Anchor setting Videos

Fortress Anchors said:

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

Click to expand...

Brian - I'm impressed with the anchor manual! Thanks - Art

Here is the Fortress FX-16 undergoing the "Reducing Scope" test.

Steve

Video #51

I do like FX's - i.e. video # 51.

Art said:

That's NOT Funny!! :lol:

Click to expand...

Is too!

Well so much for "size matters" ...... and you got a salad for desert.

The big Forfjord (65 pounds) with the "Deep Set" test. Except for the last moment of the test, it appeared that the anchor was going to stay put - and it probably would have had the anchor not rolled over.

Note: The pull of the anchor rode remained almost perfectly aligned with the initial setting of the anchor.

Steve

Video #52

Yikes...that was violent!

It'll be hard not remember that scene next time we are anchored in a big blow

I've always thought that w the Forfjord both flukes being spread apart and a bit distant from eachother that the flukes would get in a contest w eachother. And it would be unlikely both flukes would have exactly the same resistance so the better holding fluke would stay burried and the other would break out. That would leave the Forfjord in a position like a set Kedge anchor w little holding power.

The anchor did set beautifly in the vidio. My Forfjord would'nt set the one time I used it nor would another anchor at the same site. But my 13lb Danforth set quickly and held through the night. I didn't keep the Forfjord. The fishing fleet in SE Alaska seems really happy using this anchor ... or the Claw when they can't find a Forfjord used or can't afford one new. They only prefer one other anchor .. the Dreadnought. It looks a lot like the Forfjord and probably sets better but most likely dosn't hold as well. The one time I used the Dreadnought it set instantly .. literaly. As far as I could tell it set itself.

Next is the Manson Supreme undergoing the "Deep Set" test.

Unfortunately, great clouds of turbidity obscured much of the action.

Steve

Video #53

Next is the Manson Supreme at the "Sand/gravel" site with 2.5 to 1 scope.

Unlike the "sandy mud" site (which is very consistent), this area is quite varied in composition. I noticed that during the SUPER Sarca test (Video #48) the size of the larger rocks was much larger than other nearby areas. See lower right of this photo:


The seabed in the area of this Manson Supreme test is free of larger rocks and seems to have the lowest ratio of rock/sand of all of the tests at this site. This test was conducted within 200 feet of the above Sarca test site.

Steve

Video #54

Here is the 44 Pound Spade at the sand/gravel site. 2.5 to 1 scope. I timed this test to occur at slack current. This made it easy to conduct the 180 degree course reversal test. Unfortunately, the lack of current caused some turbidity at the end of the test.

Steve

Video #55

I've skipped over this thread for a while, not being terribly interested in anchors or heated debates. I just spent about an hour going through the whole thread, and I'm really glad I did. I keep an FX 16 on my bow, and have been very happy with it, but rarely ever put it to the test. I have a light boat, I never anchor in tidal waters or in any real current, and it's usually in nice sticky, sandy mud. It was nice to see how it performed under all of these different conditions.

Thanks for doing all of this homework for us!

Yes, great stuff Steve. Looking forward to more. Especially the slot in action.

Hey, what a great life. Living on a boat, and messing around testing anchors. How did you manage that trick, Steve..? If you don't mind me asking..?
I'm intrigued...

Anchor setting interpetation

In post #276, video #52, the Forfjord 65# anchor indicates that a "force" of >900 lbs cause the anchor to dislodge. On the following web site, Forces

This would correlate to a wind speed of 40 kts. (see one of the charts ABYC reference). Is this a correct assumption?

I am interested because this is my anchor and close to my rode setup. I use an all chain rode, 5/16'. I normally use 1:5 scope. Most of the areas we anchor at have similar bottom as the test.

Thanks!

Peter B said:

Yes, great stuff Steve. Looking forward to more. Especially the slot in action.

Hey, what a great life. Living on a boat, and messing around testing anchors. How did you manage that trick, Steve..? If you don't mind me asking..?
I'm intrigued...

Click to expand...

Pete: It is not quite as glamorous as that. I live in a house.

I scaled back my business (small aircraft pilot) to about 20% after the birth of my daughter so I guess that makes me a stay at home dad. She is in the first grade now so I have lots of free time.

However, the party is coming to an end soon. It is high time for me to get another job (preferably in the Marine world).

Steve

knuckelbuster said:

In post #276, video #52, the Forfjord 65# anchor indicates that a "force" of >900 lbs cause the anchor to dislodge. On the following web site, Forces

This would correlate to a wind speed of 40 kts. (see one of the charts ABYC reference). Is this a correct assumption?

I am interested because this is my anchor and close to my rode setup. I use an all chain rode, 5/16'. I normally use 1:5 scope. Most of the areas we anchor at have similar bottom as the test.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

KuckelB: I plugged my boat length (10 meters) into the calculator contained in the article you linked. The wind value needed to generate 900 lbs. was about 30 knot.

I then plugged your boat length (14 meters) into the calculator. The wind value needed to generate 900 lbs. was 24 knots.

How did you came up with the value of 900 lbs. equals 40 knots???

Note that just below the calculator in the article, the author states: those theoretical values seem largely overestimated - about 3 times the forces measured on headwind modern monohulls.

I agree with this last statement.

Steve

Most of the big anchor tests have 5000lbs of pull on the rode and many anchors in the 35lb range don't break out. In one test a Fortress FX37 (22lb) held at 5-1 scope and w 5000lb pull on the rode. At 3-1 the FX held 4500lbs. A 36lb Manson Supreme held at 4600lbs pull also at 3-1 scope.

900lbs of pull is a good test for my 30' boat but not for bigger boats. We're getting close to 300 posts and it may be easy to loose track of the intent of the original thread ..... Anchor Setting Videos.

Trawler forum calling Steve of Panope...do you copy Steve..?

Peter B said:

Trawler forum calling Steve of Panope...do you copy Steve..?

Click to expand...

Me-thinks he's gone goofy in the head for another boat so he might be 'somewhat' distracted for a time...then he'll have to redo all those tests with the new boat

No new boat but goofy in the head is always a possibility.

I've been working on a video that summarizes the testing done so far. It is turning out to be more work than I figured. Much respect for good film making and those who can do it (not me).

My standard test procedure, although quite informative, has started to become a little monotanous for me to execute. After I publish this 'summary' video, I will continue to test anchors but I will focus on finding new tests, new test areas and new techniques.

Steve

Two weeks ago:

OK I'll test my anchors across from the So entrance to the Swinomish Channel alongside Whidby Is. Must be similar to Steve's Pt Hudson spot. Nice depth and some current but nothing like Pt Hudson .. right in the mouth of Admaralty Inlet. Don't need a camera to see if they set and I'll rig a bridal on the stern to maximize my availible power for thrust. I'll try some of my old anchors like a sizeable flying boat SS Northill and revisit my old Dreadnought.
Gotta kick this flu first.

Panope said:

No new boat but goofy in the head is always a possibility.

I've been working on a video that summarizes the testing done so far. It is turning out to be more work than I figured. Much respect for good film making and those who can do it (not me).

My standard test procedure, although quite informative, has started to become a little monotanous for me to execute. After I publish this 'summary' video, I will continue to test anchors but I will focus on finding new tests, new test areas and new techniques.

Steve

Two weeks ago:

Click to expand...

Oh boy...you have my sympathy there Steve. I remember what a marathon it was editing down digital video I recorded on a UK trip back in 2011. To edit it down and burn it to DVDs, with some background music and a voice over to explain where it was etc, it took me to 2012, on and off. I might add I had a fairly large bunch of recordings because I was enjoying myself so much I basically shot anything that moved or looked interesting.

PS. Please don't forget many of us are still very keen to see that Sarca trip slot in action on the sea floor, and in real time - when it should - and not, when it shouldn't...hopefully...

Panope said:

My standard test procedure, although quite informative, has started to become a little monotonous for me to execute. After I publish this 'summary' video, I will continue to test anchors but I will focus on finding new tests, new test areas and new techniques....

Click to expand...

Steve,comparative anchor testing,in as identical conditions as possible, is inevitably repetitive. But how to get fair comparisons any other way? Along with others I appreciate your work, but it`s easy for us watching a 5 minute vid when it suits us, compared to you spending hours on the water and in post production to create it. I hope you find a way to continue without the monotony. Guest appearances by inquisitive sea creatures have helped.

Watched the whole thing Steve and your choosing the (I'll say favorite instead of best) anchor was interesting. I also was surprised you did that. Don't agree w you about the Mantus .. I'd get one and throw it out if it suffered damage under normal heavy usage. That Mantus is definitely a diver and instant setter. And I've always said holding power may be not as important as dependable setting. Especially for a long distance cruiser day after day setting the anchor in/on an unknown bottom.
My choice however is the AR Excel. I don't like the ballast chamber much as I'm sure it limits penetration ... to what degree I'm not knowing but that negative is there. Another negative is the slightly weaker ultra short scope performance. But both these weaknesses are really nit pick and hardly worth mentioning. Before your tests it could have been a big weakness. I still don't know the ultimate holding power of the Excel either but then You've heard me ... ultimate holding power isn't #1. But at this point for me the AR Excel is #1.

I hardly know you and it shows as I wouldn't have thought you'd choose the Spade over the Excel because of it's looks. And I've been a great admirer of the Spade for many years often saying that it looks like an anchor that couldn't be improved on PLUS it's beautiful.

I've most often said the Supreme was the best anchor but the clogging issue is a chronic problem to be sure but just how big the problem is .. is not well known. Your documented Supreme clogging could have been a fluke but this anchor does have that problem ... but IMO the degree of that problem isn't well known or known at all.

The SARCA is too big and cumbersome for my traditional hand deploying style and I like to keep my anchors off the bow. My dislike for the roll bar continues undiminished. And after your vids it looks like the Excel does everything the SARCA does (except for the slot advantage) .. not perfectly I will admit but close enough .. without a doubt in my mind. And I don't have a problem w the slot .. I think I understand it and feel comfortable w it.

I might add that my modified Supreme probably won't have a clogging problem at all w no roll bar. And my modified XYZ may surprise .. but it's also more of an unknown. That's an exciting word .. unknown.

Eric, your choice of the Excel as your favorite is perfectly understandable. It is a brilliant anchor.

These modern anchors are so much better than the old stuff, you really can't go wrong with any of them.

My inclusion of the "Steve's favorite anchor" segment of the video is more of a 'human interest' story than a technical finding.

Steve

I was just impressed with how impeccably clean your shop was.

Thanks Dave.

I guess I should make a mess of that shop while building an anchor..........

Steve,

Thank you for the series and the excellent summary. I suspect no future anchor test report will seem complete without videos of the anchors in action.

I found it interesting that your top choices were both ballasted. I would have thought the larger cross section of the ballasted toe would reduce penetration but this was not the case in your tests, including the "deep set".

Gilberto,
I think the ballast chambers DO impede penetration but like so many things the value of something outweighs (no pun intend) the drawbacks or limitations.
Another example is that the roll bar is far less effective at holding the boat than a good fluke but the orientation benefits make it worth having.