Anchor setting Videos

Screen shot taken prior to the turbidity cloud formation. Note the position of the white objects that I have circled.


Screen shot taken after the turbidity cloud has dissipated. Note the position of the white objects that I have circled.


Sorry for the fuzzy screen shots. When the Raw HD footage is reviewed, these white objects are clearly one and the same.

Steve

Is there really that much difference between forward and reverse power, at low to medium throttle settings..?

Peter,
Most props favor fwd thrust considerably. Through design. Raked props do very badly fwd. Heavily skewed props do poorly too. Some keels make reverse thrust suffer. Find a boat w all of those features and you better get her into reverse very early and plan on heavy using throttle.

From a dead stop try accellerating from a standstill X number of seconds in both fwd and reverse. Should'nt need to measure progress to tell what direction she goes best.

A friend of mine is crew on an old school tug (Boyer Tug and Barge) with a propeller not unlike ours. Reverse thrust is 38% of forward.

Note: A small part of the discrepency is due to engine timming being favored to forward operation (This tug is direct drive with no gearbox or clutch. Engine turns backward for reverse).

Steve

Anchor Right of Australia submitted a 48 pound SARCA Excel No. 5 anchor for testing.

This is my first and only experience with this brand of anchor. I have a fairly good sense about metal structures and my impression is that this is a very well made piece. Very robust. Nothing flimsy. Smooth finishes. Nice galvanizing.

Here is a side shot of the anchor nestled into Panope's Bow Roller. Note the down-turned toe. The anchor toe is also weighted. The Shank has a "notch" in the vicinity of the roller (not visible in pic) that prevents the anchor from moving upward too far (for my roller, this works perfectly to keep the toe from contacting the hull).



I conducted three test videos of the Excel today. Unfortunately, the underwater anchor videos that I have shot most recently have been plagued with sediment/turbidity. Previously, I blamed this on my new technique of using forward engine thrust. I theorized that the added thrust was stirring up the bottom. I now believe that the turbidity may be seasonal (dead organic material?).

This video includes my standard 3.5 to 1 scope set and 180 degree re-set. The rode is then re-positioned to the stern and a full power forward pull is conducted.

This, and many other of my videos were uploaded in high definition. Viewing on the YouTube site with full screen may help with clarity.

Steve

Here is the next Excel Video. It is a repeat of the previous test (3.5 to 1) but without the stern tie/forward pull test. I was hoping for less turbidity.

Steve

Seems to work really well, as one expected really. But yes, clearer water would be good. Pity we can't have everything just when we want it eh..?

As an aside, but relevant as there will be interest. Just how difficult was it to get that anchor Steve? Was it available from a local distributor, or did Rex send it to you direct personally?

Good that you got one to test, as several of us asked, but having shown they work well, it would be nice to know if they were reasonably easy to obtain in the US now.

Steve, I do want to humbly submit one complaint as I do really appreciate what you are doing and I have desired for a long time to see videos of real world anchor testing as opposed to dragging an anchor on a beach with a pickup truck. My concern is that there seems to be such a large float apparatus to hold the camera that it does not allow the anchor to descend to the seabed in a normal fashion. The last anchor videos show the Excel gently landing upright. When I release the anchor it descends with the stern of the anchor straight down and thus the anchor may land upright, on it's back, or fall over on it's side. It seems that your earlier videos with the other camera mounting interfered less with how the anchor would naturally contact the seabed.

I think the best way of testing would be to have a couple of divers in the water with cameras so that the anchor is not affected by floats or other lines. I understand that you or I can not pull this off but I do not understand why one of the boating magazines can not accomplish this.

Thanks again for what you are doing.

Great video!! Love all the anchoring videos but this one especially.

I was going to offer you our 48 pound SARCA Excel No. 5 for testing if you ever got over to Sidney BC but it was very nice of Rex at Anchor Right Australia to supply you with one. He is a fantastic person to deal with and makes a beautiful anchor.

We only have used ours a few times last year so I was remaining quiet about its performance but what I saw is what we have experienced. Next year we plan on using it a lot now that we are free to go boating whenever we like, so I will report back on our experiences....

Did Rex actually send the Excel to Steve?

Setting shouldn't be a problem w that one. We may find out something about very short scope performance but not much else. Easy to forget the name of the thread but "setting" was the operative word.

Re READY2Go's commens;
Yes I thought of that (anchor setting position) as most anchors favor a certian attitude. And on AR anchors the toe of the fluke (mentioned above) may also get into the act. Anchor manufacturers frequently grind the toe at an angle or angle it up or down. I reason it must make a difference or they would'nt make the effort. The Rocna toe (or fluke tip) is ground such that while laying on it's side (and I'm sure they intended it to set that way) the tip is maximized for penetration. Setting on it's butt (rightside up) the bevel does NOT favor penetration. And the Excel's toe would tend to pull (or yaw) the anchor to a less desirable angle for penetration laying on it's side ... the toe actually being better if it was just straight. The throat angle could be "fudged" to compensate for this problem as the end result of all these variables is what counts.

It's been my observation that anchors that look very much like the Delta seem to do poorly at short scope .. that is not as good as other anchors. Perhaps Steve's efforts will reveal a great deal ... or not. I'll be tuned.

Peter B said:

Seems to work really well, as one expected really. But yes, clearer water would be good. Pity we can't have everything just when we want it eh..?

As an aside, but relevant as there will be interest. Just how difficult was it to get that anchor Steve? Was it available from a local distributor, or did Rex send it to you direct personally?

Good that you got one to test, as several of us asked, but having shown they work well, it would be nice to know if they were reasonably easy to obtain in the US now.

Click to expand...

Pete,

Rex sent the anchor direct to me. It came across the pond via air (DHL) in only a few days. There was a small SNAFU at my end where the anchor ended up sitting at my local post office for about a week but this was probably my fault.

So, other than what I assume to be high shipping costs, it is really no trouble getting an anchor here.

Anchor Right is a family-run business and I have absolute faith in their integrity.

Steve

READY2GO,

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with the premise that the tests would be best conducted with the anchors "unencumbered" with camera apparatus. However, I feel confident that the effects of the camera are small enough to not affect the outcome noticeably.

READY2GO said:

Steve, I do want to humbly submit one complaint as I do really appreciate what you are doing and I have desired for a long time to see videos of real world anchor testing as opposed to dragging an anchor on a beach with a pickup truck. My concern is that there seems to be such a large float apparatus to hold the camera that it does not allow the anchor to descend to the seabed in a normal fashion. I am using the same very small float is in the previous tests. I will try and measure the buoyancy but I am confident it is only a pound or two.

The last anchor videos show the Excel gently landing upright. When I release the anchor it descends with the stern of the anchor straight down and thus the anchor may land upright, on it's back, or fall over on it's side. It seems that your earlier videos with the other camera mounting interfered less with how the anchor would naturally contact the seabed. I re-watched several previous videos and could not see the affect that you mention. In fact, if you watch video number 13, you will see the Spade anchor free falling upright just like the Excel even though the simple "one string" attach point is connected to the anchor very low (the fluke).

Also, notice that in virtually every instance that an anchor lands upright, when the rode starts pulling, the anchor initially falls over on its side - no matter which camera arrangement is used.

I believe the anchors are free falling in the upright position because the anchor's center of gravity is lower that the center of hydrodynamic resistance. In other words, the shank is behaving like the feathers of an arrow.

I think the best way of testing would be to have a couple of divers in the water with cameras so that the anchor is not affected by floats or other lines. I understand that you or I can not pull this off but I do not understand why one of the boating magazines can not accomplish this.

Thanks again for what you are doing.

Click to expand...

Eric, Here is the Excel undergoing my standard 2.5 to 1 scope test. I think it did very well. The anchor did release from the seabed on the 180 degree reset test, but it re-engaged the seabed after a short drag.

Steve

This feels a little slutty, but...

That #5 would make a dandy winter cruising storm anchor for our boat...would you consider selling after you're done testing it?????

Murry,

The anchor belongs to Anchor Right. Because shipping is so expensive, Rex figured it would be best to sell the anchor (when I am done testing) near my location rather than ship it back to Australia.

If I did not already own an arsenal of quality anchors I would buy it myself. I do have one other person who expressed interest in the anchor and if it were up to me I will give him first dibs. I'll ask him if he is still interested.

Ultimately, it will be up to Anchor Right who buys the anchor as all payments will be made to them. I will just be the guy who hands over (or ships) the anchor.

Steve

Very nice deal!!

should promote good feelings all around.
Too small for me and would require mods to the boat.

Ted

Murray,
Why would you want an anchor so big for your 30' boat?
I know where there is a 65lb Navy.

Steve wrote;
"Eric, Here is the Excel undergoing my standard 2.5 to 1 scope test." You were testing Claws and others down to 1.5-1 scope.
Re your deck hardware I was just curious how the sheave-like thing on your port side was used. Not important and I can see when we visit. More health problems now ... hernia. Perhaps I can deliver the anchors and leave you w the work/fun?

Took some pics of the Hogback Supreme.

Panope said:

Murry,

The anchor belongs to Anchor Right. Because shipping is so expensive, Rex figured it would be best to sell the anchor (when I am done testing) near my location rather than ship it back to Australia.

If I did not already own an arsenal of quality anchors I would buy it myself. I do have one other person who expressed interest in the anchor and if it were up to me I will give him first dibs. I'll ask him if he is still interested.

Ultimately, it will be up to Anchor Right who buys the anchor as all payments will be made to them. I will just be the guy who hands over (or ships) the anchor.

Steve

Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

Give me a PM if your #1 fellow bows out and Rex gives me the green light. (Nice to see Aussie and Canuck currency pretty much on par.)

Thanks!

manyboats said:

Murray,
Why would you want an anchor so big for your 30' boat?

Click to expand...

North coast BC winter storm anchor, and for anchoring in really deep water when the bay's near creeks are frozen...that and I like peace of mind.

*Edit: Will measure bow/pulpit and see if it'll work...would kick myself if I didn't try to scoop it.

Eric,

I will conduct the "Decreasing Scope" test on the Excel in the near future. I will also test at my alternate site that as a sand/gravel bottom.

Interesting modification on Manson. I would very much like to know how much "toe weight" exists when the anchor is laying on its side (on a level surface).

Sorry to hear of your health problems. I would be happy to give your anchors a test in your absence.

Steve

The turbidity is unfortunate but the essentials are there to see. Combined with the observations recorded by Panope, it is a well documented "real life" test procedure. We are fortunate to have an objective assessment of an assuredly current factory supplied version of the Sarca Excel, conducted according to Panope`s well established protocol.
I`d like to see a Super Sarca tested too, it`s what I have, for now this will have to suffice.
And Eric, please stop lifting heavy anchors.

On another forum, someone was questioning the validity of the 'Anchor Right claim' that the "Ex-cel" cut-out aided in keeping the anchor clean. The person even theorized that the cut-outs might actually cause seabed to cling to the anchor. It was a reasonable question.

Here is a screen shot of the anchor form the final frames of my last Video. Only a small blob of seabed remains on the toe. This was consistent for the three retrievals that I have conducted so far.

It would appear that the positive cleaning action of the cut-outs has been verified.

Steve

rochepoint said:

Great video!! Love all the anchoring videos but this one especially.

I was going to offer you our 48 pound SARCA Excel No. 5 for testing if you ever got over to Sidney BC but it was very nice of Rex at Anchor Right Australia to supply you with one. He is a fantastic person to deal with and makes a beautiful anchor.

We only have used ours a few times last year so I was remaining quiet about its performance but what I saw is what we have experienced. Next year we plan on using it a lot now that we are free to go boating whenever we like, so I will report back on our experiences....

Click to expand...

The test also bears out my experience. Having not anchored with it in challenging conditions, I was waiting for more experience to report. Also in the shallow waters around Florida's east coast, I usually anchor at a 5 to 1 scope. It will now be shortened to a 3 1/2 to 1 scope.

Don:


Why would you shorten to 3.5:1 from 5:1. The latter holds better, resets better.


I was somewhat surprised by the good performance of the modern anchors at that shortened scope that was shown in this test series. But I wouldn't do it unless I had to because of swing considerations, and if I expected a blow, then I would anchor someplace else where I could get to 6:1 scope.


Conventional wisdom (yeah, I understand its limitations) is that anchors perform better on an asymptotically diminishing basis, the longer the scope. At about 8:1 you are at the practical limit. It would take some heavy pulling gear to confirm this wisdom.


Let me offer a guess as to how the scope vs holding curve looks:


8:1 100%
6:1 90%
5:1 75%
3.5:1 40%
2:1 15%


David

djmarchand said:

Let me offer a guess as to how the scope vs holding curve looks:


8:1 100%
6:1 90%
5:1 75%
3.5:1 40%
2:1 15%

Click to expand...

But...

That might be true for a traditional anchor, such as a navy anchor, yes?

Super high holding power anchors would deserve their own tests to determine loss of holding power as scope is reduced. Apples to oranges.

A mushroom anchor for example would perform even worse as scope is reduced, so why use traditional anchor test results on SHHP anchors?

Here' an illustrated article on anchor scope...pretty easy to image how SHH anchors would perform better as scope decreases, especially if set first with more scope;

Anchor Scope Illustrated Photo Gallery by Compass Marine How To at pbase.com

Chain Catenary will be pulled out much easier in shallow water compared to deep water (at the same scope).

For example: Say you are in 5 feet of water with a 5 foot bow roller. 3 to 1 scope would only require 30 feet of chain. A strong man could probably lift this chain off the bottom with bare hands.

Now image anchoring in 45 feet of water with a 5 foot roller. 3 to 1 scope would require 150 feet of chain. I don't have the exact math but I am gonna guess that it will require 5 times the pull to lift the chain off the bottom.

Often a Scope argument will rage between two persons where one of them is a shallow water boater and the other a deep water boater. The deep water boater will talk about years of trouble free anchoring using 3 to 1 scope often without even bothering to use a snubber (like me). The shallow water boater will say that if they did the same it would rip their mooring bits from the deck. Both boaters are correct.

I would be very skeptical of short scope anchoring in shallow water.

Steve

I think anchors in general perform better at short scope than most think.

But anchors of differing designs perform differently at short scope. For example on one of the most comprehensive tests I've seen the Supreme held w over 4000lbs of tension on the rode at 3-1 scope but the testers said the Rocna did comparatively poor at 3-1 scope. But the Rocna did slightly better at longer scope. Other anchors do enough better at short scope to have a reputation of holding well at short scope. All anchors not only look different but perform different. I even recall that there was one anchor that did poorly at long scope.

It's my opinion that some anchors sacrafice holding power at long scope for holding power at short scope and more dependable setting performance. An anchor engineered in that way will have overall better performance and be a better choice. Anchor tests concentrate very heavily on maximum holding power and assume (w good reason) that that usually will be at 5-1 to 7-1 scope. So being on a budget they usually just test at long scope. If I had my choice of a bunch of SHHP anchors I'd choose the one that set best.

On long scopes like 10-1 submerged chain may reduce performance because the chain may limit penetration. An anchor will only penetrate as deep as the shackle end of the shank. If the shank end can penetrate 2" deeper then the whole anchor will be 2" deeper. Having the chain up off the bottom may allow the end of the shank to go a bit deeper.

Don re your change in what scope you use I went that route a long time ago. And in 50 knot gales I use 5-1.

djmarchand said:

Don:


Why would you shorten to 3.5:1 from 5:1. The latter holds better, resets better.


I was somewhat surprised by the good performance of the modern anchors at that shortened scope that was shown in this test series. But I wouldn't do it unless I had to because of swing considerations, and if I expected a blow, then I would anchor someplace else where I could get to 6:1 scope.


Conventional wisdom (yeah, I understand its limitations) is that anchors perform better on an asymptotically diminishing basis, the longer the scope. At about 8:1 you are at the practical limit. It would take some heavy pulling gear to confirm this wisdom.


Let me offer a guess as to how the scope vs holding curve looks:


8:1 100%
6:1 90%
5:1 75%
3.5:1 40%
2:1 15%


David

Click to expand...

David, I just thought cutting down on swinging room would be a good thing. We usually anchor in 10 to 20' of depth. That would mean about 85 to 90' of rode. 5 to 1 would be about 125 to 130' of rode. Without applying Pythagoris to it would be about 40' less swinging room. We don't do a lot of crowded anchorages, so it is probably foolish to economize on swinging room. It is nice to know that I can do it without worrying much.

Panope said:

On another forum, someone was questioning the validity of the 'Anchor Right claim' that the "Ex-cel" cut-out aided in keeping the anchor clean. The person even theorized that the cut-outs might actually cause seabed to cling to the anchor. It was a reasonable question.

Here is a screen shot of the anchor form the final frames of my last Video. Only a small blob of seabed remains on the toe. This was consistent for the three retrievals that I have conducted so far.

It would appear that the positive cleaning action of the cut-outs has been verified.

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve, dunk the anchor a couple of times it will usually come right off. Of course with sticky silt clay all bets are off.