Anchor setting Videos

If all you need is speed, drive a sports car. But some of us prefer pickup truck ks.

If all you need is holding power, sure the Danforth style usually tops.

But you will NEVER see one as my primary anchors. Too many times they have failed to set for me and hundreds of other boaters who have related the same to me just confirm my experiences.

Backup or storm anchor...sure...but not one I may have to bet my house on in an emergency.

717,
Yes I hear you. The Spade's designer reportedly did a lot of research to determine what shape the fluke should be before he proceeded w the design. I agree that the concave shape is better for max resistance but there is a lot more to an anchor that just a fluke. The fluke must be controlled and the shank and other things must be optimized as well. Many "experts" say an anchor's holding power is directly proportional to it's fluke area. Fluke area is very important as displacement of engines is important to engines but like engines there is much more to it. The design thing I don't like about the Spade is the large ballast chamber that I think inhibits penetration and perhaps setting. Too much bulk. But setting may be worse w/o it. But it's the combination of features and shapes that make a good anchor ... not one feature, one brand, material or other thing that stands out.

I like the Danforth's too. Just bought a very good original 20lb Dan w the double flanged inbd fluke edges, very sharp fluke tips (like a Fortress) and skinny shank .. presumably high strength steel. It looks much used and only one fluke is slightly not quite straight. HT shank is absolutely straight.
The problem with the Danforths is the cpoies are cheap and ineffective. But mostly it's the biggest variable in anchoring .... the bottom. As far as I know a rocky bottom is out. And they work very well in mud or sand. Also they attract seaweed and other marine growth more than other designs.

sdowney717 said:

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.

Click to expand...

To me resetting when the boat changes direction is the most important feature as this can happen in the middle of the night with everybody asleep. I think what is particularly useful and new about Steve's tests and videos is how well one sees how the different designs reset themselves, or not, and how quickly they do it thus minimising the opportunity to foul.

Maybe in 50+ knot winds I would prefer a big Fortress holding me but for a restful night sleep I prefer the new generation anchors like the Spade, Super Sarca and others of similar designs because they reset so well and quickly.

manyboats said:

717,
Yes I hear you. The Spade's designer reportedly did a lot of research to determine what shape the fluke should be before he proceeded w the design. I agree that the concave shape is better for max resistance but there is a lot more to an anchor that just a fluke. The fluke must be controlled and the shank and other things must be optimized as well. Many "experts" say an anchor's holding power is directly proportional to it's fluke area. Fluke area is very important as displacement of engines is important to engines but like engines there is much more to it. The design thing I don't like about the Spade is the large ballast chamber that I think inhibits penetration and perhaps setting. Too much bulk. But setting may be worse w/o it. But it's the combination of features and shapes that make a good anchor ... not one feature, one brand, material or other thing that stands out.

I like the Danforth's too. Just bought a very good original 20lb Dan w the double flanged inbd fluke edges, very sharp fluke tips (like a Fortress) and skinny shank .. presumably high strength steel. It looks much used and only one fluke is slightly not quite straight. HT shank is absolutely straight.

Click to expand...

All this anchoring talk got me looking at what I have.
My bow anchor is a Seachoice 22, a Danforth copy. It has held reliably but a few times has not set since I think it was being dragged on it's side. Had to haul it up and retry. My family sometimes wants to throw it haphazardly into the water and then it sometimes fouls itself on the line. Best to drop it off the bow roller smoothly.

I have a tiny Danforth 4S, and I use that as a lunch anchor. that little anchor holds really well.

Another anchor I liked a lot, but we lost it. The end of the line was not tied to the boat. So it was untied, the person could not hold the line, and away it went, slipping thru his fingers. I blame myself for not tying the end to the boat.



Ever seen this before?
It is now under 40 feet of water at the third island of the CBBT in Norfolk Virginia.

sdowney717 wrote;
"Ever seen this before?"

No I haven't but it gives me an idea. See your PM.
Too much hijack.

Ok, sent you the pictures.

I nominate Eric's moniker to be "Anchor Whisperer". (all in good fun Eric)

Indeed, too much hijack.
The tests largely speak for themselves.Not everyone accepts there is progress in anchor design and performance.
Within the limits of time and expense, may Steve`s tests continue.

Bruce,
Or discussion thereof?

sdowney717 said:

Another anchor I liked a lot, but we lost it. The end of the line was not tied to the boat. So it was untied, the person could not hold the line, and away it went, slipping thru his fingers. I blame myself for not tying the end to the boat.
Ever seen this before?
It is now under 40 feet of water at the third island of the CBBT in Norfolk Virginia.

Click to expand...

That anchor looks remarkably like a Danforth with effectively a tripping slot, but in this case the shank in an elongated open loop, so the shackle can slide back to the fluke either way. I had one a bit like that on my yacht as a fishing anchor back in NZ - can't remember the name for now though. Wait on - here it is called a Kewene http://www.chainsropesandanchors.co.nz/boat-anchor/Kewene

As to the fluke shape. I take your point re the convex v's concave thing, ie spade or shovel v's plow, but remember, one is not actually trying to dig great holes in the ocean floor when anchoring. One is trying to get the fluke to dive deep with minimal disruption of the seabed. If you think of how the Super Sarca or any convex plow-shaped fluke for that matter would look if you sighted along it from the level of the point of the fluke, you see a shape that when thrust through a semisolid substrate is going to want to plane downwards. Notice in Steve's video how well it then sheds the substrate on the way up. That is why convex ultimately is the more flexible all-round shape I think.

Peter,
It does look a bit like a Danforth but way different. The Kewene looks more like a Dreadnought or Navy anchor (2nd and 3rd pic). The anchor that 717 lost looks more like the SHHP stockless anchor that was presented recently as the "First SHHP stockless anchor" (thread name). See pic there-in. I thought how easy it would be to make 717's anchor and modify it much like the stockless SHHp. But as to looks the 717 looks more like the stockless than a Dan .... IMO.

About the convex/concave question and re the minimal disturbance of the sea floor this XYZ w it's flat fluke and small tapered shank may be the king of the "not disturb the bottom" anchors. The concave/scoop anchor pulls the scooped up substrate together breaking apart the substrate where the fluke tips go. The convex anchor rips the bottom apart mostly in the center where the fluke is and could leave it less disturbed outboard. But the "ears" on the Delta and Excel probably make a mess of both inbd and outbd areas as the roll bars do .. evidenced in Steve's vids. The seafloor literally "pours" out behind the fluke inside of the roll bars. Manson Supreme does the same. Without the roll bars or "ears" of the Excel/Delta type anchors minimal disturbance may occur ... but borne of necessity the roll bars and ears do exist. I think any anchor tears up the seafloor and there's only small differences among them.

The flat fluke may have the better luck w not disturbing the sea floor. If this XYZ (pic) was anywhere near buried it would lift up the seafloor but not move it laterally from/to left or right. If it was buried it may slide under the seafloor leaving it mostly undisturbed .. except for the very center where the shank goes.

Here is the SUPER Sarca at the sand/gravel location. 3.5 to 1 scope.

Steve

Video #47.

And the Sarca at the same, sand/gravel location at 2.5 to one scope.

The anchor took a bit longer distance to set initially (about 3 anchor lengths) and was unable to reset after the 180 degree reversal. The anchor may have eventually reset but I was unwilling to continue a long "power drag" of the anchor for fear of dragging (and damaging) the camera across the rocky bottom.

This is actually the second attempt at this test (2.5 to 1, sand/gravel). The first take produced a video that is not view-able. However, I determined that the anchor behaved similarly in both tries (Good initial set that held boat, unsuccessful re-set).

Steve

Video #48

Really interesting Steve. Just keep doin' what you're doin'. Can't wait for the open slot tests.

On the filming, how do you get the camera to point obligingly at the 'action' so much of the time? Do you have some kind of guidance system set up that gives you some directional control..? Is that what the extra lines are for we can see?

Also, coming back to the slot thing. I think one of the major differences between the way the Sarca slot works and the Manson, hinges on the closer tolerances in the relationship between the shackle bolt length and the shank width and slot dimension. I believe the secret is that being a more 'snug' fit, any tension in a sideways direction, i.e. other than from directly in line, will see the shackle in effect, 'jam' in the slot, and not move towards the fluke end of the slot, even with the bolt out, because of the relatively snug fit and the friction produced with off-line tension. In fact, from memory, I think that was Rex's explanation as to why a stainless shackle must be used up until about a #7 size anchor, or the friction between a galv'd shackle and the galv'd slot might make it too hard to trip it.

However, while that's the theory, (and note I'm being deliberately 'courageous' in a sort of 'yes minister' way before you do the test, so the colours are already nailed to the mast before the event), to reflect the confidence I have in them.
It's easy to say, "well, we told you so" after you've been proven right, isn't it. Of course I risk copping some egg on the old face here, but hey, I can stand it. I love eggs.

I am dying to see if it is actually what happens. One can reproduce the effect in the 'dry' situation out of the water, but in water is the only true test. I think I've got a pic of me demonstrating this 'slot jamming' feature on my older MacBook. Of course Marin rubbished it, said it was not realistic, which was probably fair comment, but for the record, I'll see if I can add it later…

Yes, here it is. In this pic I had picked up the slack chain, and then pulled it forwards at an angle of about 45º to the shank, trying to mimic what might happen in a current/wind reversal, and it slid to where it is, and then jammed. But Steve's in-water real life tests will tell the story better…I hope...

Peter, Camera pointing is all passive. No control lines are used. The design was intended to function in this manner. However, the ability of this set-up to remain on the subject has exceeded my expectations.

I would prefer to not reveal all the secrets of the camera mount .

Steve

Fortress F-16, 3.5 to 1 scope, at the sand/gravel site. The anchor struggled, but did eventually set and hold the boat.

Video #49

Panope said:

Peter, Camera pointing is all passive. No control lines are used. The design was intended to function in this manner. However, the ability of this set-up to remain on the subject has exceeded my expectations.

I would prefer to not reveal all the secrets of the camera mount .

Steve

Click to expand...

Aha...of course...mais oui, Monsieur. Commercial in confidence stuff. Je comprend...

Classic Danforth/Fortress style issue.

Here is the Fortress FX-16 at the sand/gravel site with 2.5 to 1 scope.

The anchor struggled to initially set and then failed to re-set on the course reversal test. The anchor became heavily fouled with vegetation, a small tree and various rocks including one rock that was jambed between the flukes.

Steve

Video #50

Yup the Dan's often turn into a sea rake.

Steve

On the Fortress FX-16... looks like you had the shank to fluke angle at 33°. In my experience the easily available (by changing it's bolt to hole fastening arrangement) 45° angle lets Fortress anchor set much better in mud/sand conditions. My engineering mind's eye tells be that the 45° on an FX would help it to initially set and stay set better in most sea-bed conditions.

On our Tolly 34' at 20K+ lbs when fully loaded and with considerable superstructure and two large bimini that provide much "sail" effect we use a Fortress FX-23 at the 45° shank to fluke angle. SF Delta bottom we anchor in is nearly all a slimy to thick mud/sand material. We have great luck with the Fortress.

Before I recommend what I'm about to... just want to say WOW what an incredible effort with great outcome you are putting into your anchor test video series. Thanks!

My recommendation is to set the shank to fluke on the Fortress at 45° (if you haven't already) and perform a test, with lets say 3.5 to 1 scope. You may be surprised at the easier initial set and continued set the Fortress provides at that shank angle.

Cheers! Art

Art,

Thus far, all my tests of the Fortress have been conducted with the fluke angle in the 33° position. I will put a test using the 45° position on my wish list.

Steve

In my experience...the Danforth/fortress style lands flat no matter what the fluke angle is set at. If it doesn't catch and dig...nothing changes...it is only when it grabs that the larger fluke angle just grabs more bottom.


But they all land and flatten to near zero fluke angle...no catchie....no grabbie....and no to being the primary anchor on my pulpit for that reason.

On harder bottoms I seem to recall a Fortress in one of Steve's vids that just jacked the whole anchor up in the air (water) and fell over on a stock. Art , I suspect your bottom is extremely soft. Steve's bottoms are much firmer and I doubt very seriously if the aluminum Fortress would set w the flukes set at 45 degrees up here.

In Alaska w murkey water and not much sunlight bottom seaweed is much less. Lots of Bull Kelp but we don't anchor in Bull Kelp. The only time my old Danforth wouldn't hook up is in about 6' of water at a river mouth on grass in northern BC. It was like trying to set anchor on an oiled plate. Was some kind of thick light green grass. The weed that you see in Steve's vids is real common here in Puget Sound. Usually dosn't interfere w anchoring but upon retrieval great salads of green seaweed regularly comes up.

manyboats said:

Steve's bottoms are much firmer and I doubt very seriously if the aluminum Fortress would set w the flukes set at 45 degrees up here.

Click to expand...

I'll just add that Brian, from Fortress anchors is watching all these videos and making comments (on other forums). He as made no suggestion that I try the 45 degree fluke setting.

Steve

Steve,

The 45° shank / fluke angle should only be used to improve holding capacity in a soft, silty, soupy type of mud bottom. If this angle is used in a harder soil, which appears to be the bottom condition for your videos, then the anchor is likely to skip along and not set.

Here's an image from the Vryhof anchoring manual which has an explanation and illustrations which can help clarify what can occur:


post image


Vryhof also manufactures anchor models with a wider shank / fluke angle to improve holding in soft mud (as does Bruce and the US Navy), so this performance feature is no secret to Fortress, although we hold a US patent on the adjustable 32° / 45° crown (centerpiece).

Safe anchoring,
Brian

Steve,

The 45° shank / fluke angle should only be used to improve holding capacity in a soft, silty, soupy type of mud bottom. If this angle is used in a harder soil, which appears to be the bottom condition for your videos, then the anchor is likely to skip along the bottom and not set.

Here's an image from the Vryhof anchoring manual which has an explanation and illustrations which can help clarify what can occur:


post image

Vryhof also manufactures anchor models with a wider shank / fluke angle to improve holding in soft mud (as does Bruce and the US Navy), so this performance feature is no secret to Fortress, although we hold a US patent on the adjustable 32° / 45° crown (centerpiece).

Safe anchoring,
Brian

Pleased to see you in Brian. Thanks for info. Do you know... are the results mentioned by Vryhof backed by accurate data resulting from closely watched/measured seabed anchor penetrations?

Art said:

Pleased to see you in Brian. Thanks for info. Do you know... are the results mentioned by Vryhof backed by accurate data resulting from closely watched/measured seabed anchor penetrations?

Click to expand...

Art,

Unquestionably. Vryhof has two test tanks in Holland (one soft, the other hard soil) and per my USA contact who is based out of Houston, they have a significant amount of underwater footage which illustrates anchor behavior in various soil conditions.

Here's a link to their new 172 page anchor manual which I think will be of great interest to the esteemed anchor gurus on this forum:

http://www.vryhof.com/flipbooks/am2015/#

Be safe,
Brian

manyboats said:

Art , I suspect your bottom is extremely soft. Steve's bottoms are much firmer . . .

Click to expand...

Get a room, you guys.

angus99 said:

Get a room, you guys.

Click to expand...

That's NOT Funny!! :lol: