Anchor setting Videos

Eric, it probably lands upright or on its side about 50:50, TBH. In soft mud, Rex is sure, and I tend to agree, that because the SS roll bar slants a bit towards the direction of pull, whereas the roll bar of the Rocna slants slightly away from the direction of pull, with the Manson Supreme, (I think) in a more or less neutral plane, that this may be why if the Rocna lands on its back in very soft goo, like in that Fortress series, it might just grab so much mud it stays upside down and drags. A quick re-set in the normal situation would probably sort that out I suspect, because like when I picked up that rock, it would be pretty obvious.

With the SS bar slanting in the direction of pull, assisted by that small triangular secondary fluke adjacent the roll bar, if it landed wrong way up in soft mud, would tend to still pivot it over onto its side and then quickly catch the bottom, rotate, and dig in as usual. The Manson performed better, so I suspect that might have been luck, or because of the roll bar not slanting so much away from the shank as the Rocna's. Pity you hacked off that Manson roll bar, or you could check that point out for us. Still, if we scroll back a few pages to where Steve has all the anchors laid out in his cabin, we might be able to compare that bar orientation to see if I'm right..?

This is why Steve's tests are going to be so interesting.

PS. It appears Steve does not have a Rocna there, but the Manson roll bar definitely looks like it is near vertical to the fluke. The Mantus is hard to gauge because of where it is and the angle.

Panope said:

Another Anchor Right product arrived in the mail today, a 33 lb. (15 kg.) Super SARCA #5.

Rex (from Anchor Right) wanted me to mention that although this anchor is manufactured with visible differences between the different sizes, the behavior is unchanged from one size to another. The differences in appearance are mostly in the rear of the anchor and have to due with complying to certification standards for load testing.

Click to expand...

Yes, the most obvious difference is the lack of the trailing edge flange along the back edge of the fluke that angles upwards, which is not on the sizes from #5 down, but is on from #6 up.

See here a #5 on a cat moored on my finger, and my #6 below...
actually, it is hard to see in pic one the one without is pic two, I think it is more obvious in pic three...

Thanks Peter,
Yup .... I hadn't seen the small anchor variation of the SARCA (so I had thought). I would think the up-fliped trailing edge would increase holding power in all but short scope use-age and applied that theory to the reason (mentally) to the Rocna's showing poorly (or less strongly) at short scope. But the Rocna's ability at 2-1 has to my knowledge never been tested .. (three to one in the tests). I thought that perhaps the turned up trailing edge of the Rocna gave it the slight max holding power over the Rocna at more typical scopes. I thought about welding on an up turned TE onto my Supreme like the Rocna has but was afraid I'd loose the short scope performance. That being much more preferable IMO.

I agree w you on the slant of the roll bar. As I recall the RB on my Supreme slanted very slightly aft like the Rocna but only about 20% as much. I didn't like that either and I took care of that "problem" by removing the whole RB. My theory is that the RB pitches the anchor up under tension and fwd movement ... that would seem to limit short scope performance IMO (and most likely at longer scopes also) so I wanted to trade it for something w less drag up high. Hence my "Hogback Supreme" (pic below to refresh your memory). Haven't got it even wet yet. I did try the Supreme just w/o the RB. It just dragged along w almost no resistance and assumed it went up-side-down. It was blowing and wet so I just switched to another anchor. Wish I hadn't. If my theory is correct about the RB tending to pitch the anchor up my Hogback should work very well. It's "designed/modified w penetration in mind. We shall see.

Re the SARCA setting on it's side I think it's more like 80:20 to do it's work right-side-up. Soon we may know.

The odd thing about the Mantus (other than the big RB) is that the vertical part of the shank (next to the fluke) is so short that the majority of the shank contacts the sea bed very early and IMO limits penetration. A bit like the Danforth. But unlike the Danforth the fluke area is relatively small. Most of the time most RB anchors don't bury their roll bars. And a slanted back RB like the Rocna should limit penetration also.

I think you sure adhering to the bigger is better philosophy w your #6 SARCA. I would be inclined to fit a #5 to your boat and a 20lb anchor to mine. I have stayed put w anchors less than 20lbs in two 50 knot gales so to install a bigger anchor would seem unnecessary. Unless it was a Claw. After seeing Steve's late video of the Bruce I took off my Claw and put it in the sale pile. It was only intended as temporary. I'll keep my 22lb Claw to use on rocks in the future (unless I find a better rock anchor and I probably will). Now my plan is to use the 20lb Dan most of the time. I set my anchors by hand and can feel rocks so when encountered I'll switch to the 22lb Claw. So far I've used the 22lb Claw only in benign conditions.

Peter why is the SARCA roll bar SS?

Peter B said:

Steve, could I be a real pain, and ask if you would consider running all your usual scope and reverse pull and current reversal type tests both with the rock slot bolted off, and with it in use as well. I think your way of testing could be the very best way (with the video and all) for us to finally lay to rest the debate which has gone on for a long time, as to just how the tripping slot works, and is it a risk to use it, or not.

I use it all the time, and have never dragged except once when a massive rock managed to lodge and balance (God knows how) right in the middle of the fluke, but it was obvious straight away something was wrong. I have had it move slowly one time in very soft mud with a short lunch scope also, but never any other time when it would have mattered, and I always overnight at 5:1.

My feeling is that even with direct current reversal, the shackle normally jams in the slot, and it pivots round just as if the slot was bolted off, but that if by chance the drift brought the shackle so neatly over the slot is was able to slide down to the fluke end, (something you have to do deliberately by carefully taking up all slack, then gently motoring along over the anchor to achieve), that the anchor, although tripped, would just re-set so fast you would never know it had tripped. I am all agog, as will be many on here, as to what actually happens...

Click to expand...

Peter, No problem. After the normal round of testing I will unbolt the slot.

Perhaps you missed it, but I have tested the Manson Supreme twice with the rode attached to the rock slot. In the first video, the chain remained at the normal end of the slot for both the initial set and during the 180 degree re-set.

In the second test, The chain was at the "tripping" end of the slot for the initial set (anchor dragged for some distance before orienting itself properly and setting). For the 180 degree re-set, the chain once again traveled to the tripping end, causing the anchor to be pulled from the seabed backward. The chain immediately returned to the "setting" end of the slot but the anchor failed to reset after dragging many dozens of feet.

Upon retrieval, the anchor was heavily fouled with weed and rock. It is my belief that if the chain was not allowed to travel in the slot, the anchor would have very likely rotated in the seabed and remained engaged.

Again, as eyschulman pointed out previously, the small number of samples makes drawing absolute conclusions very difficult.

That said, my personal feeling for the Manson Supreme (an anchor that consistently had trouble re-setting when fouled with seabed), the rock-slot should be used with great caution in a swinging type anchorage. On the other hand, if the boat was prevented from swinging (med-mooring, stern tied to a tree), the rock slot would be no-problem.

For an anchor that has little trouble with fouling (like the Excel), a slot would be much less of a worry. I am anxious to learn if the SUPER Sarca shares the Excel's ability to re-set reliably.

Steve

Panope said:

eyschulman,

I agree completely with what you said and I certainly would prefer to make a dozen takes (or more) of each test. But I just cannot do that much work - for free.....(holding cardboard sign that says "will test anchors for food").

I will say that my primary test area is about as good as it gets for bottom uniformity. It is very, very flat and the adjacent, eroded bluff that "fed" this area is a uniform "glacial till".

Steve

Click to expand...

Steve as I said I like what you are doing it may be far better than other anchor tests. You are measuring anchor against anchor in what may be a relatively uniform substrate but what we don't know is what happens forty miles up the pike in a slightly different substrate and as you know that takes an awful lot of sampling to even begin to get a handle on. One of the big faults I find with the tests done on the Chesapeake for Fortress is that one substrate was involved and anybody with anchoring experience would know before the test that a good Danforth type would dominate by a good margin in that bottom. That knowledge was acquired by many boaters over years of experience. I think the spade type deep diggers are now out there in sufficient # that a similar general knowledge base is building and your tests are certainly adding to that knowledge base. One of the complications is that there are variations of the Spade type and It may take some time to discover which works best or if there is even a big enough spread to declare some significantly superior and under what conditions. One anchor for every use would be the ideal but may not be realistic.

Peter B said:

.........because the SS roll bar slants a bit towards the............

Click to expand...

manyboats said:

........Peter why is the SARCA roll bar SS?

Click to expand...

Guys, Are you talking about "stainless steel" or "solid steel"?

Steve

manyboats said:

Peter why is the SARCA roll bar SS?

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you meant here Eric. I was just using SS as a lazy way of avoiding typing Super Sarca each and every time. If you mean why is it stainless steel - it isn't, just galvanised steel like the rest - unless one bought a stainless steel version at much higher cost, that is. I guess they are available to order.

That hog back version of your Supreme looks a bit strange. I can see what you're trying to achieve though. It might work, but it also may just encourage it to flop onto its side and stay there. It would also make it a bit incompatible with most bow roller set-ups. You would need to use just an open roller with no restraining loop or bolt like mine was originally. Trouble is they then tend to flip off the roller onto the capping sometimes..?
Time and real use will tell I guess. We will all be keen to hear.

I second Peter`s request for Sarca tests with/without the slot blocked, if it is possible. There has been much repetitious debate here that would benefit from an objective comparison, about slots(think I spelt that right).
Mine came with a very nice blocking bolt, which I removed. I spent time finding a good rated shackle(by Ronstan) to run in the slot, it has to be good, functions as part of the anchor, but unlike the bolt does not come supplied, no doubt because the Sarca mfr understandably prefers not want to warrant someone else`s shackle.

Panope said:

Peter, No problem. After the normal round of testing I will unbolt the slot.

Perhaps you missed it, but I have tested the Manson Supreme twice with the rode attached to the rock slot. In the first video, the chain remained at the normal end of the slot for both the initial set and during the 180 degree re-set.

In the second test, The chain was at the "tripping" end of the slot for the initial set (anchor dragged for some distance before orienting itself properly and setting). For the 180 degree re-set, the chain once again traveled to the tripping end, causing the anchor to be pulled from the seabed backward. The chain immediately returned to the "setting" end of the slot but the anchor failed to reset after dragging many dozens of feet.

Upon retrieval, the anchor was heavily fouled with weed and rock. It is my belief that if the chain was not allowed to travel in the slot, the anchor would have very likely rotated in the seabed and remained engaged.

Click to expand...

Well Steve...I'm going to stick my neck out here and say, the above occurred because the anchor was not a Sarca. If you compare the slots they are not configured the same way, and the correct selection of the U-shackle and the way it behaves in the slot is absolutely crucial. It is this feature which in my mind, (and confirmed by Rex, the manufacturer), makes the accidental tripping very unlikely, but if it did occur, the re-set should be effected pretty quickly anyway.

It also may well be the fact that the chain had somehow slipped down to the tripping (fluke) end with the Manson, even before the anchor was set, resulting in excessive drag to set it, (if indeed it ever did set properly in that instance), which fouled the fluke with more material than usual, and set it up for a failure. It sounds like the shackle was not properly positioned in the slot for the premature slipping to the fluke end to happen right from the outset of that test actually. That should never happen in the setting process with a Super sacra (SS). What sort of shackle was used in the Manson slot on that test, do you remember..?
Sarca insists the shackle be quality stainless steel up to at least size #7, (galvanised of the right type can be used ok for larger anchors apparently), at least one size larger than the chain being used, and of U shape, and just wide enough at the bolt end, to just slide easily in the slot, but with not too much free movement. I found a slightly longer than standard U is best, and the bolt of the shackle goes through the slot, not the U part, and it MUST NOT BE A BOW TYPE SHACKLE..! I emphasise this for your test set-up, because if this is not followed, the test will not be a proper test of the Sarca.

The above is all critical for the proper performance of the tripping mechanism, so it can only be tripped when actually required, i.e. when fouled, and not accidentally. Actually, I also sometimes find it useful when very deeply set and resistant to recovery, to trip the anchor to save too much strain on the gear. I take up the slack, then motor forward gently to trip it so I can then retrieve it more easily.

The above is what I am really interested to see in your tests. Having used the thing in this manner now for some 9-10 years, I am fairly certain I am not going to have to eat humble pie...but as they say...the proof of the pudding ...
let's hope it is not a pudding made of (humble) pie...

Pete, I really appreciate the info on the rock-slot and shackle recommendations. Lots of food for thought that I will be pondering. (However, in my role of "anchor tester" I should probably not do to much theorizing and predicting here because if I make a prediction, I will then have the vested interest of proving myself right).

The Manson Supreme was using a single 7/16" "Bow Shackle" to connect the chain (3/8" BBB) to the anchor. The "bolt" part of the shackle was passed through the chain (impossible to do it any other way).

The #5 SUPER Sarca was supplied (by Anchor Right) with a "U" shaped Stainless Steel shackle installed on the anchor. The bolt of this shackle is passed through the rock slot. I connected my chain to this Stainless Steel "U" shackle with my normal 5/16" Bow shackle.

Steve

Panope said:

Pete, I really appreciate the info on the rock-slot and shackle recommendations. Lots of food for thought that I will be pondering. (However, in my role of "anchor tester" I should probably not do to much theorizing and predicting here because if I make a prediction, I will then have the vested interest of proving myself right).

The Manson Supreme was using a single 7/16" "Bow Shackle" to connect the chain (3/8" BBB) to the anchor. The "bolt" part of the shackle was passed through the chain (impossible to do it any other way).

The #5 SUPER Sarca was supplied (by Anchor Right) with a "U" shaped Stainless Steel shackle installed on the anchor. The bolt of this shackle is passed through the rock slot. I connected my chain to this Stainless Steel "U" shackle with my normal 5/16" Bow shackle.

Steve

Click to expand...

Aha, well, right there is the reason the Manson tripped when it shouldn't have, in fact even before it set it has slipped. It's that bow shackle. Is that the way they advised to set it upon supplied it, or were you left to figure it out for yourself..?
What did they advise you to use when you bought yours Eric, by the way..?

Pleased the Super Sarca, (henceforth referred to as the SS), was sent with the correct U shackle type and size. It should be good to go for sure.
Can't wait to see/hear about the tests now. What's the bet the weather is going got crack up or something..? Sorry, not trying to jinx you, it's just that Murphy's Law works overtime at sea.

Cheers,

I've been boating and anchoring for a long time; decades... happily and successfully all my anchoring has been with one size or another Danforth or Danforth style anchor on one size or another boat. I do drop and set my anchor carefully upon each use with plenty scope allotted - from 5 to 7 to 1. Have only twice in decades had the anchor break loose. Both times were in strong winds with heavy gusts. Both times were in silt-mud bottoms.


One item I do not recall ever happening is 180° shift in strong winds; light winds yes, but, strong winds no.

Anchoring in channels or bays where wind was next to nil and tidal current moved boat 180° direction change has been often encountered.

Point I want to make here is that in the 180° directional changes I've experienced due to light wind and/or tidal current directional changes have not taken my Danforth style anchors out of holding. That said, with the way of Danforth's fluke to shank design when the boat experiences 180° directional shift it seems logical that the anchor flukes must need to also change direction. Therefore the question I've often mused, is: When a Danforth design anchor experiences need for 180° direction shift do its flukes fully pull loose from its embedded-set position in the bottom and quickly reset or do the flukes stay at least somewhat embedded and thusly turn maintaining at least some embedment during the 180° direction shift to then again reestablish a deep-set position?

One way or another, having experienced 180° direction changes due to fairly mellow winds and/or current changes, where the direction change is not too abrupt but does complete it's full shift in a few minutes to 15 or 20 minutes, I do not recall my Danforth anchor breaking loose.

Of course... when 180° direction change of boat at anchor occurs there is little to no way to glean by land marks if the boat dragged anchor a bit during the directional change and when at first the boat is establishing its new direction. Of course, once the new direction of boat has become firmly established then via landmark visuals as well as arc of swing-on-anchor it can be determined if the anchor has set or is slipping/skipping along the bottom. On a few of the 180° changes I have started the engine and pulled back on the Danforth. So far whether letting the anchor do it's own thing or by motoring back I've not experiences anchor slip after 180° shift in boat direction.

Through years experience, I trust Danforth dual-fluke design and I greatly appreciate the increased qualities of the Danforth design that are provided by Fortress FX Anchors.

I think a growing trend away from Danforth styles is the huge number of bad experiences I personally have had with them, other boaters I know, students in my captains courses relating, etc about the Danforth tendency to have difficulty setting in emergency conditions..

Those issues may disappear with adjustable fluke angles and pure size of the anchor....but what that size minimum is, I don't know but will bet it has something to do with she'll size and grass clump size.

Yes, yes...I too recognize and love their ultimate holding power in a blow (which in 50 years of boating I have never needed)....but when my engine quits and I need holding fast and reliable....the Danforth style is at the bottom of my list.

My boss also has a huge anchor graveyard of Danforth types with bent shanks....probably may reasons why...but for day to day use...breaking free easily and clean is a desirable charachteristic. Getting g up in the morning and struggling with an anchor that just needed to hold with a couple hundred pounds of resistance is no way to start a cruising day.

For those that love'em....enjoy....I have spent my time with Danforth clones and decided on something more practical.

Peter B said:

Aha, well, right there is the reason the Manson tripped when it shouldn't have, in fact even before it set it has slipped. It's that bow shackle. Is that the way they advised to set it upon supplied it, or were you left to figure it out for yourself..?
What did they advise you to use when you bought yours Eric, by the way..?

Pleased the Super Sarca, (henceforth referred to as the SS), was sent with the correct U shackle type and size. It should be good to go for sure.
Can't wait to see/hear about the tests now. What's the bet the weather is going got crack up or something..? Sorry, not trying to jinx you, it's just that Murphy's Law works overtime at sea.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

I don't believe the superior design of the Manson cares what kind of shackle you use.....

Tip sharpness and edge sharpness is the issue with fluke anchors not digging in, sharper tips will cut into the bottom.
These reviews do point that out with dull rounded points, those anchors do not set as well.
Take a grinder and make those tips pointy with sharp square edges, reshape the flukes to more match a Fortress shape and retest them.
I have thought to do that with some dull anchors, then torch braze with some bronze around the tips and edge them sharp. Idea being the bronze points wont rust and will stay sharp.

I have seen plenty of sharp Danforths pierce an oyster or clam shell and refuse to set.....

While good in grass...sharpening has its drawbacks too.

Which goes back to what I posted...at some size..no matter.

But what seems consistent...if anchors get large enough...many designs with flaws in smaller sizes seem to overcome them.

Peter B said:

I'm not quite sure what you meant here Eric. I was just using SS as a lazy way of avoiding typing Super Sarca each and every time. If you mean why is it stainless steel - it isn't, just galvanised steel like the rest - unless one bought a stainless steel version at much higher cost, that is. I guess they are available to order.

That hog back version of your Supreme looks a bit strange. I can see what you're trying to achieve though. It might work, but it also may just encourage it to flop onto its side and stay there. It would also make it a bit incompatible with most bow roller set-ups. You would need to use just an open roller with no restraining loop or bolt like mine was originally. Trouble is they then tend to flip off the roller onto the capping sometimes..?
Time and real use will tell I guess. We will all be keen to hear.

Click to expand...

Peter,
In the rest of the world "SS" means stainless steel. I lived on Prince of Wales Is and POW there meant the island but anywhere else it clearly meant prisoner of war .. and probably before we all were born. I hate non-traditional acronyms. Even your non boating friends won't know what an "SS" is in OZ.

No shackle was shipped w my Manson from West Marine and I had no idea there may be a special shackle required. Rex had to set me straight on that one. I think the down under slot is/should be a local thing. Especially if (as is the case) a special shackle is needed. Perhaps the special shackle should be riveted on so it can't be removed. I think it would be best if Anchor Right and Manson made a special anchor for overseas trade that had no slot. I love the anchors but the slot seems a bit like the "hill holders" on old Studebaker's. Even if the slots work perfectly few in the rest of the world would want or need that feature. I personally have never had an anchor stuck but there are several anchor retrieving devices available. Furthermore I think the slot is a confusion factor that inhibits people from buying the product. Out of the immediate sales area people will think (to some degree) that the anchor is just average (or even less in performance) and you need the "trick/gimmick" type feature to make the product attractive. That is a marketing method that goes way back at least almost everybody knows that.

I actually think the slot works properly if the anchor is set properly. I'm going to shoot myself in the foot here as I'm quite anxious for Steve to test my anchors but I think he probably won't like the following.

The method I use to set an anchor is about as unlike Steve's as it could be. I have never deployed an anchor in the "free fall" way. I lower mine hand over hand and feel the back of the anchor touch the bottom. I stop feeding rode at that point and have Chris start backing down slowly. emphasis on slowly .. so that the chain "lays down" away from the anchor in a long line of rode. Re the depth and scope desired the "lay down" ceases when the right length has been laid out. Then we take up the slack and with very short bursts of power gently back sown on the anchor. When slack is gone and tension starts .. stop and let a bit of tension fade and gently pull a little again. as soon as serious tension begins we keep the engine in gear for a time and observe of any sign of dragging is going on. I pull up on the line that lays between the anchor roller and the dedicated 14" anchor cleat to see how much tension there is and/or feel if there is shaking or vibration that would indicate the anchor bumping along over rocks. Then finally we back down hard if we think re the weather forecast or other circumstances we need maximum holding.

The free fall opens the door to a pile of chain on top of the anchor. Here a trip slot just complicates the issue. In Steve's test of the Supreme that may have been the case. But the rode willy nilly all over the place is bad enough but taking up the slack moving at several knots and more or less violently jerking the anchor around in some other direction than the way it wound up is maximizing the chance of a failed set.

There's two ways of looking at this. Maximizing the chance of success and carefully laying down the anchor OR going with the philosophy that the anchor hasn't been tested unless it can perform perfectly no matter how it's used. Kinda like if a car can't go 125mph for 24hrs in the heat of a desert it's not good enough. I think Steve picked up some anchoring methods from sailboat people that think the best/coolest way to anchor is to dump the anchor with 2 or 3 knots of way on and dump the sails at the same time maintaining steerage to the end. And of course the rode slack ends with a violent jerk of the rode and stopping the boat. This stunt IMO seems the be the sailors way of setting the anchor. Or also a way of saying they don't need no stupid engine to go cruising.

I would think if one is testing anchors other variables should ideally be eliminated to discover just how well the anchor itself can perform. Then anchors turning up-side-down or rodes swinging 180 can be tested separately. And the wind changing direction 180 will 99.99 % of the time happen slowly so the anchor will gently be turned around. Not violently jerked around.

Despite the above Steve's tests have shown things that traditional anchor testing has failed to reveal. Especially the extreme short scope reductions that reveal the minimum scope that an anchor can handle. Or the "rate" of the hookup to the seafloor. Using a big mothership most all the detail is lost. And we didn't know that before Steve's tests. That's not completely true as others have photographed anchors in action ... but never at 2-1 scope .. or less. The boating people/industry have thought short scope anchoring was to be avoided and was so unreliable it was essentially useless. Only fools use short scope. Well we here on TF now know that w a good anchor one can safely anchor overnight at less than 3-1. I knew that already as well as others on the forum. That's important knowledge and it was first revealed here on TF.

psneeld,
Most of the bad stuff that Danforth anchors are known for is probably due to poor seamanship. Most Toyota Camrys are purchased by older more responsible people and have a great reputation for having long graceful lives. Most new boaters have Danforth copy anchors and little knowledge or experience.
But the Danforths do have their faults. Weak bent shanks being the biggest fault.

Sdowney717,
Yes I agree sharp fluke tips do have great merit. Look at the tips on the Fortress. Very sharp and I've not seen one bent. I sharpened the tips of several anchors and not suffered from it .. yet.

Peter,
The slot shackle on the Manson works differently (in a way) than the SARCA .. or Super Sarca. The position of the bottom of the shank tip and the position of the slot end where the shackle bolt lives insures that the shackle won't ride up and on top of the shank where it runs down the slot unless the chain picks it up. The shackle will remain on the sea floor and the rode will try to pull it under the shank but it will jam as the shackle is too short. Only if the chain is completely off the sea floor when the boat passes over will it be able to run the slot. So the attach point will be low on the shank and jam (as per above) and pull the shank around to a new heading just like a regular anchor.

Nope, mostly input from other professionals who earn a living on the water....even seeing more boat manufacturers/dealers selling boats with other than Danforth knockoffs on the bow showing experienced boaters that they understand the trend too.

manyboats said:

I think Steve picked up some anchoring methods from sailboat people that think the best/coolest way to anchor is to dump the anchor with 2 or 3 knots of way on and dump the sails at the same time maintaining steerage to the end. And of course the rode slack ends with a violent jerk of the rode and stopping the boat. This stunt IMO seems the be the sailors way of setting the anchor. Or also a way of saying they don't need no stupid engine to go cruising.

Click to expand...

Wow. A sailboat/powerboat sh!t fight woven into an anchor discussion. Unbelievable. .

The assumption that I picked up anchor methods from sailboat people is false. My "momentum based" setting technique is something I developed (quite recently) on my own - with my "beloved" engine running.

Eric, sometimes your imagination serves you well. This is not one of them.

Steve

Steve,
The only place where I have seen the sailboat crash anchor technique was in Squirrel Cove. A guy came in at about a strong 3 knots and dumped his rode w a scary amount of chain noise and a big splash from his huge Forfjord anchor.

I hadn't even thought about your setting technique until last night. And I probably overstated on the above post. Sorry. Really hope you don't consider this a "**** fight" ..... I don't. But I do think anchors should/need to be set more slowly for maximum beneficial results. But the bottom line is keeping the boat off the rocks and beach. And until Panope turned into a trawler she was a sailboat ... motorsailer actually.

Peter B wrote;
"That hog back version of your Supreme looks a bit strange. I can see what you're trying to achieve though. It might work, but it also may just encourage it to flop onto its side and stay there. It would also make it a bit incompatible with most bow roller set-ups. You would need to use just an open roller with no restraining loop or bolt like mine was originally. Trouble is they then tend to flip off the roller onto the capping sometimes..?
Time and real use will tell I guess. We will all be keen to hear"

Yes it even looks strange to me.
This anchor isn't a prototype for the market so I don't care if the thing works on other boats. The welded on rod is (like the roll bar) to keep the anchor right-side-up. Hopefully less draggy, lighter and most importantly permitting more penetration. It's most likely too big and as soon as it's bent I plan on reducing it's size .. especially fwd and vertically. The fwd slope of the hogback is to make it easy for a rode to pass over the anchor w/o snaging and tripping the anchor. Obviously the trip slot is not functional w the Hogback.
Peter .. "encourage it to flop onto its side and stay there." Well yes. That's the position the anchor is intended to be when it is ready to be set. Like the Spade and Rocna and others. The issue (among other things) is to have the fluke tip pressing down on the sea floor sideways like a knife (as Marin used to say). I should have weighed it before I cut off the RB. That's a good feature of the Claws .. the outboard flukes have a very high percentage of the anchor weight on the fluke tip just prior to setting. But now I don't think it could go up-side-down. In time I could make it smaller. Then it wouldn't look quite so odd.

First pic (a re-run) shows how easily it should move fwd w the RB missing. By the time the "hogback roll bar" starts under the seabed the fluke is rather far down and even though the drag from the hogback is higher up the drag itself is much lower. Hopefully the pitch up force will be less.

PS many bow pulpits have a slot that the hogback could come up through. The usual RB is transverse and won't come up into a longitudinal slot but the hogback could on many to some.

Let me tell you guys my Danforth anchor story and why I would never use one in a reversing current situation:

I was anchored solidly with my Rocna at Jewell Island in Maine where the current runs up and down the anchorage at knot or less, reversing four times a day. After a couple of days, a guy south of me got ready to leave and pulled up anchor. What he had was a jumble of chain wrapped back and forth around his Danforth. It looked to me like the only thing that kept him in place for the last few days was the mass of chain.

So he re-launched his dinghy and with the blob of chain hanging just above the water, spent the next hour untangling that mess.

That is why I will only use a Danforth or Fortress in a straight pull situation.

David

Maybe an anchor swivel would help that round and round and round problem of the chain.

http://www.marine-products.com/seachoice-anchor-eye-eye-swivel-3-8in-steel-43520.html

I have one of these I salvaged but never have used it. The one I got was part of a crushed workmans boat in the dumpster.

Ex TF member Djbanji was strongly opposed to swivels for the risk of failure and was not alone. There will be a range of views about them,best types, etc. This has the potential to derail an excellent objective thread, let`s not do that. There should be excellent archived swivel discussions.

Panope said:

Wow. A sailboat/powerboat sh!t fight woven into an anchor discussion. Unbelievable. .

The assumption that I picked up anchor methods from sailboat people is false. My "momentum based" setting technique is something I developed (quite recently) on my own - with my "beloved" engine running.

Eric, sometimes your imagination serves you well. This is not one of them.

Steve

Click to expand...

"Anchor-set" loves ya... when there is first plenty of scope, then relatively strong engine back down.

Panope said:

Wow. A sailboat/powerboat sh!t fight woven into an anchor discussion. Unbelievable. .
Steve

Click to expand...

Actually, I had to laugh at this, because Eric, you are right, the method is called the 'sailor's drop', or words to that effect, and I must say done properly it is very effective. I used it often back when we had yachts, and even now with Lotus I will sometimes use it as well.

It is a perfectly acceptable way to anchor, as one approaches slowly, not at 3 knots like the one time you saw it done, and it is particularly good when you are coming into an anchorage from upwind, so all the others at anchor being head to wind are facing you, and you know you're going to have to turn around as well. You choose the best space, and as you pass over about where you want your anchor to be, or preferably a bit ahead of that, by now in neutral and drifting, you lower the anchor slowly and steadily, at the same time giving a bit of helm one way or the other to swing the stern out & so the chain goes to the other side of the bow and keel, (dropping the sails a bit earlier if in a yacht), and the boat's gentle momentum carries it along so the chain flows out nicely behind and under the vessel, until about 3 times the depth has been let out, then cleated/winch stopped, and the anchor then sets itself and the bow actually comes round quite gently because the catenary damps the jerk down, and Bob'syerruncle, it's done. You then maybe give a wee feeler burst in reverse to check the set - I don't bother now, as it always is, let out a bit more depending on expected conditions, and go make a cuppa. Works for me...

Peter B said:

Actually, I had to laugh at this, because Eric, you are right, the method is called the 'sailor's drop', or words to that effect, and I must say done properly it is very effective. I used it often back when we had yachts, and even now with Lotus I will sometimes use it as well...

Click to expand...

I was taught to sail downwind, throw the anchor over, let the sheets fly so the sails flapped, and wait for the boat to yank up head to wind as the anchor bit. Very dramatic, great fun.
Now, back to testing anchors, please.

BruceK said:

I was taught to sail downwind, throw the anchor over, let the sheets fly so the sails flapped, and wait for the boat to yank up head to wind as the anchor bit. Very dramatic, great fun.
Now, back to testing anchors, please.

Click to expand...

Yes...well it must have been you that Eric watched then Bruce. It is meant to be carried out with a bit more finesse, and at a slower pace than that, just so you don't..."wait for the boat to yank up head to wind as the anchor bit."
Bow anchoring hardware is too expensive to treat quite like that, but I'm sure you were exaggerating just a little.

Haven't needed to "back down" yet. We have ideal anchor-setting bottoms here (thick, heavy, mud), and local winds and currents readily bury anchors without the need of reverse engine. The boat jerks to a stop.