Anchor setting Videos

BruceK · Feb 15, 2016

Peter B said:
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.

Well, just a little, but that was the essence of the procedure. It seemed to work, but it`s much more casual than our current deliberate practices. Last weekend in Yeomans Bay the boat performed many directional changes including 180 plus,while we stayed tethered on the Super Sarca. Looking forward to the test results.

Art · Feb 15, 2016

markpierce said:
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.

http://s296.photobucket.com/user/ma...ting feb/coot at mildred_zpsdb4s67rd.jpg.html

Mark

It has interested me a lot while reading several anchor threads that some (maybe even most??) people don't back down to help get an anchor firmly set. Guess I just always figured that nearly everyone backed down to complete the anchoring regime by making sure the set is firm and will surely last. I don't remember an anchoring time I did not back down. During my 1950's/60's/70's formative boating years back East I'm confident that at least most boaters backed down before shutting engine off... my dad and I sure did!

I'll keep up my ways of carefully lowering the anchor to the bottom, gently deploying rode for 5 to 1 or more scope, and then power-setting anchor into the bottom's surface strata; all that has worked very well for me for decades!

I believe in "Anchor Whispering"! :dance:

markpierce · Feb 15, 2016

Art said:
Mark

... I don't remember an anchoring time I did not back down. During my 1950's/60's/70's formative boating years back East I'm confident that at least most boaters backed down before shutting engine off... my dad and I sure did!...

Do what works for you! :dance:

Nomad Willy · Feb 15, 2016

I didn't set anchors (Danforth) in my 20's. Just lowered them to the bottom and added line for depth, scope and tide ... wild guesses I'l bet. When I heard about setting I thought it was stupid. If the anchor's any good it'll set itself surely. Always worked though.
However I would'nt dream of that now.
But now I don't set hard unless weather is on it's way.

Mark are you the only one down there that dosn't set? Seems out of chacter for you.

MurrayM · Feb 15, 2016

Art said:
I'll keep up my ways of carefully lowering the anchor to the bottom, gently deploying rode for 5 to 1 or more scope, and then power-setting anchor into the bottom's surface strata; all that has worked very well for me for decades!

That's what we do as well (deploying rode while we back down so it doesn't end up in a pile) with my wife at the helm & me deploying the anchor and keeping my hand on the rode while she backs down

Only once our anchor didn't set, and I could feel it bouncing and barely catching on the bottom with my hand on the rode...if we had only drifted back on the anchor it could have just barely set and we'd never have known, until the wind picked up

markpierce · Feb 15, 2016

manyboats said:
...

Mark are you the only one down there that dosn't set? Seems out of chacter for you.

I only speak about my own experience.

Panope · Feb 16, 2016

I was able to conduct 4 sets of the Sarca Anchor today.

Here is the first, the 3.5 to 1 scope with reverse test in "sandy mud"

Steve

Video #43

Panope · Feb 16, 2016

......and the 2.5 to 1 scope test.....

Video #44

BruceK · Feb 16, 2016

Thanks Steve,very comforting so far. What is the displacement of SV Panope?

Art · Feb 16, 2016

That anchor sets well!

Nomad Willy · Feb 16, 2016

I saw what I wanted and expected to see. Re doing it's thing by laying on it's side or sitting upright no 50/50 here Peter. More like 95/5. A Danforth would lay a bit flatter but the SARCA has no stock. No laying on it's side for this big boy. Sets w the fluke flat on it's bottom and digs in fast. But not very deep. All of the shank was not buried and only half of the RB. Looks like not enough power for this anchor ....

I'm looking fwd to pulling from the stern in fwd gear and reducing scope.

Steve if you gave the Spade an A you'll need to go back and knock the Spade back to B so the SARCA can rightfully take the A.

Panope · Feb 17, 2016

BruceK said:
Thanks Steve,very comforting so far. What is the displacement of SV Panope?

Bruce, my best guess is 15,000 lbs.

Steve

Panope · Feb 17, 2016

SUPER Sarca. Reducing scope test.

A gentle current (from the starboard) pushed the boat out of alignment with the anchor during final portions of this test. This caused the anchor to pivot about 30 degrees and may have resulted in the anchor not holding as well as it could have with a strait pull.

Steve

Video #45

Peter B · Feb 17, 2016

manyboats said:
I saw what I wanted and expected to see. Re doing it's thing by laying on it's side or sitting upright no 50/50 here Peter. More like 95/5. A Danforth would lay a bit flatter but the SARCA has no stock. No laying on it's side for this big boy. Sets w the fluke flat on it's bottom and digs in fast. But not very deep. All of the shank was not buried and only half of the RB. Looks like not enough power for this anchor ....

I'm looking fwd to pulling from the stern in fwd gear and reducing scope.

Steve if you gave the Spade an A you'll need to go back and knock the Spade back to B so the SARCA can rightfully take the A.

Eric, I suspect the floatation in the apparatus required to suspend the camera above the anchor gave a rather flattering impression about it landing flat on its bottom every time, but it really does not matter much, because if it lands on its side it flicks over and in so fast it still only takes about an anchor length. You can see that in the 180º shift footage on the occasions where it is broken out of the bottom in the process.
Great pics there Steve. These are what I call real time & realistic tests.

sdowney717 · Feb 17, 2016

I have never backed down on the anchor. We have so much current and wind it does that for us. Anchor line goes tight and I watch it for a while to see if it is holding. Typically put out 60 to 90 feet in 25 foot depth.

Art · Feb 17, 2016

sdowney717 said:
I have never backed down on the anchor. We have so much current and wind it does that for us. Anchor line goes tight and I watch it for a while to see if it is holding. Typically put out 60 to 90 feet in 25 foot depth.

sd

What type anchor are you using?
What bottom constancy do you anchor in?
What loa, weight, superstructure design is your boat?

60' rode in 25' depth = 2.4 to 1 scope. / 90' rode =3.6 to 1.

Your anchor ever drag wherein you need to reset?

Nomad Willy · Feb 17, 2016

Art,
Though he dosn't say as such I assume it's a SARCA anchor.

I think Steve has dispelled the notion that over 3-1 scope is needed for normal anchoring. Gales are another matter.

Peter,
I have wondered about the righting moment of the camera lines too but assumed the lift was so little that it didn't need mentioning. From the vid so far it's clear the SARCA has an extremely strong tendency to sit up straight. And w the RB so large, extending well above the shank the anchor's righting moment should be very high. The GC is effectively lower w the large RB.

Panope · Feb 17, 2016

Here is the Sarca "Deep Set" test:

Nomad Willy · Feb 17, 2016

Very good performance.
HUGE crab for a dungi.

BruceK · Feb 17, 2016

sdowney717 said:
I have never backed down on the anchor. We have so much current and wind it does that for us. Anchor line goes tight and I watch it for a while to see if it is holding. Typically put out 60 to 90 feet in 25 foot depth.

I usually "power set" my S/Sarca, but having seen it not move in the power loading procedure, not sure I need to. But, I see merit simulating a load in excess of prevailing conditions,testing for conditions deteriorating.
As a S/Sarca user, the test results are of real practical interest, I even had the Admiral sit through some of them. The tests should comfort users, and demonstrate Sarca capacity to others with open minds.
If there is any criticism to be made, it is of the anchor not capturing the inquisitive crab.

Nomad Willy · Feb 17, 2016

The chain may have got the crab. He looked too big to fit in a trap.

I've always thought the setting performance of the SARCA would be excellent and an anchor test or two in the past said as much also. Looks like the slots in the flukes do help a little shedding the mud ect on retrieval. As Rex has said.

Bruce one always needs an open mind.
Do you and "the admiral" hold hands while you watch anchor vids?

Panope · Feb 17, 2016

Here is a table that depicts all of the anchor tests that I have conducted so far. The numbers represent the video number contained in the title of each YouTube video.

The blank spaces are tests that have not been conducted.

The spaces with the red XXXXX are tests that I plan on conducting in the future.

Steve

Peter B · Feb 17, 2016

Great work Steve. Please don't stop there though. We are all agog at waiting to see the ones without the trip slot bolted off. No pressure though. Take time for a drink and a sandwich.

Actually that last test was really good in the way it did illustrate that given a decent (even quite conservative), rode length, and enough force, the anchor will totally bury, and with the minimal disturbance to the sea floor as claimed. That should make Eric happy.

Also the way the shape (convex), and the slots do help with substrate shedding on the way up = less hosing down and muck in the anchor well.

The force needed to break it out also is the reason why I so much like the slot open, because you could see in that video very clearly, that had the slot not been blanked off with the bolt, you could, (as I often do when really stuck in deep), move slowly forward, and deliberately drag that shackle down to the fluke end before the shank has lifted clear of the bottom, and break it out with much less strain on everything.

Eric one thing I think you might have noticed however in that video, is the floatation holding up the camera, especially now Steve has it tethered at fluke and shank ends, does hold the anchor somewhat artificially in the upright position - you can even see it waggle a bit from side to side as it goes down, so it is landing on it's bum somewhat more reliably than it would without the camera floatation. Not an issue, as it sets so quick anyway, but it is being influenced by the camera tackle in this instance. Believe it or not, I suspect if it was free to land on its side and flop over more, it would dig in even quicker, as held upright, it is able to skin along on its bottom just a tad, rather than knifing straight in.

Watch this space guys...

Nomad Willy · Feb 17, 2016

Peter,
I had'nt thought about the advantage at anchor retrival time. I see in the vids that anchors move very slowly when almost stuck. That's a lesson for most of us to be patient and put some tension on the rode and then let it sit at least a few minutes and it should soon come out. I seem to have next to no trouble pulling my anchors out. Perhaps it's a sign they aren't really very good anchors.

Peter the flotation factor is probably fly stuff but it's a point. Makes all these anchors a little like the Hydrobubble anchor (with the plastic air chamber on top). That anchor had a mix of very good performance and terrible performance. Re Steve's tests I'm sure he thought about it and discarded it as a tiny price to pay for the images we all like so much. Nothing's perfect. I'd suggest not critizcizing Steve. I did that and wish I had'nt.

Re the slots for sheding mud ... yup .. they seem to work .. to some extent anyway. I think chrome or polish does a fair job of that too. Too expensive. Yes I was happy to finally see a RB anchor burry. That also says something about the soft and loose substrate Steve has been working with.

Peter B · Feb 18, 2016

manyboats said:
Re Steve's tests I'm sure he thought about it and discarded it as a tiny price to pay for the images we all like so much. Nothing's perfect. I'd suggest not critizcizing Steve. I did that and wish I had'nt.

Eric, it's never been a criticism, just an observation that's all. Clearly Steve knows that, and also knows what he's doing, and the new tethering system does hold the camera much steadier and better orientated to what it's filming.

However, the trade-off is that by tethering the flotation at each end of the shank, the tether operates as a virtual fulcrum around which the anchor can rotate, and the fluke being heavier this naturally allows it to point downwards more reliably. If you look carefully, you can even see the chain drop away faster than the anchor as it levels out, so clearly the floatation is enough to just retard the sinking of the anchor a tad.

However, yes, the pics are far better than the previous arrangement where the camera could tend to spin around. So its a tiny trade-off of better pics v's less realistic landing on the sea bottom. Still far and away the best anchor tests I've ever seen. Especially as we all know these anchors are designed to set quickly, and they do, so how they get to the bottom is virtually academic.

However, it might be flattering the anchor somewhat in terms of the frequency it lands neatly flat on the fluke, that's all. But as I have also explained, that does not materially affect the rest of its performance, and might even detract slightly from the speed of penetration, compared to if it was landing more often on its side, and the point & edge of the fluke engaging earlier. No biggie really...just interesting...

Art · Feb 18, 2016

Peter B said:
interesting...

Agreed!!!

Steve's anchor-test thread has been and will continue to be interesting as all get out!

Steve has taken the mystique away from what different brands of anchors actually do in "Real Life" circumstances on the sea floor. This multi layered anchoring video endeavor of Steve's by far surpasses any previous anchor-setting depiction I've seen from hugely expensive "professional" in-the-water anchor test videos as well as from any other diy boat owner video. Far as I'm concerned, the videos anchor manufacturers have shown where a tractor pulls anchors along the beach to test their setting capabilities... with their tow chains (i.e. rode) virtually 100% parallel with the beach surface, as well as there being no sea growth or rocks for anchors to deal with have been laughable in comparison to what happens when scope-angle %ages actually occur (i.e. alter) to the rode's cantor and then being relayed to the anchor's shank as boat is pulled back by wind, current, a mix of the two... or, in Steve's accurate depictions... by his boat's motor.

You go Steve! The top one (or, maybe even two if test result successes are similar enough regarding two anchor designs) winning anchor manufacturers should purchase your roll of copy right videos off you and use them for global promotion. $50K to $75K are the "true-value" numbers that I visualize... maybe more if you work it right!

You have my full thanks and appreciation for what you are doing that dispels the myths and answers many questions regarding anchor setting and well as how different anchor's perform while on the sea bed.

Happy "Anchor-Test" Daze! - Art :speed boat:

Nomad Willy · Feb 18, 2016

Peter,
One has a choice in how the anchor lands on the bottom. Free fall a Danforth type and they are literally flying all over the place as the flukes become like wings. Most anchors probably descend much like they do in Steve's vids but probably much more w the bottom of the fluke down and the top of the fluke (where the rode hooks up) high and trailing. A bit like holding an anchor by the top of it's shank .. but probably more level that that. But who knows as it's hard to see even where the water is mostly clear but in the PNW USA the water visibility is quite low.

How many lower the rode slowly and how many just free fall is not known. I'm guessing quite a few do free fall though by TF comments in the past. Much is said about free falling in the anchor winch descriptions .. probably related to fishing where they anchor for brief periods over and over. When I first saw Steve's vids I was amazed at the anchor that descended perfected level (or seemingly so). That camera's let a hard life so far and I thought it was a goner once at least. But Steve's method gets the anchor down flat on the bottom. I thought there would be trouble w the Danforth but all went smooth as I recall.

Again though I don't think the uplifting of the camera lines is affecting the test results significantly or Steve wouldn't allow it. He'd have said something about it. Peter do you think any of the tests would have come out differently had the camera not been attached to the anchor? I don't think so.

Art · Feb 18, 2016

manyboats said:
Peter,
One has a choice in how the anchor lands on the bottom. Free fall a Danforth type and they are literally flying all over the place as the flukes become like wings. Most anchors probably descend much like they do in Steve's vids but probably much more w the bottom of the fluke down and the top of the fluke (where the rode hooks up) high and trailing. A bit like holding an anchor by the top of it's shank .. but probably more level that that. But who knows as it's hard to see even where the water is mostly clear but in the PNW USA the water visibility is quite low.

How many lower the rode slowly and how many just free fall is not known. I'm guessing quite a few do free fall though by TF comments in the past. Much is said about free falling in the anchor winch descriptions .. probably related to fishing where they anchor for brief periods over and over. When I first saw Steve's vids I was amazed at the anchor that descended perfected level (or seemingly so). That camera's let a hard life so far and I thought it was a goner once at least. But Steve's method gets the anchor down flat on the bottom. I thought there would be trouble w the Danforth but all went smooth as I recall.

Again though I don't think the uplifting of the camera lines is affecting the test results significantly or Steve wouldn't allow it. He'd have said something about it. Peter do you think any of the tests would have come out differently had the camera not been attached to the anchor? I don't think so.

Eric - The two following excerpts are in bold in your QUOTE. I'm going to place my response to each - after them.

1. "Free fall a Danforth type and they are literally flying all over the place as the flukes become like wings." - Thus why no anchor should be dropped in haphazard free fall. I believe that anchoring is one of the most important activities done while boating. I've found that "Whispering" to my anchors while deploying provides best results! - LOL

2. "How many lower the rode slowly and how many just free fall is not known. I'm guessing quite a few do free fall though by TF comments in the past." - I belive in lowering anchor slowly... Whisper to it!!!

Art :dance:

Nomad Willy · Feb 18, 2016

Here's an anchor test that must have vids but I don't see how to access the video from the link. Just cause I can't do it dosn't mean it's not there though.

However the text mostly says it all. Some of the anchors are interesting. Some are more interesting than good though. Kinda like women .... and men. Yachting Monthly is a Brit mag I'm guessing but some may find the test interesting.
The Kobra anchor looks like a Delta copy but of course the Delta could be a Kobra copy for all I know. It's performance seems better than the Delta and is very similar to the Excel .. and others .. like the Davis. If the Kobra is the copy it would uphold my long time position that a copy or "knock-off" could indeed be better than the original. As evolution goes things should get better as time goes on. But of course most to many anchor makers are just trying to avoid the cost of development. It was very interesting what Steve revealed re the Bruce and the copies. I've known about the forged v/s cast and the sharpness difference but the considerable difference Steve uncovered (to me anyway) in the throat angle was amazing. Not just one or two degrees but perhaps five or so. I hope he checked the surface the anchors were sitting on. The big difference in throat angle should make a difference in performance. One would think those making the copies would be aware of that and that it could be an attempt to make a better mouse trap. Anyway the Kobra could be a copy that's better than the original.

Art, one could get wet "whispering" to anchors.
Indeed Art I also do my anchoring very methodically and slowly. When I'm most careful I touch the bottom w the anchor and lift it a few inches. Then getting some way aft (at the anchor and that's a guess) like one knot or less slowly lower the anchor so the anchor winds up pointing right at a spot directly below the boat. And while backing down the rode should end up in more or less a straight line. But most of the time I'm not that fussy but do a fairly close approximation. I try.

sdowney717 · Feb 18, 2016

manyboats said:
Here's an anchor test that must have vids but I don't see how to access the video from the link. Just cause I can't do it dosn't mean it's not there though.

However the text mostly says it all. Some of the anchors are interesting. Some are more interesting than good though. Kinda like women .... and men. Yachting Monthly is a Brit mag I'm guessing but some may find the test interesting.
The Kobra anchor looks like a Delta copy but of course the Delta could be a Kobra copy for all I know. It's performance seems better than the Delta and is very similar to the Excel .. and others .. like the Davis. If the Kobra is the copy it would uphold my long time position that a copy or "knock-off" could indeed be better than the original. As evolution goes things should get better as time goes on. But of course most to many anchor makers are just trying to avoid the cost of development. It was very interesting what Steve revealed re the Bruce and the copies. I've known about the forged v/s cast and the sharpness difference but the considerable difference Steve uncovered (to me anyway) in the throat angle was amazing. Not just one or two degrees but perhaps five or so. I hope he checked the surface the anchors were sitting on. The big difference in throat angle should make a difference in performance. One would think those making the copies would be aware of that and that it could be an attempt to make a better mouse trap. Anyway the Kobra could be a copy that's better than the original.

Art, one could get wet "whispering" to anchors.
Indeed Art I also do my anchoring very methodically and slowly. When I'm most careful I touch the bottom w the anchor and lift it a few inches. Then getting some way aft (at the anchor and that's a guess) like one knot or less slowly lower the anchor so the anchor winds up pointing right at a spot directly below the boat. And while backing down the rode should end up in more or less a straight line. But most of the time I'm not that fussy but do a fairly close approximation. I try.

What I got from this report and others is use a Fortress or a Spade, or a Danforth Fluke type if it has sharp points, why bother with anything else.

Fortress came out way ahead for holding power again.
Anchors like the spade with the concave surface 2nd best and much higher priced.
All these tests keep showing a well designed Danforth style fluke anchor superior.
Spade did better resetting when boat changes direction, mentioned somewhere in the PDF.

When you get a shovel, they are either flat of have a concave surface and they can dig in to the dirt well, they do not have a convex surface, this just makes sense, why get an anchor with a convex surface, intuitively you can understand one will work better than the other..

Anchor setting Videos

Moderator Emeritus

Guru

Master and Commander

Guru

Guru

Master and Commander

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator Emeritus

Guru

Guru

Senior Member

Senior Member

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Senior Member

Guru

Moderator Emeritus

Guru

Senior Member

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Guru

Attachments

Guru

Similar threads