Anchor setting Videos

Rather than continuing to post my Anchor Setting Videos in the "Forfjord" thread, I thought I would start a new dedicated thread.

Here are the 9 previous Video's that you may have already viewed:






Forfjord Anchor Setting Test. Video # 6 of an ongoing anchoring series.

Fortress FX-16 Anchor Setting Test. Video # 7 of an ongoing anchoring series.

Fortress FX-16 Anchor Test. Emergency Stop. Video # 8 of an ongoing anchoring series.

Manson Supreme Anchor Setting Test. 2.5 to 1 scope. Video # 9 of an ongoing anchoring series.

I have recently conducted 9 new tests on 5 new (to me) anchors.

-A 33 lb. Bruce COPY that failed to engage the seabed.

-A 20 lb. Genuine Danforth that performed fairly well.

-A 45 (50?) lb. CQR that took its sweet time setting.

-A 12 lb. Northill that set wonderfully but has low holding power.

-A 44 lb. Spade anchor that performed absolutely brilliantly.

Steve

Here are the Videos:






Danforth Anchor (Genuine) Setting Test. 3.5 to 1 scope. Video #15 of an ongoing anchoring series.

Northill Anchor Setting Test 3.5 to 1 scope. Video #16 of an ongoing anchoring series.

33 lb.Bruce Anchor (Genuine) Setting Test. 2.5 to 1 scope. Video #17 of an ongoing series.

Fortress FX16 Anchor Setting Test. 2.5 to 1 scope. Video #18 of an ongoing anchoring series.

........and my most recent Video, a commentary about the 10 anchors that I have tested.

Steve

NOOOOOOOOOO.........

Very interesting series of tests/videos. A couple of observations:

You should never try to set an anchor at 2.5:1 or even 3.5:1 as you did. Always set at least 5:1 and if you need a shorter scope for limited swinging room, then shorten scope after setting. Even poor holding anchors will hold decently if set at 5:1 and then reduced.

Even at 3,000 rpm and short scope I didn't see the end of the shank rising as I would expect it to do. How much force do you believe you were exerting at 3,000 rpm? Maybe not enough to lift the chain's catenary significantly.

If so the differences in 2.5:1 and 5:1 scope are negligible because the shank is horizontal in both cases, right?


Maybe a better test procedure would be to use all line rode to eliminate the catenary effect.

David

Great set of videos and a really clever way of seeing what's going on down there. Thanks.

djmarchand, Thanks.

djmarchand said:

Very interesting series of tests/videos. A couple of observations:

You should never try to set an anchor at 2.5:1 or even 3.5:1 as you did. Always set at least 5:1 and if you need a shorter scope for limited swinging room, then shorten scope after setting. Even poor holding anchors will hold decently if set at 5:1 and then reduced.

If one has an anchor that sets reliably and fully at say 3:1, I cannot imagine why setting the anchor at 5:1 would be of any benefit??? In fact, your technique would tend to mask a setting problem that may be present.

Even at 3,000 rpm and short scope I didn't see the end of the shank rising as I would expect it to do. How much force do you believe you were exerting at 3,000 rpm? Maybe not enough to lift the chain's catenary significantly.

Tough to say exactly how much force 3,000 RPM exerts. I did recently hold the boat stationary in reverse with 3,000 RPM against a gale with steady wind in the upper 30's (according to NOAA). I was surprised by this ability.

Be reminded that in virtually all the initial sets of these anchors, I was allowing the boat to develop significant momentum (2 knots). The resulting "snatches" were very abrupt and certainly produced much higher force (momentary) than the engine could produce.

If so the differences in 2.5:1 and 5:1 scope are negligible because the shank is horizontal in both cases, right?

Maybe a better test procedure would be to use all line rode to eliminate the catenary effect.

That would be an interesting test. Hard to say if that would better than tests that simulate real conditions/equipment.

Best test of short scope holding power would be to use a large and powerfull test vessel that is equipped with the ability to measure load. These types of test have been done many times. Lacking this equipment, I have focused on testing seting and re-setting ability only.

David

Click to expand...

angus99 said:

Great set of videos and a really clever way of seeing what's going on down there. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Thanks angus,

My wife gave me the GoPro camer a couple years ago and I am sure this is the last thing in world she figured I would be using it for.

Who knows what other "tests" I can dream up. I suppose if I could somehow get the camera back, I could flush it down the toilet in order to see what's really going on down there too.

Steve

Great set of tests David, sorry, Steve. May I suggest you do the same if possible with a Rocna and the Sarca series, Super and Excel, if you can lay your hands them. Also, in view of the great performance of the Spade, the new Manson Boss, and the new Spade-like Rocna, (without a roll bar), called the Vulcan. They are very popular down under in NZ and Australia, but becoming more popular as more become available in the Northern Hemi. I am presuming you know the ones I'm referring to..? Anyone on here near enough to Steve to lend one..?

I personally have a 22kg (49lb) Super Sarca, and am very impressed with it, but many on here still have concerns re the tripping slot letting go at a bad moment. Has never happened to me in many hundreds of sets, and I found it interesting when you tried to demonstrate that with the Manson. It wouldn't do it with a reverse direction pull with the rode out, and you had to qualify things by saying to make it trip, one would need to take in all slack rode directly above, then power back over it, and I agree - that is precisely how and when it is meant to work. But seeing is believing, right..? Keep doin' what you're doin'.
Cheers,

Thanks Peter,

I am interested in testing any and all anchors that I can get my hands on.

Rex of Anchor Right has initiated a communication with me about the testing of his anchor(s). Stay tuned.....

Steve

P.S. I quoted djmarchand above who's signature is "David" but my name is Steve.

Panope, Thanks so much for sharing. I have wished for a long time anchor companies would do this rather than wasting our time with dragging anchors on a beach with a pickup truck. Nothing beats real world environment tests. I wish you were closer I would lend you my Sarca.

Thanks again!

djmarchand said:

............Maybe a better test procedure would be to use all line rode to eliminate the catenary effect.

David

Click to expand...

I did conduct a test of the Fortress anchor using a rode consisting of only 12 feet of 5/16" chain and the balance of nylon. Scope was 3 to 1. The anchor set immediately while underway at 3.6 knots. Certainly, chain catenary was providing very little "help" in setting.

Steve

Steve:

I am not trying to nit pick your tests, just to understand them and offer some suggestions if you keep up this worthy exercise.

What most of us care about is an anchor that sets easily and holds well at reasonable scope. Some anchors don't set easily like the Delta, but will hold forever, at least in a straight line pull. Others set very easily (at least in sand like your tests) but lack ultimate holding power such as the Bruce.

Your tests favor the easy setting anchors like the Bruce, Spade and Manson because the tests are mostly on short scope and the anchor has to resist the momentum of a boat moving 2 kts in reverse. I am almost sure that a Delta would fail miserably in those conditions.

Also even though they probably weren't designed to do so, your tests don't say much about ultimate holding power. Some of the anchors dragged or pulled out when you applied 3,000 rpms but some didn't. I suspect that 3,000 rpms on your boat in reverse applies something less than 500 lbs of force. In studying other anchor tests, 500 lbs won't discriminate between the ok and great anchors.

From what I have seen, it takes a minimum of 1,000 lbs of holding power to be reasonably safe in high winds and preferably double that. I would be much more comfortable anchoring in a gale with a Spade or a Manson than a Bruce, even though your tests seem to indicate that they perform all the same.

I realize that you are not testing ultimate holding power, but your tests need to acknowledge that fact.


What might be interesting is to set the anchors at 5:1 at slow speed- less than 1 kt, which will probably let most that failed to set, set. Then decrease to 3:1 and see if they hold at 3,000 rpm. 3:1 is the shortest scope that I would attempt to use in a crowded anchorage.


BTW that was an interesting test of the Fortress with mostly nylon rode that you just posted. It grabbed when the scope was increased to 3:1 while moving at 3+ kts which is surprising.


David

djmarchand said:

Steve:

I am not trying to nit pick your tests, just to understand them and offer some suggestions if you keep up this worthy exercise.

It's all good. Nit pick away!

What most of us care about is an anchor that sets easily and holds well at reasonable scope. Some anchors don't set easily like the Delta, but will hold forever, at least in a straight line pull. Others set very easily (at least in sand like your tests) but lack ultimate holding power such as the Bruce.

Your tests favor the easy setting anchors like the Bruce, Spade and Manson because the tests are mostly on short scope and the anchor has to resist the momentum of a boat moving 2 kts in reverse. I am almost sure that a Delta would fail miserably in those conditions.

Also even though they probably weren't designed to do so, your tests don't say much about ultimate holding power. Some of the anchors dragged or pulled out when you applied 3,000 rpms but some didn't. I suspect that 3,000 rpms on your boat in reverse applies something less than 500 lbs of force. In studying other anchor tests, 500 lbs won't discriminate between the ok and great anchors.

I am currently seeking load cell test equipment and will conduct a dock side bollard pull test when able.

I did recently hold the boat stationary in reverse against a gale (upper 30's, NOAA measured) at 3,000 RPM. Engine is 40 HP. Propeller is a fixed, three blade of 18" diameter. This propeller is larger than normal (for sailboats) but I was still surprised by this good reverse performance.

From what I have seen, it takes a minimum of 1,000 lbs of holding power to be reasonably safe in high winds and preferably double that. I would be much more comfortable anchoring in a gale with a Spade or a Manson than a Bruce, even though your tests seem to indicate that they perform all the same.

I realize that you are not testing ultimate holding power, but your tests need to acknowledge that fact.

Agreed. I should make that point even more obvious.

What might be interesting is to set the anchors at 5:1 at slow speed- less than 1 kt, which will probably let most that failed to set, set. Then decrease to 3:1 and see if they hold at 3,000 rpm. 3:1 is the shortest scope that I would attempt to use in a crowded anchorage.

Actually, the only anchor that COMPETELY failed to engage the bottom (Danforth COPY) did get tested at 5 to 1 scope and with a slow pull (Watch the whole video as scope is increased about half way through. See below).

The other anchor that only partially engaged (at scope of more than 3 to 1) was the Bruce COPY - an anchor type that normally does well at short scope. I believe this anchor failed because it is a bad copy/wrong shape. The Genuine Bruce of the same weight set instantly at 3.5 to 1

BTW that was an interesting test of the Fortress with mostly nylon rode that you just posted. It grabbed when the scope was increased to 3:1 while moving at 3+ kts which is surprising.

Agreed, It was surprising. And just to clarify, the scope needed to be increased because the anchor as trying to "fly" away from the seabed. At less than 3 to 1 and at that particular speed (and with that mostly rope rode), the anchor would never have made it to the bottom.

Click to expand...

David,
Steve's tests may appear to favor certain anchors. I think it is entirely because he's using the anchors he has at hand. Nothing more.


"never" setting an anchor at less that 3-1 would be restrictive in the PNW IMO but some even in this area disagree w that. However I can think of only one. If I have room to anchor w more than 3-1 I will do so. The only reason that anyone will anchor short is because they have no option. But to imply that it is stupid or irresponsible is not taking reality into consideration.
Having said that there are obviously many that agree as numerous serious and extensive anchor tests have gone to a lot of trouble testing at 3-1. Also one should consider that setting and holding at short scope tells more about overall anchor performance than anything else. Most any anchor will hold at long scope but separating the good from the bad is much more easily done at short scope.

Something very important is the set long and shorten up style. I'm very glad you brought this up David. A good overall anchor will set and hold in most conditions at 3-1 scope. But I would submit that probably any anchor will benefit from a 4 or 5-1 scope set. It should set deeper and that clearly will allow the anchor to hold better at short scope when the rode is shortened up. It's a little extra work but an advantage unless the bottom (the biggest variable) won't allow the greater penetration advantage. This is nothing new but warrants repeating IMO. Glad you brought it up David.

The title of this thread is "Anchor Setting Videos". Steve, You, me and everybody else would like it to reveal much more but that's all it is and proclaimed to be.

These vids by Steve have revealed the tendency of the anchor shanks to stay on the bottom when short scope would seemingly lift up the end of the anchor shank making it much more vulnerable to breaking out. There was a TF guy a year or so ago that posted many pics of anchors set on the bottom whereas many shank tips (attach points) were right on the bottom or slightly under and the mid-shank and/or roll bars were above the surface of the bottom. That was a big surprise to me. I had often wondered how anchors set or held w the shank inline w the rode at short scope should pull the anchor out. Apparently the drag of the fluke and it's angle pin the end of the shank down. So the lever action that does this is very important. It's just amazing that it does so at short scope. Before these vids I had assumed that the shank picked up the angle of the rode at the attach point. It's exciting to contemplate that more revelations will over time occur.

These vids are wonderful and I hope Steve doesn't run out of steam. Thank you Steve.

Thanks, Eric. I will keep testing for the time being. Tuesday, A friend is bringing a 100 pound Fisherman and a 44 pound Genuine Bruce for testing. I am also arranging a Delta and a big Mantus for testing. Stay tuned.....

Stve

I hadn't considered that the fluke was actually levering the shank down parallel to the bottom in these tests. That might be so. I also think that the relatively low pull force at 3,000 rpms lets the catenary of the heavy 3/8" chain keep it down as well. Both would go away as more force is applied or nylon rode used. In general once the fluke angle into the bottom gets levered up past horizontal due to short scope pulling, any anchor is going to pull out unless it is stuck deep in stiff soils that will resist the force.


And I meant I would never set an anchor at 3:1 not use one at 3:1. Although in hundreds of overnight anchorages, I don't think I have used less than 4:1 scope.


Rocna used to have a tiny anchor in a demo pull rig that they would set up at boat shows. You pulled the anchor chain by hand while it dragged across the sand bed. The anchor would usually not set until greater than 3:1 and would set deeply at 5:1 or greater. Then if you shortened the scope it would still hold well. That little rig probably sold a bunch of Rocnas over the years including to me.


BTW, on my boat I have progressed from a 35 lb Delta that came with the boat (holds well when finally set, but it is a bitch to set even at 6:1), to a 35 lb genuine Bruce that was given to me (sets every time but doesn't have as much ultimate holding power as the Delta) to a new Manson Boss that I picked up on Amazon at a ridiculously cheap price a few months ago. The Boss has a huge fluke area and a heavily weighted tip. I suspect that it will work as well at setting and holding as a Rocna I had on another boat. I will get to try it out next year.


It would be interesting to see setting videos of a Boss or Rocna's Vulcan. Unfortunately I am about 2,500 miles away or you could use mine.


David

Panope said:

...and a big Mantus for testing. Stay tuned....

Click to expand...

I'll be watching for that one

Your friend probably won't go for it, but I'd be interested to see how a Mantus behaves without the roll bar.

Murray,
I tried that w a Supreme. On the first deployment it must have landed up-side-down as it dragged along like a sack of tools. Haven't put my mod on to prevent that yet.

David,
I think I finally figured out how the Bruce is different than the Claws. They are made forged (I think) and are stronger. So the fluke tips and edges are sharper. I have a 33lb Lewmar that I've ground down resulting in much sharper edges. May bend or break off though ???
Re scope I've used 2-1 but not w any real wind.

manyboats said:

Murray,
I tried that w a Supreme. On the first deployment it must have landed up-side-down as it dragged along like a sack of tools.

Click to expand...

Hi Eric.

On the Mantus site they show one being dropped without the roll bar, and it sort of 'glides' forward from the boat at about a 1:1 ratio (45-ish degree angle slope) landing pointy end down. Aren't you curious?

pointy end down? I'm curious about that??

manyboats said:

pointy end down? I'm curious about that??

Click to expand...

Yup, the pointy bit (see photo below from Mantus site)

Oh oh........

I have found two new testing areas that have seabeds with different composition than the previous area.

Let's call the first location "Point Hudson". The tidal current runs at least 3 knots here and the resulting seabed is a sandy/rock combination. The navigation chart shows the symbol "RKY" here.

I attached the rode to the "Rock Slot" of the 45 pound Manson Supreme as I was not sure of the size of the rock and was worried the anchor may become lodged between larger rock. As it turned out, no large rock was present.

However, the chain did travel to the "tripping" position of the rock slot twice during the following set with somewhat unfavorable consequences.

Steve

Same area as yesterdays test area (Point Hudson - a sand and rock combination).

The Manson's rode was attached to the normal position and it dug in and stayed dug in through multiple "reversals"

The Spade leaped into the seabed and stayed deeply buried. Because a strong current was running, I had to retrieve the anchor incrementally as I was alone and could not operate the boat and the windlass simultaneously.

This provided a look at four different (decreasing) scopes. Even at as little as 1.7 to 1, the anchor was still making some holding power.

I was so impressed by this performance, I sent Spade Anchor a check. I am now a Spade owner.

Steve

The spade was impressive...noticed though on the initial set in 1 anchor length, the rode was nearly lined up with the shank. When comparing it to an earlier video where your Manson supreme set in just a couple lengths, I'm so positive but the angle of pull seemed to be greater.

I am sure you have reviewed the videos more than I have, have you noticed that the anchors set quicker in general when the pull is aligned with the shank like most boaters try to do? My guess is most of our anchors hit and fall at random no matter how much we try, with your videos we now have a better idea, though you do favor the "torture test" in your testing....

Any feel for how important aligning it better may help? Or the several anchor lengths of drag is real, irrelevant if they predictably set in that amount ?

I don't care if my mason takes 3 anchor lengths every time as long as I know 99.9 percent of the time that is probably the required dig.

psneeld, I'll have go back and review the video's as I am not sure if rode orientation was a factor in setting distance. For this latest setting area of sand and rock, my preliminary feeling is that the substrate had more to do with the setting tendencies that rode orientation. I did get the impression that the Manson set faster in sand/mud and the Spade was faster in sand/rock.

And I agree that the difference between setting in one anchor length or three is probably not a big deal. The exception would be in a situation where a longer setting distance would increase the likelihood of fouling with bottom debris.

I should comment that I have not done enough repetition in this testing to draw firm conclusions. At this point we are probably still in the realm of "generalizations".

I have posted all, viewable videos that I have shot so far. No cherry picking.

Steve

I'm thinking the orentation of the rode in your tests Steve may be a result of or related to the current in your area. Also could be due to the shape of the fluke "flying" on the way down. Or a combination of the two. I have never done a free fall and I think my anchors "land" vertical and then fall over every wich way. Sometimes I pick the anchor up a few inches off the bottom, start backing and lower the anchor back down after I think the anchor starts following the boat or put another way "starts moving". The anchor should align w the rode and passing water. This is the way I intended to use the Supreme w/o the rool bar. Orient the anchor myself instead of relying on an automatic feature.

I also noticed that the Supreme and original XYZ had very different initial setting characteristics. The XYZ would jerk the bow around like it hooked the blade of a D8 Cat (there are some Cats in Thorne Bay if any would like to try your luck) and the Supreme picked up resistance (as felt on deck) more slowly. Like it slowly rolled into the bottom. Marin and others have commented that the Rocna jerks the bow during innitial setting and I suspect other anchor types set innitially in the big jerk dramitic way too. But at least in the case of the Supreme we know from quite a few anchor tests that the ultimate holding power of that anchor is .. well supreme. And I have concluded that "snappy" initial setting is not a sign of great holding power later in the game. So one might say in anchoring there is not a disadvantage in being a late bloomer.

Considering the above I lean very heavily toward toward setting dependability as opposed to spectacular hook ups during innitial setting. You need the performance when the anchor is burried not when it's scratching the surface.

Steve the Spade has had a very succesful history in the anchor tests. Like the Rocna it shows weaknes (at least comparitively within a test) at short scope. Also the Delta. The Supreme's ultimate short scope performance (when testsd) is always spectacular. Except in Chesapeake Bay mud. The Boss seemed to have the advantage there. And of course the Fortress trumped all comers there. Maximum short scope holding power seems the ultimate test to me. Most all (or all) anchors do well at 5-1 scope or above.

As with the Supreme's hook up point I always use the slot w a bolt installed to prevent movement. I think there is a slight advantage to holding power w the slightly greater throat angle. I suspect there is a slight advantage w setting performance using the lower hole but if the anchor sets dependably why not use the slot end w the bolt? I wish the anchor testers would declare what hookup point they use.

As far as the next breakthrough in design I think it will be w an anchor not using a ballast chamber or a roll bar. I see that as the only direction for increased performance.

Steve:


I certainly agree that the Spade was impressive in you latest tests. On the short scope tests of both the Manson and the Spade you can see that the shank was lifted once force was applied and both dragged, but the Spade still looked like it has an advantage. I wonder if it has a greater fluke angle than the Manson.


David

In response to Dave's post above I'd like to see the throat angle listed in anchor tests. The comparison may not be apples to apples though as some fluke don'd have a constant angle .. like the Claws and the Spade.

Murray,
Has there been any independent tests of the Mantus?
As to landing point down I don't see it unless it descended in a flat attitude .. shank wise and I don't see that happening. In the free falls as seen in Steve's vids the anchors seem to land flat on their flukes w the "point" horizontal w the sea floor. Lowered slowly one would think they would land on their "butt" .. not the tip of the fluke or tip.

Dave, The fluke ange on the Spade may be optimized for setting. And I think the fluke angle is slightly adjustable on the Supreme as per my post 28.