Forfjord

Very good vids Steve,
Looks like the Supreme kinda jumped into the bottom haha. As expected w that big square shank the Forfjord didn't penetrate much but looked like it would hold. I think someone said the Forfjord sets sometimes like a Kedge w one fluke straight down. If the bottom was irregular in any way what's to prevent it? Of course adding a stock would prevent that. Wonder if it does happen. There's evidence that the Claw dosn't always set right side up too but w both anchors it may be a rare thing.

In the video it looks like the current is flowing in the wrong direction. Did you set bass awkward to insure a reversal?
Looks like a good mostly sandy bottom.
With my 40hp engine a 1500rpm backdown seems like a lot?

Steve you went to Barkley Sound to "find that particular beach" ... for the clear water or the sandy slightly muddy bottom ... or?
I should give you some anchors to test. I may be done w it.

manyboats said:

Very good vids Steve,

Thanks

Looks like the Supreme kinda jumped into the bottom haha.

It did jump into the bottom with very little dragging. Surprisingly, so did the Bruce and the Forfjord. Not quite as quick as the Manson but very quick indeed.

As expected w that big square shank the Forfjord didn't penetrate much but looked like it would hold.

Actually, my take was that the Forfjord penetrated pretty well given my boats inability to pull the anchor very hard

I think someone said the Forfjord sets sometimes like a Kedge w one fluke straight down. If the bottom was irregular in any way what's to prevent it?

The extremely complex physics involving an anchor being dragged through a sub-strait is far to "deep" for me to make these kinds of predictions.

Of course adding a stock would prevent that.

The Danforth copy that I tested spent its entire drag with a severe list. It has a stock. Not trying to be snarky. Just making an observation.

Wonder if it does happen.

I wonder the same thing.

There's evidence that the Claw dosn't always set right side up too but w both anchors it may be a rare thing.

Perhaps. I really need to make hundreds of videos in various condition to draw much of a conclusion.

In the video it looks like the current is flowing in the wrong direction. Did you set bass awkward to insure a reversal?

The current was undetectable on the surface. Setting directions were made parallel to the beach so as to not have the scope "modified" by the sub-strait's splope. The material that is floating by in the videos is very close to the fish-eye camera lens. This is making the current appear faster that it really was.

All of the boat speeds that I mention in the videos are based on GPS so the "momentum based yanks" on the anchor will be the roughly the same regardless of current.

Looks like a good mostly sandy bottom.

Bottom had a lot of sand but was sticky enough to remain attached to the anchor in some clumps. I call it "sandy mud"


With my 40hp engine a 1500rpm backdown seems like a lot?

With my 40hp engine at 1500rpm, I can only back up against perhaps a 20 knot breeze. Max power could back up against perhaps 30 knots with Zero waves (I have a transom). How in the world can a displacement boat with an appropriately small engine, possibly simulate the pull on an anchor that would be present during a 60 knot blow?

Steve you went to Barkley Sound to "find that particular beach" ... for the clear water or the sandy slightly muddy bottom ... or?

The beach at Barkley sound was pertaining to where I found the float used for the camera mount

All these videos were filmed just west of the Port Townsend Marina (the big marina)

I should give you some anchors to test. I may be done w it.

That would be great, Eric. Bring some anchors over and we can yank the **** out of them. I am fascinated by all this and find it a real pleasure to rig and execute these tests. There is a small but significant chance that the camera will be destroyed by tangling with the anchor or being drug through bottom debris.

Can we use your camera?

Click to expand...

Steve

Steve,
I'm amazed that anchors in videos (yours, Nolex and others) set consistantly w the shank down. Especially at short scope. I suppose the chain holds it down. I've been saying for years that the best part of having chain is that of controlling the shank during the setting process. I wonder if the anchor vid makers switched to all line if the anchore would set w the shanks pointed toward the surface?

Yes the Forfjord did fine. I really have no idea how much rpm would simulate gale force winds. My 5/8ths nylon line kinda shakes like it's under great stress at 1500rpm in reverse. I use a symmetrical blade propeller that has more thrust in reverse ... "Michigan MP". Bucking a 40mph wind I loose almost no speed at all. I'm not sure if I can turn that into anchoring info that would be useful to estimate line pull in "X" amount of wind. Only been in a gale twice and the anchor line looked much like it did backing on it at 1500rpm. Not really meaningful but not meaningless either. With all the variables holding onto a boat in the wind w a spring scale seem about the only way to get close. Perhaps going out into a 40mph wind and observing at what rpm the boat stayed put and then attaching a spring scale to a piling (or whatever) to see how much pull at the rpm that produced a stationary boat in the wind. That would be easy to do. Then reading the anchor tests would be more meaningful.

Re test anchors .. fine. I almost never get over on that side of the sound. I'll give you my XYZ that has a blunt nosed tip on it and I'll weld back on the part I cut off. And the 15lb Supreme w the roll bar cut off. I tried the Supreme only once and it dragged w almost no resistance. It must have landed shuch that it flipped when I backed down. I'll probably want the anchors back but damage is fine. Especially if we learn something.

Use my camera? Nooooooooo

manyboats said:

......... I'll probably want the anchors back but damage is fine. Especially if we learn something.

Click to expand...

Sounds Good, Eric

It was a shame the Danforth copy did not set. The planned "simulated 180 degree windshift torture test" may have turned that whimpy shank into a pretzel. It would have made for some interesting video.

Steve

Awesome video technique!

Watching the bubbles fly by I figured couple of knots current, but the plume when rotated moved off slowly.


Keith

I was able to borrow a Fortress FX-16 (10 pound) anchor. I gave it the same torture test that the other anchors received. The anchor did so well I ended up buying it from the lender.

Steve

Never saw the clean and jerk method for setting a anchor.

Also, hitting a sand patch versus grass helps and not impaling a shell helps to.....both very common reason Danforth and look-a-likes don't have universal appeal as primary anchors.

psneeld,

I chose to use a very abrupt setting technique so as to simulate the worst case scenario.

The dark patches that are visible in these videos are primarily a thin blanket of organic material that is not attached to the substrate. In some of the videos, the turbulence caused by the anchor falling to the bottom was enough to "blow" this material away. I believe this material is not affecting the performance of these anchors.

I am very grateful that this organic material is present because to gives a perfect visual reference for motion in these videos.

Steve

OK.....doesn't change what I posted or what I have seen with Danforth look-a-likes...


but I understand the 2 knot emergency drop...how did other test anchors fair?

psneeld,

My apologies. I assumed that when you said "hitting a sand patch versus grass helps", you were talking about the video that I posted. I was just trying to clarify what was actually present on the bottom.

Steve

Here are the 6 Videos/tests that I had posted previously.
Manson Supreme Anchor Setting Test. Video # 1 of an ongoing anchoring series.

Here is Video from today's test of the Fortress. This time I used a rode consisting of 12 feet of 5/16" chain, spliced to a length of 9/16" nylon rope. I deployed this from the stern of the boat while underway at a steady 3.6 knots. The Idea was to simulate an emergency stop using the anchor only.

Steve

Filming of the entire process of anchoring, setting, directional stressing, and retrieval is helpful, informative and, (water clarity excluded) "transparent". To a great extent the viewer gets to draw their own conclusion. The load which comes on at the "power set" stage is clearly substantial, as it should be. Very helpful, thank you.

BruceK, Your mentioning of the "load" being put on these anchors caused me to start thinking about measuring the load accurately. I'll do some shopping around for a load cell - bet they are expensive.

Today's test of the fortress (above) went well enough that I had time to re-test the Manson Supreme at short scope.

This time I used even shorter scope at 2.5 to 1. Also, unlike the previous short scope test (Video #2, 2.8 to 1) I was very careful to conduct the "pulls" exactly parallel to the bottom contour lines.

Steve

Thank you for your efforts !

Well done. The anchor testing that companies do could learn from you. Pretty self explanatory.

One thing that I noted on the Bruce test....it fell and stayed straight up... funny as they almost always fall over unless careful setting them down.. at least I thought it did stay upright...all the other anchors too.

So with the camera and float, all the anchors are hydro bubble knockoffs...I may start using a float from now on....

Psneeld,

It is possible that the float is affecting the setting of the anchors. However, this must be a small effect as the float that I am using is small. In fact prior to the last rounds of testing, I removed material from the float in order to achieve near neutral buoyancy.

I reviewed the 9 posted videos and checked the list of the anchors after the drop. All 4 of the pivoting fluke anchor videos (Forfjord, Danforth, Fortress) landed upright as to be expected from this type of anchor. Also, note that in 3 of the pivoting fluke anchor tests, the camera/float was attached to the chain and therefore not able to affect anchor "landing" orientation.


Of the 4 Manson supreme Videos, 2 drops landed upright and 2 drops landed with a list. One other Manson video that I deleted (poor camera angle) also showed a list.

The one Bruce video does indeed show the anchor landing upright. This anchor was probably affected the most by the float as it was attached to the "trip line" hole located High on the anchor. Future tests of the anchor will be conducted with the near neutral buoyancy float.

Also noteworthy (I think) is the fact that all of these anchors tend to "fly" in a stable attitude when being dropped or dragged quickly (and I drop quickly - freefall) through the water. This may be a factor for the higher rate of upright landings.

Steve

Perhaps you could lower some of the anchors slowly. Or pick them up after they "hit" bottom and slowly let them down. I never drop my anchors off the boat the way I dropped all my toys out of the 2nd story window when I was 5. Dad went out in 2' of snow and picked them up.

Panope said:

Here is Video from today's test of the Fortress. This time I used a rode consisting of 12 feet of 5/16" chain, spliced to a length of 9/16" nylon rope. I deployed this from the stern of the boat while underway at a steady 3.6 knots. The Idea was to simulate an emergency stop using the anchor only.

Steve

Click to expand...

Thanks. Ref your comment about "flying" -- have heard that before about the lightweight Fortresses -- flying, swimming, floating, whatever, meaning not immediately contacting the sea bed. Your video is a good illustration of that phenomenon I think.

I wonder if an FX-23 would fly less, an FX-37 even less than that, etc... simply due to more weight.

In other places where I've read/heard about lightweights flying, I've also gotten the impression some folks were trying to anchor at 3.6+ knots. Not emergency stopping, but maybe really expecting the anchor (any anchor) to set immediately when they're cruising along "at speed" while trying to anchor.

-Chris



-Chris

As a child, I was a passenger aboard Panope's sister ship (engineless, Gaff schooner rig). I'll skip the details of how/why we ended up on a lee shore screaming toward a wharf under too much sail.......

But I will describe exactly how the boat was saved from colliding with this wharf or shore: The captain sprang forward and let go the anchor that was pre-rigged for immediate deployment including having the rode belayed at a predetermined length. The anchor engaged the bottom and saved the day. Anchor was a Fisherman. No problem with that anchor "flying" above the seabed.

I choose to make this "urgent" and "abrupt" anchor deployment style part of my normal routine so that if/when a true emergency happens, the course of action will be second nature. Any equipment or technique that is intolerant of this (I still have all my fingers) will quickly be identified and eliminated.

Do not read the above as an admonishment of other person's more gentle anchoring style. The above is only an explanation of my own.

Steve

Panope said:

I choose to make this "urgent" and "abrupt" anchor deployment style part of my normal routine so that if/when a true emergency happens, the course of action will be second nature. Any equipment or technique that is intolerant of this (I still have all my fingers) will quickly be identified and eliminated.

Do not read the above as an admonishment of other person's more gentle anchoring style. The above is only an explanation of my own.

Click to expand...

Sure, good idea to test/practice... and I didn't mean my comment as criticism, either.

So now that you know the FX-16 needs 90' of rode...

Would it be logical to test with the larger Fortress models in the same way, see if you can get down to lower scope, faster stops?



-Chris

Chris, That would make for a great test. Along this same line of thinking, someone else wondered if some lead could be added to the tips of the flukes for the purpose of causing the flukes to naturally pivot downward and thus cause the anchor to dive downward rather than "fly" upward.

Steve