reverse, and it ended up centered directly over the FX-125 pallet, then those anchors might have slowed further movement and there might have been a more positive outcome to this comprehensive, real world test.

Brian
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I would want to see actual objective and empirical data, preferably garnered by the United States government and have the test not merely limited to a single surface, like asphalt. Unless this experiment is repeated in gravel, ice, sand, quicksand, tundra, and the Okefenoke Swamp, I remain skeptical as to its relevance.
 
I can't figure why lightweight fortress anchors are on a pallet anyway. Unless they are for a cruise ship or aircraft carrier....the average 6 year old should be able to pick one up in each hand.:D
 
I loved the test of the Fortress FX-125 in post # 828. I have three anchors, an ultra on all chain as a main and two FX’s as a backup on the bow and one as a stern anchor(chosen because of the weight and having to set by hand or with the dinghy).
 

Attachments

  • max52513017.jpg
    max52513017.jpg
    159.9 KB · Views: 59
Delfin said:
Maybe, but I would want to see actual objective and empirical data, preferably garnered by the United States government and have the test not merely limited to a single surface, like asphalt. Unless this experiment is repeated in gravel, ice, sand, quicksand, tundra, and the Okefenoke Swamp, I remain skeptical as to its relevance.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think that the cats played an integral role in this FX-125 testing, and should also be included in any further testing.

psneeld said:
I can't figure why lightweight fortress anchors are on a pallet anyway. Unless they are for a cruise ship or aircraft carrier....the average 6 year old should be able to pick one up in each hand.:D
Click to expand...

Thank you for the unintentional lead-in to a shameless promotional opportunity.

Much appreciated,
Brian
 

Attachments

  • Lazaros-Stavrou-kerisguy.jpg
    Lazaros-Stavrou-kerisguy.jpg
    54.5 KB · Views: 64
  • 1Tim-Barrett.jpg
    1Tim-Barrett.jpg
    53.6 KB · Views: 69
  • Tim-Rodger.jpg
    Tim-Rodger.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 58
That is a cool demonstration, Brian.:socool:
 
Fortress Anchors said:
Agreed. I think that the cats played an integral role in this FX-125 testing, and should also be included in any further testing.



Thank you for the unintentional lead-in to a shameless promotional opportunity.

Much appreciated,
Brian
Click to expand...
Without independent testing, we have no way of knowing whether or not these crumb crunchers were actually holding anchors suspended by helium balloons. Data please.
 
That's it. You sold me. I'm buying one for my petite wife for her birthday.

I'll let you know how much she loves it.
 
Delfin said:
Without independent testing, we have no way of knowing whether or not these crumb crunchers were actually holding anchors suspended by helium balloons. Data please.
Click to expand...

You are right to be skeptical. For our magazine ads, we photoshopped the hair of the first lady below with the yellow top to a darker brown, as her flaming red hair was thought to be a distraction.

Northern Spy said:
That's it. You sold me. I'm buying one for my petite wife for her birthday.

I'll let you know how much she loves it.
Click to expand...

:thumb:

She will love it as much as these other ladies, although a couple of them are not quite so petite.
 

Attachments

  • Lady_with_Fortress.jpg
    Lady_with_Fortress.jpg
    111.5 KB · Views: 65
  • Tommy-Miller.JPG
    Tommy-Miller.JPG
    183.7 KB · Views: 61
  • Bob-Taylor.jpg
    Bob-Taylor.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 58
  • Kenneth-Zushma.jpg
    Kenneth-Zushma.jpg
    77.7 KB · Views: 60
  • Mike-Courville.jpg
    Mike-Courville.jpg
    178.7 KB · Views: 61
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nocanvas
12,500 miles still going
Replies
10
Views
2K
Nocanvas
Nocanvas
ranger58sb
Another Vulcan thread
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Peter B
P
mvweebles
Travels with Weebles
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
koliver
koliver
slowgoesit
PNW to Mexico, Panama Canal, and Florida, on our way at last!
8 9 10
Replies
284
Views
30K
slowgoesit
slowgoesit
J
Newbie Entering Chesapeake Bay
Replies
29
Views
5K
Captain Pontoon
Captain Pontoon

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom