Nomad Willy
Guru
A real world reversal will suffice.
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.
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
Anchor discussion on TF was ever thus.
Personally,I have gained much information from the SV Panope testing, and appreciate Steve went the extra mile to specifically test theories doubting particular aspects of testing, including using a different, lighter, boat.
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
My first Fortress test from 8 months ago. Reverse course ended up being 150 degrees from the original set. Anchor pivots and stays engaged with the seabed.
I stand by my guess that you will not be satisfied.
psneeld
Guru
QUOTE=Panope;463157]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[/QUOTE]
Don't even try...you have done what no one has done before, done it well and owe no one anything.
If they want something else from you, even one word...I would have them contact my PayPal account...
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[/QUOTE]
Don't even try...you have done what no one has done before, done it well and owe no one anything.
If they want something else from you, even one word...I would have them contact my PayPal account...
Nomad Willy
Guru
Steve,
OK good .. you deliver.
I'm beginning to think the problem is impaction on the flukes when the anchor flips. The substrate impacted on the upper surface of the flukes is suddenly on the bottom when the anchor flips. And w the 3 knot speed the flukes are held up long enough for the speed to snap back and then the lift from the fwd motion keep them up above the bottom preventing the flukes from catching the bottom and resetting. Of course that requires a near perfect 180 degree reversal. Perhaps the impaction factor would be far less at your other test site .. or nonexistant.
Oh well it's fly stuff as it's probably not going to happen to the vast majority of us but you've shown that it does happen.
I made two sets w my mod Supreme sans roll bar and w fence on top of the shank and had two very excellent sets. Held well but I've probably got some barnacles as rpm was down. Getting the prop cleaned Monday.
OK good .. you deliver.
I'm beginning to think the problem is impaction on the flukes when the anchor flips. The substrate impacted on the upper surface of the flukes is suddenly on the bottom when the anchor flips. And w the 3 knot speed the flukes are held up long enough for the speed to snap back and then the lift from the fwd motion keep them up above the bottom preventing the flukes from catching the bottom and resetting. Of course that requires a near perfect 180 degree reversal. Perhaps the impaction factor would be far less at your other test site .. or nonexistant.
Oh well it's fly stuff as it's probably not going to happen to the vast majority of us but you've shown that it does happen.
I made two sets w my mod Supreme sans roll bar and w fence on top of the shank and had two very excellent sets. Held well but I've probably got some barnacles as rpm was down. Getting the prop cleaned Monday.
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Here is another idea about the "speed" of a re-set. If you re-watch my most recent Fortress video you will see on the first "re-set" during the "instant re-play" at the 1:20 mark, that the chain stops for a moment while the nylon portion of the rode stretches like a rubber band. When the anchor finally releases, the stored energy in the rode causes a much faster movement of the anchor. It is my belief that even if the boat was traveling at .01 knots, there would be times when a nylon rode would cause a released anchor to momentarily travel at some very high speed.
Here is another example of this "rubber band release": It is my Forfjord "deep set" test. Notice that when the anchor releases at the 5:00 minute mark, this (65lb.) anchor INSTANTLY accelerates to a very high speed (6? 8? 10? knots?) even though the boat was moving at less than 0.1 knots. This rode has a significant portion of nylon.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Yes that's true but ....
The nylon line acting like a rubber band * is dependant on a good bit of resistance to wind up the rubber band. With an anchor well set even a straight over the top should provide such resistance. After the instant the light Fortress breaks out I'm supprised the Fortress dos'nt fly up 5 or 8' as it rushes in the other direction.
And unless it's a near perfect 180 the flip won't happen. And then of course it's sometimes shank bending time varying tremendously on the brand of Danforth used. The Fortress is no doubt far far less likely to experience the bent shank and the really cheap Dans should bend very easily. I have several of the better made Dans and I still question the strength of the shanks. One I'm sure must be very high alloy/carbon steel .. but they are skinny.
But I could talk all day about skinny shanks and then justify the type by simply stating the fact that the type is the highest holding power in the world. And that's been the case since 1938. Long live the Dan. But the've been pinching fingers and gennerally making anchoring grief (usually just annoying) for decades.
*Lay out 30 or 40' of nylon line and pull on it. It's amazing how it seems like a rubber band. Lots of energy gets stored up.
The nylon line acting like a rubber band * is dependant on a good bit of resistance to wind up the rubber band. With an anchor well set even a straight over the top should provide such resistance. After the instant the light Fortress breaks out I'm supprised the Fortress dos'nt fly up 5 or 8' as it rushes in the other direction.
And unless it's a near perfect 180 the flip won't happen. And then of course it's sometimes shank bending time varying tremendously on the brand of Danforth used. The Fortress is no doubt far far less likely to experience the bent shank and the really cheap Dans should bend very easily. I have several of the better made Dans and I still question the strength of the shanks. One I'm sure must be very high alloy/carbon steel .. but they are skinny.
But I could talk all day about skinny shanks and then justify the type by simply stating the fact that the type is the highest holding power in the world. And that's been the case since 1938. Long live the Dan. But the've been pinching fingers and gennerally making anchoring grief (usually just annoying) for decades.
*Lay out 30 or 40' of nylon line and pull on it. It's amazing how it seems like a rubber band. Lots of energy gets stored up.
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Eric, the following is just a re-cap of my previous test where I bent the shank of my Fortress FX-16.
In this test, the Shank was bent at either the 1st re-set (5:40 mark) or the 2nd re-set (5:55 mark). We have no way of confirming it, but my suspicion is that it bent during the later event. Rode was all chain. Certainly, a nylon rode would have reduced the extreme shock that I placed on the anchor.
(Note: I do not believe there is a flaw in the design strength of this Fortress anchor. I believe the anchor was undersized for this boat when being used in the conditions that the test was trying to simulate. I love my Fortress anchor, but not for use off the bow of my boat in a "swinging" anchorage.)
Steve
In this test, the Shank was bent at either the 1st re-set (5:40 mark) or the 2nd re-set (5:55 mark). We have no way of confirming it, but my suspicion is that it bent during the later event. Rode was all chain. Certainly, a nylon rode would have reduced the extreme shock that I placed on the anchor.
(Note: I do not believe there is a flaw in the design strength of this Fortress anchor. I believe the anchor was undersized for this boat when being used in the conditions that the test was trying to simulate. I love my Fortress anchor, but not for use off the bow of my boat in a "swinging" anchorage.)
Steve
Nomad Willy
Guru
Steve,
Yes I think you're right. I probably would'nt bend a properly sized Fortress on my boat (smaller than Panope) but w your boat and the high performance test you use and the undersized anchor the bent shank says "hey I'm over stressed".
With a smaller boat, a bigger anchor and under 1 knot reversal speeds almost certainly flawless performances would come to pass.
Perhaps the question needs to be asked .. did Fortress design their anchor to do 3+ knot reversals. Does any manufacturer. Or perhaps the question dos'nt need asking because no anchor manufacturer does. Perhaps anchors are designed to be the best that they can be and their limits fall where they will.
Again a test is good if it reveals usable information. But the scenario you've created .. anchor, boat size, anchor size, bottom and setting dynamics is not likely to be duplicated. So not very usable for specific anchor buying information but when compared to the many other anchors tested it reveals lots and lots of trends and general anchor behavior. This is not only very revealing but very useful for buying anchors and also greatly adding to one's knowledge of how to deploy anchors.
So very valid useful Steve. But often not ideally matched in the many variables.
Re the validity of the Danforth type there is only one anchor I always have on my boat .. a 13lb Danforth anchor.
Yes I think you're right. I probably would'nt bend a properly sized Fortress on my boat (smaller than Panope) but w your boat and the high performance test you use and the undersized anchor the bent shank says "hey I'm over stressed".
With a smaller boat, a bigger anchor and under 1 knot reversal speeds almost certainly flawless performances would come to pass.
Perhaps the question needs to be asked .. did Fortress design their anchor to do 3+ knot reversals. Does any manufacturer. Or perhaps the question dos'nt need asking because no anchor manufacturer does. Perhaps anchors are designed to be the best that they can be and their limits fall where they will.
Again a test is good if it reveals usable information. But the scenario you've created .. anchor, boat size, anchor size, bottom and setting dynamics is not likely to be duplicated. So not very usable for specific anchor buying information but when compared to the many other anchors tested it reveals lots and lots of trends and general anchor behavior. This is not only very revealing but very useful for buying anchors and also greatly adding to one's knowledge of how to deploy anchors.
So very valid useful Steve. But often not ideally matched in the many variables.
Re the validity of the Danforth type there is only one anchor I always have on my boat .. a 13lb Danforth anchor.
I read and watch most if not all items on this thread. Steve, you have performed exceptionally with generally well constructed anchor tests. Much, much thanks form me regarding all your efforts!
Two factors I feel should be addressed regarding some of your reverse direction reset tests:
1. When a wind is blowing it is seldom if ever that said wind performs an immediate reversal in direction.
2. When the current reverses direction it takes at the shortest of time spans at least a few minutes to fully reverse its direction. And, then, when doing so, the current begins to move from near zero speed to slowly (taking at least many minutes) gain speed to eventually reach its full flow.
That said; it seems to me that doing reverse direction anchor resets at much above 1/4 to 1/2 knot speed does not correctly depict natural conditions.
If I'm incorrect in my assertion please let me know why.
Cheers!
Art
Two factors I feel should be addressed regarding some of your reverse direction reset tests:
1. When a wind is blowing it is seldom if ever that said wind performs an immediate reversal in direction.
2. When the current reverses direction it takes at the shortest of time spans at least a few minutes to fully reverse its direction. And, then, when doing so, the current begins to move from near zero speed to slowly (taking at least many minutes) gain speed to eventually reach its full flow.
That said; it seems to me that doing reverse direction anchor resets at much above 1/4 to 1/2 knot speed does not correctly depict natural conditions.
If I'm incorrect in my assertion please let me know why.
Cheers!
Art
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Eric, I like you. You have a very inquisitive mind. You are not afraid to think outside the box. You are confident enough to modify your own anchors. You have some very good ideas. This is all very very cool and I commend you for all that you have added to these (numerous) anchor discussions.
Steve
Nomad Willy
Guru
I'm totally disarmed of course.
Thought you were fed up w me critisizing your methods and thinking so I did'nt look here for a day or so.
Many thanks for the compliments but more importantly the "I like you". Very few on this forum are open enough to say that and I don't think I've heard it before here.
But now how can I critisize you. I'd say nice move Steve but that may sound combative. I'll PM you when I get home .. at Starbucks.
Here goes again ...
I haven't thought much about the tether to the camera and float but giving it some thought re this very light anchor I do think the tether is getting into the act. Dragging the camera and float along at 3 knots would create quite a pull on the tether. Add the lift of the float and the very light flukes and I think ... there's a problem. Had'nt considered the drag of the float and camera before.
Thought you were fed up w me critisizing your methods and thinking so I did'nt look here for a day or so.
Many thanks for the compliments but more importantly the "I like you". Very few on this forum are open enough to say that and I don't think I've heard it before here.
But now how can I critisize you. I'd say nice move Steve but that may sound combative. I'll PM you when I get home .. at Starbucks.
Here goes again ...
I haven't thought much about the tether to the camera and float but giving it some thought re this very light anchor I do think the tether is getting into the act. Dragging the camera and float along at 3 knots would create quite a pull on the tether. Add the lift of the float and the very light flukes and I think ... there's a problem. Had'nt considered the drag of the float and camera before.
Nomad Willy
Guru
Steve,
I reread and see this;
" So not very usable for specific anchor buying information but when compared to the many other anchors tested (that is exactly what I am doing.) it reveals lots and lots of trends and general anchor behavior. This is not only very revealing but very useful for buying anchors and also greatly adding to one's knowledge of how to deploy anchors. This is confusing. You say the info is "not very usable" then you say the info is "very usable" ??"
I was trying to say some of the testing re a specific anchor may not be good purchasing/buying information as a poor performance in an unusual action/scenario could make a very good anchor look not so good for average situations. But everything learned over time w many different anchors and time to reflect is very valuable (usable) information. Many here have commented on how much they have learned from your tests (me included) but no anchor test can test for all conceivable situations .. so we take what we can get.
Sorry about the bad scramble of words.
I reread and see this;
" So not very usable for specific anchor buying information but when compared to the many other anchors tested (that is exactly what I am doing.) it reveals lots and lots of trends and general anchor behavior. This is not only very revealing but very useful for buying anchors and also greatly adding to one's knowledge of how to deploy anchors. This is confusing. You say the info is "not very usable" then you say the info is "very usable" ??"
I was trying to say some of the testing re a specific anchor may not be good purchasing/buying information as a poor performance in an unusual action/scenario could make a very good anchor look not so good for average situations. But everything learned over time w many different anchors and time to reflect is very valuable (usable) information. Many here have commented on how much they have learned from your tests (me included) but no anchor test can test for all conceivable situations .. so we take what we can get.
Sorry about the bad scramble of words.
Moonstruck
Guru
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 8,276
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Moonstruck
- Vessel Make
- Sabre 42 Hardtop Express
Hole
Just buy a Sarca ExCel. Rex has done all the work for you.
rochepoint
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2009
- Messages
- 1,747
- Location
- Sidney BC, Canada
- Vessel Name
- Roche Point
- Vessel Make
- 1985 Cheer Men PT38 Sedan
MurrayM
Guru
Hey, I was just acknowledging the mans determined curiosity streak which impels him to keep experimenting until he finds an answer, while the rest of us (if we do ponder such things) usually give it only a passing thought whist scratching our asses.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,104
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
Yes, exactly so, and the interesting experiment Steve has just conducted indeed proves that it is the suction effect that holds retained bottom substrate that has been compressed onto the fluke. Net result, it stays put, thus interfering with fluke action in such a way as to cause it to pop out of the bottom. This supports the concept that it is the slots or holes that allow that suction to be broken, allowing the junk to slide off as the anchor rotates, and not therefore impeding the re-set.
However, another interesting thing Steve's experiment just revealed is that the mud remained stuck where there were no holes Personal experience is this does not tend to happen much unless the mud is exceptionally sticky, with the Sarca range, suggesting the concave shape of the Manson and Rocna flukes contributes to that lump of mud staying put, whereas the convex fluke shape of the Sarcas does not. Probably helping to explain why the older plow type anchors are still so popular - as long as you can get them to set.
Well done Steve. You have sacrificed your Manson on the altar of truth, and you found it - the truth that is. No-one else has actually proven so graphically what you just proved as far as I know - other than Rex way back when, that is...and we never saw that.
Last edited by a moderator:
BruceK
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 13,347
- Vessel Name
- Sojourn
- Vessel Make
- Integrity 386
It`s a brave man who modifies an established anchor manufacturers design to see if it can be improved. Though thinking about it, Eric has been doing that for quite a while.
It is surprising that some simple changes, which reflect parts of the Sarca design, would have such an effect on resetting. I wonder where this takes Manson, and if Sarca minds having its ideas borrowed. I guess it`s all in the spirit of safer anchoring and in any event, quite a nice compliment for Sarca.
It is surprising that some simple changes, which reflect parts of the Sarca design, would have such an effect on resetting. I wonder where this takes Manson, and if Sarca minds having its ideas borrowed. I guess it`s all in the spirit of safer anchoring and in any event, quite a nice compliment for Sarca.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,104
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
drb1025
Guru
Sorry, that was an inadvertent post. Must have fallen asleep reading TF.
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Rex Francis (Anchor Right) called me yesterday after viewing this latest video and we had a nice chat about perforated flukes, and general anchor ramblings. Naturally, he thought my investigations are great as my drilled fluke testing affirms this technology that he himself developed.
He also wanted me to let people know that he holds patents on his anchors that include holes in the fluke. He as no problem with individuals drilling holes in their personal anchors but he (like myself) caution that any drilling will weaken the structure, possibly to the point of becoming unsafe.
Additionally, he wants it do be known that he does not want another manufacturer to take advantage of this concept (holes in fluke) and he feels that his patent coverage is broad and enforceable.
I hope the comradary that I share with Rex does not lead to anyone believing that I give preferential treatment to his anchors. Prior to viewing my initial group of test videos, Rex did not know anything about me. What he saw in my videos (and my boat project) was a person who, in his words, is a "real bloke". His trust in me, coupled with the faith he has in his own products, gave him the confidence to start sending anchors to me from halfway around the world - no strings attached. Two of his anchors have performed perfectly in my tests but for a third anchor, it was not all roses. This was disappointing for Rex but I will say that he accepted the results fully.
I even chose a non-Anchor Right product as my favorite personal anchor (Spade).
Steve
He also wanted me to let people know that he holds patents on his anchors that include holes in the fluke. He as no problem with individuals drilling holes in their personal anchors but he (like myself) caution that any drilling will weaken the structure, possibly to the point of becoming unsafe.
Additionally, he wants it do be known that he does not want another manufacturer to take advantage of this concept (holes in fluke) and he feels that his patent coverage is broad and enforceable.
I hope the comradary that I share with Rex does not lead to anyone believing that I give preferential treatment to his anchors. Prior to viewing my initial group of test videos, Rex did not know anything about me. What he saw in my videos (and my boat project) was a person who, in his words, is a "real bloke". His trust in me, coupled with the faith he has in his own products, gave him the confidence to start sending anchors to me from halfway around the world - no strings attached. Two of his anchors have performed perfectly in my tests but for a third anchor, it was not all roses. This was disappointing for Rex but I will say that he accepted the results fully.
I even chose a non-Anchor Right product as my favorite personal anchor (Spade).
Steve
Nomad Willy
Guru
Great work Steve.
I had thought for years that the slots in AR anchors lessened the holding power just as if you put holes in the wing of an aircraft.
And I contemplated holes near the leading edge of my rudder as a sort of anti-stalling feature. Never did it mostly because my rudder works so well as it is.
You reshaped the toe of the Supreme sorta like the Rocna. The bevel of the toe tip bevels up and out (from the bottom) on your modified toe as does the Rocna. I've always thought beveling down w the wider surface under and smaller on top would be better.
I agree w you on taking out the heart shaped protrosions approx 1.5" behind the tip point. I cut about 80% of mine off. I wondered if Manson did that to increase the fluke area a bit there to aid setting. And I've seen the heart on other anchors as well.
The clogging of the concave flukes is an obvious thing. And the shape of the packed clog becomes the anchor. Far from concave (the best shape for flukes).
But the jury is still out on what effect the slots/holes have on holding power. The Excel may be good evidence that the slots don't reduce holding power. Haven't seen it go head to head on an anchor test w the Rocna, Supreme ect but will be very interested in the results when it happens.
I only used my Hogback Supreme once on our recent trip. Set at 2.5-1 in 48' of water and backed to 1400rpm. All went perfect including holding in 20+ winds. I need to do some dedicated anchor testing. Now I need to fix my boat.
My idea of building the great penetrating anchor could be flawed seriously by this clog issue. If the clog sticks to the fluke well enough the anchor will no longer be a slim thing that will slice through the bottom easily. But I still think removing the RB was a good move as I'm quite sure the RB is a major player in the clogging issue. It (RB) should greatly reduce the tendency of the bottom material (mud) to slide along the upper surface of the fluke because the RB is pushing down on the material trying to go through the hole (RB hole). So it's possible my removing the RB is reducing the clogging .. just in a different way. My Hogback has come up clean so far.
One anchor manufacturer put little (1/8") "buttons" on the fluke surface to reduce friction. Float planes take off easier w little waves on the water and "stick" to the water when it's glassy smooth. So it's possible the polished SS anchors may not work as well but I'll bet they actually work better .. but don't know.
Another thing is that the slots/holes may be a blessing in mud but a performance loss in sand or any bottom that will slide along the fluke well. But most bottoms in the PNW are mud.
I had thought for years that the slots in AR anchors lessened the holding power just as if you put holes in the wing of an aircraft.
And I contemplated holes near the leading edge of my rudder as a sort of anti-stalling feature. Never did it mostly because my rudder works so well as it is.
You reshaped the toe of the Supreme sorta like the Rocna. The bevel of the toe tip bevels up and out (from the bottom) on your modified toe as does the Rocna. I've always thought beveling down w the wider surface under and smaller on top would be better.
I agree w you on taking out the heart shaped protrosions approx 1.5" behind the tip point. I cut about 80% of mine off. I wondered if Manson did that to increase the fluke area a bit there to aid setting. And I've seen the heart on other anchors as well.
The clogging of the concave flukes is an obvious thing. And the shape of the packed clog becomes the anchor. Far from concave (the best shape for flukes).
But the jury is still out on what effect the slots/holes have on holding power. The Excel may be good evidence that the slots don't reduce holding power. Haven't seen it go head to head on an anchor test w the Rocna, Supreme ect but will be very interested in the results when it happens.
I only used my Hogback Supreme once on our recent trip. Set at 2.5-1 in 48' of water and backed to 1400rpm. All went perfect including holding in 20+ winds. I need to do some dedicated anchor testing. Now I need to fix my boat.
My idea of building the great penetrating anchor could be flawed seriously by this clog issue. If the clog sticks to the fluke well enough the anchor will no longer be a slim thing that will slice through the bottom easily. But I still think removing the RB was a good move as I'm quite sure the RB is a major player in the clogging issue. It (RB) should greatly reduce the tendency of the bottom material (mud) to slide along the upper surface of the fluke because the RB is pushing down on the material trying to go through the hole (RB hole). So it's possible my removing the RB is reducing the clogging .. just in a different way. My Hogback has come up clean so far.
One anchor manufacturer put little (1/8") "buttons" on the fluke surface to reduce friction. Float planes take off easier w little waves on the water and "stick" to the water when it's glassy smooth. So it's possible the polished SS anchors may not work as well but I'll bet they actually work better .. but don't know.
Another thing is that the slots/holes may be a blessing in mud but a performance loss in sand or any bottom that will slide along the fluke well. But most bottoms in the PNW are mud.
Attachments
Last edited:
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
We had a forecast of 25 knot breezes the other day which made for some fine sailing. Unfortunately, by the time I got around to tossing an anchor over the side, the wind abated somewhat.
I really wanted to get some clear footage of the anchor in actual wind/wave conditions, but it appears this will be impossible as the waves seem to 'stir' up an incredible amount of organic material from the nearby beach.
Steve
I really wanted to get some clear footage of the anchor in actual wind/wave conditions, but it appears this will be impossible as the waves seem to 'stir' up an incredible amount of organic material from the nearby beach.
Steve
Nomad Willy
Guru
Organic material?
Perhaps you should have thrown fishing gear over.
Perhaps you should have thrown fishing gear over.
OP
OP
Panope
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 294
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Panope
- Vessel Make
- Colvin Saugeen Witch, Aluminum
Nick Shaw of Ground Tackle Marine, offered to exchange my Super Sarca #5 for a #6. This is the perfect size for Panope.
Rather than another boring test of an anchor performing perfectly, I tried to make it fail by blocking the fluke slots (these slots perform the function preventing mud from sticking).
Alas, the test did not go as I had presumed it would............
Steve
Rather than another boring test of an anchor performing perfectly, I tried to make it fail by blocking the fluke slots (these slots perform the function preventing mud from sticking).
Alas, the test did not go as I had presumed it would............
Steve
Nomad Willy
Guru
Steve I think the convex (rather than concave) shape of the fluke is providing the element of anchor design that allows the anchor to shed sticky bottom material like mud. The concave flukes just pack in the mud pressing it to the fluke. When it sticks to the fluke and becomes a fixed shape and looses it's fluid nature the likeyhood of it breaking out is high but even if it stays burried the shape of the anchor becomes more like big metal pear .. small end fwd. holding power can only go far south.
A big part of the Supermes problem w compaction is the small radius of the fluke. It's made that way as part of the self righting feature the roll bar delivers .. But it is greatly aided by the excessively curved concave fluke. The Rocna is not as deep (convex) so it's problem of compaction is a bit less. But the Super SARCA (SS) seems to have all bases covered. I've often said it's probably the best anchor in the world. But stowage, the agricultural look and having slightly less holding power than some other anchors put a big dent into it's sales numbers. However I think setting and dependability should rank higher than ultimate holding power
Must be a combination of the two features that amplifies compaction. The concave fluke is the dominant feature and clearly the best for holding power. The Supreme packs in mud with the best of them .. my opinion .. but most of the time it's not a problem.
Something interesting about the slots on the Anchor Right of Australia anchors is that long before ARA did that there were Navy anchors w one siglificant slot in the center of each of the two flukes. Could have been the first slotted anchor.
A big part of the Supermes problem w compaction is the small radius of the fluke. It's made that way as part of the self righting feature the roll bar delivers .. But it is greatly aided by the excessively curved concave fluke. The Rocna is not as deep (convex) so it's problem of compaction is a bit less. But the Super SARCA (SS) seems to have all bases covered. I've often said it's probably the best anchor in the world. But stowage, the agricultural look and having slightly less holding power than some other anchors put a big dent into it's sales numbers. However I think setting and dependability should rank higher than ultimate holding power
Must be a combination of the two features that amplifies compaction. The concave fluke is the dominant feature and clearly the best for holding power. The Supreme packs in mud with the best of them .. my opinion .. but most of the time it's not a problem.
Something interesting about the slots on the Anchor Right of Australia anchors is that long before ARA did that there were Navy anchors w one siglificant slot in the center of each of the two flukes. Could have been the first slotted anchor.
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,104
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
Great footage Steve, and no surprise to me, as a A Sarca no. 6 is exactly what I have been using the last 12 odd years or more. In fact in the Anchor Right ad, they state that 'sticking to a convex shaped fluke, and leaving the mud behind' is the main réason d'etre for the shape, and not being concave.
I think the main function the slots serve is in helping shed the more sticky mud, but more importantly breaking the very strong suction effect which otherwise forms behind the fluke, when one first starts to retrieve it out of the bottom, meaning the mud is not sucked onto the fluke as strongly in the first place, and also less stress on the lifting gear. However, to lessen that even more, I often deliberately drive back over the anchor, with the slack just taken up, and use the tripping mechanism as well to break mine out.
You will, my friend, just love that anchor, and I confidently predict you will never need to use any other, ever again. Period.
Last edited:
Similar threads
