Anchor setting Videos
- Thread starter Panope
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,104
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
Bruce, I can see it does not go over or round the rope drum, I was referring to the white roller in the deck fitting ahead of that.
However, Steve has now sorted me out. The two chains are parts of separate rodes, so the chain is not taking the almost impossible circumnavigation of the set-up that it looked like it was doing...it would have defied physics actually, which is why I knew first impressions had to be wrong.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Mantus Re-setting.
I subjected the 44 pound Mantus Anchor to my repeated (10 times), back and forth re-set test. Performance was great. Let's add the Mantus to my list of anchors that perform perfectly in this very difficult test. The other winners were the Super Sarca, Sara Excel (Steel), and the Spade.
Re-call that the Manson Supreme had great difficulty with this test. My modifications of the anchor did improve the performance but it is still no match for the anchors listed above.
The Aluminum version of the Sarca Excel #5 (27 pounds) did quite well (but not perfect) with this test.
And most recently, the 10 pound Fortress FX-16 had significant problems re-setting during this test. It remains to be seen if a heavier Fortress anchor will perform better with this test.
Steve
Video #62
I subjected the 44 pound Mantus Anchor to my repeated (10 times), back and forth re-set test. Performance was great. Let's add the Mantus to my list of anchors that perform perfectly in this very difficult test. The other winners were the Super Sarca, Sara Excel (Steel), and the Spade.
Re-call that the Manson Supreme had great difficulty with this test. My modifications of the anchor did improve the performance but it is still no match for the anchors listed above.
The Aluminum version of the Sarca Excel #5 (27 pounds) did quite well (but not perfect) with this test.
And most recently, the 10 pound Fortress FX-16 had significant problems re-setting during this test. It remains to be seen if a heavier Fortress anchor will perform better with this test.
Steve
Video #62
Steve with sooo many videos of your exceptional anchor testing endeavor (think [hope] I watched em all!)... I don't recall; did you test Max anchors also?
Max Marine Products
Max Marine Products
Nomad Willy
Guru
Thanks so much for this excellent comprehensive and timely presentation.
Re the bruce/claw I d on't think any of us really understand it's dynamics. I had thought I'd "figured it out" several times only to turn my back on the theory and adopt another. It's got some very positive features and it's quite different from any other anchor. All the while I have this sneaking hunch that w the right modification it could be at least a top performer. But no one has figured that out yet if indeed it could be done or if there is any mod that would transform the anchor.
As an all-arround I agree w your choice of the Spade. Could be mine too if I had a chain winch and more chain on the rode. For you however I'd be just as inclined to choose the Mantus in Puget Sound and the the Manson or Excel to Alaska next week when you head out. However most of your readers here would probably use the Rocna based on the fact that so many think highly of it. Based both on advertising hype and word of mouth in the boating comunity. But if you test it I doubt if there would be much difference from what other tests have revealed ... except short scope and probable clogging like the Supreme. Since the first word in your post was Rocna I thought #486 was a test of the Rocna. I'm not on the edge of my chair for that but many here on TF are I'm sure.
As an analytical tool the angle scribed by a line from the attach point at the shank end to the attach point on the fluke could say a lot about anchor performance. Throat angle is what this is usually called but most or most all probably think it's the angle of the bulk of the shank to the fluke. But from a dynamic point of view I think it's attach point to attach point that counts. Notice the wide apparent angle of the Mantus compared to the Claw. But the Claw has the pronounced "L" shaped shank and the Mantus shank more or less points to the attach point on the fluke. Not unlike the Bugel anchor. And I think the shank of the Mantus must be thin to permit effective penetration. The shank of the Claw dos'nt impeed penetration until the bottom of the fluke is about 7" buried.
Re the bruce/claw I d on't think any of us really understand it's dynamics. I had thought I'd "figured it out" several times only to turn my back on the theory and adopt another. It's got some very positive features and it's quite different from any other anchor. All the while I have this sneaking hunch that w the right modification it could be at least a top performer. But no one has figured that out yet if indeed it could be done or if there is any mod that would transform the anchor.
As an all-arround I agree w your choice of the Spade. Could be mine too if I had a chain winch and more chain on the rode. For you however I'd be just as inclined to choose the Mantus in Puget Sound and the the Manson or Excel to Alaska next week when you head out. However most of your readers here would probably use the Rocna based on the fact that so many think highly of it. Based both on advertising hype and word of mouth in the boating comunity. But if you test it I doubt if there would be much difference from what other tests have revealed ... except short scope and probable clogging like the Supreme. Since the first word in your post was Rocna I thought #486 was a test of the Rocna. I'm not on the edge of my chair for that but many here on TF are I'm sure.
As an analytical tool the angle scribed by a line from the attach point at the shank end to the attach point on the fluke could say a lot about anchor performance. Throat angle is what this is usually called but most or most all probably think it's the angle of the bulk of the shank to the fluke. But from a dynamic point of view I think it's attach point to attach point that counts. Notice the wide apparent angle of the Mantus compared to the Claw. But the Claw has the pronounced "L" shaped shank and the Mantus shank more or less points to the attach point on the fluke. Not unlike the Bugel anchor. And I think the shank of the Mantus must be thin to permit effective penetration. The shank of the Claw dos'nt impeed penetration until the bottom of the fluke is about 7" buried.
psneeld
Guru
I am lost too...not with your posts though....the video matches the title.
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Eric, I agree 100% with these statements. Mind you, I have no idea what that imaginary line angle should be. It probably varies a bit from one design to another as tip weight, fluke shape, and other variables must come into play.
I've never built an anchor, but I presume that getting that angle correct is mostly by trial and error for those who do.
Steve
Nomad Willy
Guru
Yup,
I was watching the Rocna vid and got interupted (breakfast) w/o actually seeing the Rocna in the vid due to all the swirling sand and weed.
Then I got onto the older vid and though .....
All my above comments stand (I think) and it's a good reflection of the poor short scope performance on several anchor tests (one or two). I think the easily compacted fluke tip is a result of the way the tip is shaped. Most anchors have an inverted "V" shaped fluke tip whereas the Rocna's tip is shaped like an upright V. The inverted V sheds the mud/sand whereas the upright V tends to build up the mud. And because of the upright V a greater surface area is provided to pile up mud ... and I suppose one thing leads to another .. or in this case more of the same.
When on one of the anchor tests a testing person asked Smith (from Rocna) about the problem. Smith said one should'nt set an anchor at 3-1. He said he recomends his customers set at 5-1 and then shorten up. But what's the point of that if it won't hold at 3-1 anyway? So w many anchors that set fine at 3-1 and hold fine at 3-1 why buy a Rocna? One obvious reason is that the Rocna may be the highest holding power steel anchor in the world at long scope. It is IMO but only by a very small margin compared to anchors like Supreme and Spade. Many think only fools anchor at 3-1 so it dos'nt matter. At least many of us do anchor at 3-1 and are very interested in short scope performance. But the big question is will the Rocna hold at short scope. Compared to other anchors as evidenced by numerous anchor tests it dosn't but I'd like to see your test on the same bottom as the other anchors and otherwise w most all the variables the same to see how the Rocna holds at 3-1 and considerably less .. As many other anchors did.
What do you (or anybody else) think of my shank angle/throat angle thoughts? It's one of those things that is hard to express in words and I don't know if I'm being understood. I know many don't try to figure out what I'm saying on these wordy wanderings I fairly often do.
I was watching the Rocna vid and got interupted (breakfast) w/o actually seeing the Rocna in the vid due to all the swirling sand and weed.
Then I got onto the older vid and though .....
All my above comments stand (I think) and it's a good reflection of the poor short scope performance on several anchor tests (one or two). I think the easily compacted fluke tip is a result of the way the tip is shaped. Most anchors have an inverted "V" shaped fluke tip whereas the Rocna's tip is shaped like an upright V. The inverted V sheds the mud/sand whereas the upright V tends to build up the mud. And because of the upright V a greater surface area is provided to pile up mud ... and I suppose one thing leads to another .. or in this case more of the same.
When on one of the anchor tests a testing person asked Smith (from Rocna) about the problem. Smith said one should'nt set an anchor at 3-1. He said he recomends his customers set at 5-1 and then shorten up. But what's the point of that if it won't hold at 3-1 anyway? So w many anchors that set fine at 3-1 and hold fine at 3-1 why buy a Rocna? One obvious reason is that the Rocna may be the highest holding power steel anchor in the world at long scope. It is IMO but only by a very small margin compared to anchors like Supreme and Spade. Many think only fools anchor at 3-1 so it dos'nt matter. At least many of us do anchor at 3-1 and are very interested in short scope performance. But the big question is will the Rocna hold at short scope. Compared to other anchors as evidenced by numerous anchor tests it dosn't but I'd like to see your test on the same bottom as the other anchors and otherwise w most all the variables the same to see how the Rocna holds at 3-1 and considerably less .. As many other anchors did.
What do you (or anybody else) think of my shank angle/throat angle thoughts? It's one of those things that is hard to express in words and I don't know if I'm being understood. I know many don't try to figure out what I'm saying on these wordy wanderings I fairly often do.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Oh yes I'm sure it varies and in a sort-of design dance w all the other variables.
Re the "trial and error" you think happens I'm sure it does but IMO it probably falls way way short of what they and we would like. Throat angle? One would need to make 4 or perhaps more anchors w slight variations re one element of design and w all the others remaining constant. And how many details are there to test? Many many many IMO.
So no IMO there is very little testing done. It takes soooo much time and money the elements of marketing just won't allow it.
Haha and getting that line/throat angle correct is usually decided by copying another anchor. Not likely by trial and error.
A long time ago BruceK told me to quit modifying other people's anchors and design my own. That would be quite an undertaking I think. First I'd have to learn to weld .............
Last edited:
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Eric, you may be right that many anchor design elements are simply 'copied' by some anchor designers.
However, I have a strong feeling that Rex Francis has a pile of prototype anchors taller than you or me. No other way to explain why his anchors work so well.
Steve
However, I have a strong feeling that Rex Francis has a pile of prototype anchors taller than you or me. No other way to explain why his anchors work so well.
Steve
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,104
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
Having had a long chat about anchors with Rex several times, I think you are more right than you know Steve.
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
"Possibly the most common manual anchor windlass ever made"
The SL 555 was always top of the line , but always expensive, so not that many were purchased .
For the same bucks a cheapo power unit could be had , so that was the choice of the 5x a year anchor folks..
The SL 555 is probably one of the best , longets lasting hand jobs , but there only common now because the lasted ,where the cheapos failed and were deep 6ed.
The SL 555 was always top of the line , but always expensive, so not that many were purchased .
For the same bucks a cheapo power unit could be had , so that was the choice of the 5x a year anchor folks..
The SL 555 is probably one of the best , longets lasting hand jobs , but there only common now because the lasted ,where the cheapos failed and were deep 6ed.
"Brand new" in the box, i.e. totally unused 1970's/80's model... 
Nomad Willy
Guru
Peter, Steve,
I think the anchor research varies widely. I remember Rex showing pics of one of the prototypes for the SARCA that had a convex fluke .. Like the Rocna. V shaped. That dosn't mean they made 5 or 6 anchors the same except for throat angle to find the right angle. And then of course there's the testing and it appears ARA did most of their testing on the beach. And if the kind of research I was talking about was going on I doubt there would be dragging anchor on the beach. I have the utmost respect for Rex and he probably has done more research than most on anchors.
That's why we've got so many anchors that are considerably or way different from many others. I think there's 12 to 15 very different anchors on the US market alone. When real research is done there will probably be only two or three different anchors because all the others will have been found inferrior and died on the marketplace.
Art,
I bought a capstan in Surry BC for less than that new .. a prototype. I won't buy another Powerwinch because they have a very high speed gear taking the whole load that's only abour 5/8ths". Mine failed in a trailer boat winch and when I saw the little tiny gear it was obvious why it failed. The capstan I bought is an Endurance by brand. But you've got the Powerwinch and it will be just fine .. untill it breaks. One thing I like about the Powerwinch is the saddle shaped drum. Mine is straight except turned up at the ends. I had problems w that before but not w the new one.
Re Steve's tests the anchors I'd like so see dragged around a bit is the Boss and the Vulcan. Both have very long shanks .. the Vulcan's probably being heavier than the Boss but both must be heavy. The ballast chamber adds much more weight to the Vulcan so the fluke surface area must be about as small as anchors get. And quite a few anchor experts have said fluke surface area is directly proportional to holding power. Steve you like the Spade for some of the reasons I like the Vulcan. I've always been a fan of the Spade anchor. Both anchors lack fluke surface area but the Boss almost certianly has more.
The Boss (I'm guessing) has a rather light and large fluke. So it could be a higher performing anchor. Also I'm sure the reason Spade is the only one w built up hollow shank (oops other than Ultra) and I'll bet they felt they had to do it because the shank was so long. But of course the design and length of the shank was/is no heavier than most roll bar anchors w a shank AND a rool bar.
Anyway I think both of these anchors are top performers and getting more familiar w them will be a definite plus.
So if you find one lay'in on the float Steve drag it around a bit .. on stage.
I think the anchor research varies widely. I remember Rex showing pics of one of the prototypes for the SARCA that had a convex fluke .. Like the Rocna. V shaped. That dosn't mean they made 5 or 6 anchors the same except for throat angle to find the right angle. And then of course there's the testing and it appears ARA did most of their testing on the beach. And if the kind of research I was talking about was going on I doubt there would be dragging anchor on the beach. I have the utmost respect for Rex and he probably has done more research than most on anchors.
That's why we've got so many anchors that are considerably or way different from many others. I think there's 12 to 15 very different anchors on the US market alone. When real research is done there will probably be only two or three different anchors because all the others will have been found inferrior and died on the marketplace.
Art,
I bought a capstan in Surry BC for less than that new .. a prototype. I won't buy another Powerwinch because they have a very high speed gear taking the whole load that's only abour 5/8ths". Mine failed in a trailer boat winch and when I saw the little tiny gear it was obvious why it failed. The capstan I bought is an Endurance by brand. But you've got the Powerwinch and it will be just fine .. untill it breaks. One thing I like about the Powerwinch is the saddle shaped drum. Mine is straight except turned up at the ends. I had problems w that before but not w the new one.
Re Steve's tests the anchors I'd like so see dragged around a bit is the Boss and the Vulcan. Both have very long shanks .. the Vulcan's probably being heavier than the Boss but both must be heavy. The ballast chamber adds much more weight to the Vulcan so the fluke surface area must be about as small as anchors get. And quite a few anchor experts have said fluke surface area is directly proportional to holding power. Steve you like the Spade for some of the reasons I like the Vulcan. I've always been a fan of the Spade anchor. Both anchors lack fluke surface area but the Boss almost certianly has more.
The Boss (I'm guessing) has a rather light and large fluke. So it could be a higher performing anchor. Also I'm sure the reason Spade is the only one w built up hollow shank (oops other than Ultra) and I'll bet they felt they had to do it because the shank was so long. But of course the design and length of the shank was/is no heavier than most roll bar anchors w a shank AND a rool bar.
Anyway I think both of these anchors are top performers and getting more familiar w them will be a definite plus.
So if you find one lay'in on the float Steve drag it around a bit .. on stage.
Last edited:
dhmeissner
Guru
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,569
- Location
- North America
- Vessel Name
- The Promise
- Vessel Make
- Roughwater 35
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Ha, caught red handed!
It sure is nice to just drop an anchor without a bunch of camera stuff, and actually leave it in the water long enough to have a beer.
Happy 4th of July.
Steve
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
I spent a couple nights at one of my favorite coves swinging in light winds to the 44 pound Steel Spade anchor.
In the Salish sea, vegetation can be be heavy when water depth is less than 20 feet and this spot is a prime example. High tide depth was about 16 feet and low tide was about 6 feet.
The anchor set rapidly from a 1 knot backdown and held 3,000 RPM reverse power (sorry, no video footage of the set).
I attached the GoPro camera to a telescoping boat-hook and was able to scan the bottom thoroughly from Panope's foredeck. Unfortunately, we cannot see the anchor until it is raised out of the weeds.
Steve
In the Salish sea, vegetation can be be heavy when water depth is less than 20 feet and this spot is a prime example. High tide depth was about 16 feet and low tide was about 6 feet.
The anchor set rapidly from a 1 knot backdown and held 3,000 RPM reverse power (sorry, no video footage of the set).
I attached the GoPro camera to a telescoping boat-hook and was able to scan the bottom thoroughly from Panope's foredeck. Unfortunately, we cannot see the anchor until it is raised out of the weeds.
Steve
Nomad Willy
Guru
Good day to you Steve,
I hope you don't think badly of me for saying so but I think if you slowed down to a walking pace or less that would be representive of a tide or wind change. Those flukes in your vid are very light and literally flying through the water. How would that happen in a regular anchoring situation? Would be a very far fetched scenario indeed. Are you testing the Fortress or your test?
Re the Bruce/Claw I think it's a design problem. Too much throat angle or the outboard flukes interfeering w the center fluke. Perhaps the outboard flukes digging up the substrate loosening it up so the main center of the fluke essentially sees a pocket of marbles or loose sand. I'll bet the Danforth would act like the Bruce in your tests if it was modified to a greater throat angle. Do you have a Claw that could be cut and modified for a lower fluke angle? I have a 22lb Lewmar but not quite ready to cut it up. There is a Claw that is classier looking and sharper than the other Claws I've seen ... a Sea Dog. What's you're theory on the Bruce/Claw breaking out?
I hope you don't think badly of me for saying so but I think if you slowed down to a walking pace or less that would be representive of a tide or wind change. Those flukes in your vid are very light and literally flying through the water. How would that happen in a regular anchoring situation? Would be a very far fetched scenario indeed. Are you testing the Fortress or your test?
Re the Bruce/Claw I think it's a design problem. Too much throat angle or the outboard flukes interfeering w the center fluke. Perhaps the outboard flukes digging up the substrate loosening it up so the main center of the fluke essentially sees a pocket of marbles or loose sand. I'll bet the Danforth would act like the Bruce in your tests if it was modified to a greater throat angle. Do you have a Claw that could be cut and modified for a lower fluke angle? I have a 22lb Lewmar but not quite ready to cut it up. There is a Claw that is classier looking and sharper than the other Claws I've seen ... a Sea Dog. What's you're theory on the Bruce/Claw breaking out?
psneeld
Guru
That picture looks very familiar...a hopelessly fouled danforth.
Was in the parking lot the other day spray galvanizing an old danforth that I am selling.
Some guy out of the blue walks up and starts complaining how his never works.
Had to agree with him, lost a sale because I was about to say how mine was a "magic" danforth.
Was in the parking lot the other day spray galvanizing an old danforth that I am selling.
Some guy out of the blue walks up and starts complaining how his never works.
Had to agree with him, lost a sale because I was about to say how mine was a "magic" danforth.
Emma - Way too cool/cute! Thanks so much!
We are picking up two of our grands in an hour, Harlow Girl 4 yrs. old (born on my B-Day) / Wiley boy 1 yr. old... born on his day!
You gonna have Emma test other anchors. Bests tests yet! - IMHO
We are picking up two of our grands in an hour, Harlow Girl 4 yrs. old (born on my B-Day) / Wiley boy 1 yr. old... born on his day!
You gonna have Emma test other anchors. Bests tests yet! - IMHO
Nomad Willy
Guru
Steve,
Watched per your instructions " See video below. Start watching at the 4:40 mark and note that the boat speed varies between 2 knots and 0 knots with the flukes hopelessly fouled with seabed and pointed upward" Yes but I think the slot was fouled before you slowed down.
I wrote "Are you testing the Fortress or your test?" I'm thinking if you were testing the anchor you'd be testing it for something it was designed to do. You would'nt test car starting at -170 degrees f because cars are'nt designed to start when it's that cold. And a test is only as good as what it reveals. You've revealed that the Fortress anchor failed to do what it was'nt designed to do. A firecracker won't blow up a tractor and if you test it for that nothing is learned because everybody knows a firecracker will not blow up a tractor so the test revealed nothing. Your test showed something but that something is so unlikely to happen it's pointless .. almost .. but it did show how some anchors can get fouled and become inoperative and others in the same situation perform well. As evidenced by psneeld's post above most of us know the Danforth type anchor is not bulletproof re fouling. So seeing it happen is more valid that hearing about it so the test indeed has value. But very little ..as the chances of that happening to one of us is extremely low. The chances of a Danforth type anchor holding whereas many other (perhaps most) anchors will break out is perhaps 1000 times as great as the Danforth getting fouled to the point of becoming inoperative. So only one advantage of the design extremely outweighs the fouling in an extreme reversal. And there are many design advantages of the Danforth. Don't know what the numbers are re the chances but one could easily say the Danforth types wer'nt designed to do the reversals you're doing on the sea floor you're using.
It's interesting to see what anchors will do in an extreme scenario but is it information one can use selecting a new anchor? Maybe but only after seriously considering 15 or likely many more other more important elements of anchor design.
Again I'd like to see a normal reversal w this anchor.
Watched per your instructions " See video below. Start watching at the 4:40 mark and note that the boat speed varies between 2 knots and 0 knots with the flukes hopelessly fouled with seabed and pointed upward" Yes but I think the slot was fouled before you slowed down.
I wrote "Are you testing the Fortress or your test?" I'm thinking if you were testing the anchor you'd be testing it for something it was designed to do. You would'nt test car starting at -170 degrees f because cars are'nt designed to start when it's that cold. And a test is only as good as what it reveals. You've revealed that the Fortress anchor failed to do what it was'nt designed to do. A firecracker won't blow up a tractor and if you test it for that nothing is learned because everybody knows a firecracker will not blow up a tractor so the test revealed nothing. Your test showed something but that something is so unlikely to happen it's pointless .. almost .. but it did show how some anchors can get fouled and become inoperative and others in the same situation perform well. As evidenced by psneeld's post above most of us know the Danforth type anchor is not bulletproof re fouling. So seeing it happen is more valid that hearing about it so the test indeed has value. But very little ..as the chances of that happening to one of us is extremely low. The chances of a Danforth type anchor holding whereas many other (perhaps most) anchors will break out is perhaps 1000 times as great as the Danforth getting fouled to the point of becoming inoperative. So only one advantage of the design extremely outweighs the fouling in an extreme reversal. And there are many design advantages of the Danforth. Don't know what the numbers are re the chances but one could easily say the Danforth types wer'nt designed to do the reversals you're doing on the sea floor you're using.
It's interesting to see what anchors will do in an extreme scenario but is it information one can use selecting a new anchor? Maybe but only after seriously considering 15 or likely many more other more important elements of anchor design.
Again I'd like to see a normal reversal w this anchor.
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Eric, you asked to see a reverse test at "walking pace or less". I then showed you a video of the anchor undergoing a reverse test at 2 knots. I looked up "walking speed" and found that for older folks it is 2.8 mph. for younger folks it is 3.4 mph. Now you want something else.
We all know what a Fortress Anchor (or virtually any other anchor) will do when the reverse pull is applied slowly and the "reverse" direction is something other that 180 degrees: it will just about always pivot or shuffle around and stay engaged to the seabed. I know it, you know it, and everybody else who has been watching my videos. knows it.
If you still have to ask why I am testing in a worst case scenario, (a question that I am growing very weary of answering) I am afraid you will never understand my answer.
I am beginning to think that no matter what I do, you will not be satisfied.
Steve
We all know what a Fortress Anchor (or virtually any other anchor) will do when the reverse pull is applied slowly and the "reverse" direction is something other that 180 degrees: it will just about always pivot or shuffle around and stay engaged to the seabed. I know it, you know it, and everybody else who has been watching my videos. knows it.
If you still have to ask why I am testing in a worst case scenario, (a question that I am growing very weary of answering) I am afraid you will never understand my answer.
I am beginning to think that no matter what I do, you will not be satisfied.
Steve
Last edited:
Similar threads
