Where's the Boss

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Nomad Willy said:
Not always Chris,
Buried won't have much holding power in a very soft bottom.

Chris wrote;
"Is that all theoretical critique, or have you actually experienced that with ballasted anchors?"
Never used a ballasted anchor so it's "theoretical critique". My "theory" is that if you can get a non-ballasted anchor to set why use extra weight. Seems just "extra" to me. Why not get a bigger fluke anchor instead?
Click to expand...


We've not had problems -- with Fortress or MAX anchors -- in soupy bottoms. Fully buried seems (intuitively, to me) better than only partially buried. Said differently, and assuming the angle of the dangle is all in accordance with the maker's instructions... when would a fully buried anchor not be better than a partially buried or only slightly buried anchor?

I like bigger fluke area, too, but if I have to get a heavier -- ballasted or not -- anchor to do that, not sure it would matter to me. Within the limits of what I can lift manually if my windlass craps out... additional anchor weight doesn't concern me much.

OT analogy, but I'm reminded of magazines articles in the '70s: .45 or 9mm, which is better? Slow and heavy, or light and fast? Always seemed to me the best answer was heavy and fast. (Within the limits of controllable recoil., of course.)


Nomad Willy said:
There are others too but no anchor is good in really soft mud except Fortress or Danforths.
Click to expand...

Our SuperMAX does very well in soft mud. So far, every bit as well as our Fortress. I've never even had to adjust the MAX to its mud setting, yet.

We use it as our primary now, instead of the Fortress, but mostly because the Fortress doesn't hang so well on our pulpit/roller, the Fortress can be carried out as a kedge (much!) more easily if necessary, and the Fortress can be dismantled for better stowage.

If you haven't seen them, google anchoring reports from Cap'n Wil Andrews, starting from the mid-90s sometime I think. He did lots of hurricane-focused anchor testing in soup, and eventually included the MAX anchors in his testing regime.

We were just down in Solomons this last weekend, so I'm reminded I tried to convince Brian to include a MAX in the Chesapeake Bay testing, even offered to let them use our anchor... but that didn't work out for various legit reasons, not least of which was that I didn't know about the testing/didn't make the offer until after they'd already mapped out their plan and so forth. Rats! Would have liked to see the comparison...

-Chris
 
Eric I'm not sure I fully understand all the parameters your describe but that is just me. I know I bought a Boss because it is big in area and so far it seems to work really well in my areas of anchoring. I assume there will never be a perfect anchor for everyone and every anchor will have pluses and minuses and we have to live with the compromise.

Chris enters the 9mm vs .45 debate, oh no I hope not. Next he will enter the Weaver vs Isosceles. LOL

Thanks guys. Very informative.
 
Bigsfish said:
Chris enters the 9mm vs .45 debate, oh no I hope not. Next he will enter the Weaver vs Isosceles. LOL
Click to expand...


Let's just say I often go a different direction on both of those.

:)

-Chris
 
I presume 9mmvs.45, Weaver vs Iso, and anchors are things to avoid like politics and religion. LOL
 
"I presume 9mmvs.45, Weaver vs Iso, and anchors are things to avoid like politics and religion."

Except this an actual case where Bigger is Better.

A watch fob makes for poor sleep when the breeze picks up.
 
Lots of ideas being tossed around as near facts.

Haven't seen one iota of proof for most of them.

Iots of seemingly known "facts" often talked about were quickly weakened or vaporized by watching the anchor setting videos.

Even what a lot of proclaimed and published experts seem to be in conflict with a few industrious folks that actually document things about anchoring.

I know where my leanings are.
 
psneeld said:
Lots of ideas being tossed around as near facts.

Haven't seen one iota of proof for most of them.

Iots of seemingly known "facts" often talked about were quickly weakened or vaporized by watching the anchor setting videos.

Even what a lot of proclaimed and published experts seem to be in conflict with a few industrious folks that actually document things about anchoring.

I know where my leanings are.
Click to expand...

To an extent, I agree. We need to get a Boss and a Vulcan to Steve on Panope somehow. Anyone near him who has one, and willing to have it tested..?

Look up 'Anchor setting videos' or Panope to find out roughly where he is based.
 
There are a lot of comments for me to respond to here including the "brief" outline of the recommended procedure to set a Super MAX Anchor. It would be easy for me to refer someone to the anchor's website but I will not do that. I will post that procedure in an abbreviated outline suitable for this forum.

Regarding the infamous Chesapeake Bay Soft Mud Test, I can not and will not blame Fortress for not including the Super MAX. That test occurred during the transition of ownership of the company from Andy Peabody to myself. It is my understanding that after the Super MAX Anchor was suggested to Brian from Fortress by a number of well respected users of the anchor, the company reached out to Andy. He stated that he did not feel it was correct to test the Super MAX Anchor because the anchor was not being offered for sale to the public. Andy was not sure the sale of the business would go through and there was a possibility that the anchor would never again be produced. He did not think that was the right thing to do. I was aware of the test during our negotiations with Andy but of course was not far enough along in the sale and transition of ownership to offer any suggestions. I believe Fortress was open to including the Super MAX had it been authorized by the ownership.

Regarding the comments about added weight of an anchor perhaps being old school. We have lots of owners of our anchor who have anchored in more wind that 50 miles per hour. When that happens, a properly set, bigger, stronger anchor makes a more secure anchoring experience. Therefore, a lot depends on how severe the conditions might be where you intend to anchor. Remember, the ground tackle should be able to withstand or beat be the most extreme conditions from Mother Nature you intend to anchor in.
Steve
 
I can think of a couple of other places where bigger is better. LOL
 
Panope if he is fairly close to southeast Florida can test my Boss, I could probably deliver it.
 
Back to Boss

The Boss anchor descended it appears from the Spade, Oceane and Sword anchors. Unless someone will/can offer a more clear descendant. And the most prominent linking feature is what I'm going to call the "high arch shank". This shank is intended to (if landing vertical and backwards) lever the fluke up so the whole anchor will fall over on one side ready to set. It is not as high on the Spade as that anchor has a heavily weighted fluke toe. But the Oceane and Sword were IMO dependent on the high arch shank to right the anchor.

With the Boss and Vulcan the high arch shank (HAS) is employed to replace the roll bar for the same reason. That being that the RB anchor designs wouldn't fit on the bows of many to most boats thereby limiting greatly the market for their products. ARA solved the same problem w the Excel .. a very different anchor.

The Vulcan and Boss are very similar anchors. But the thing that links them together is both the HAS and the reason for them to emerge at this time. Actually the Boss has been w us for some time and the Vulcan was long in coming laced w rumors and an ugly prototype. It was instantly dubbed the tractor seat.

One is heavy and bulky ... the other light and slim.

The Boss maximizes it's fluke area by employing little or no ballast and using a skinny (and presumably high strength steel) shank. The lack of bulk necessary for the ballast chamber theoretically allowing much easier penetration of the sea floor. Also the shank is as skinny as whatever thickness sheet metal it is made from making it very knife like to pass through the substrate w minimum drag. These two features maximize penetration and increase fluke area as the weight saved from the minimal shank and no ballast chamber increases the available metal for the fluke. So the fluke is by design larger. Many to most say fluke area is directly proportional to holding power.

The Vulcan took more time for development and had a chance to see how the HAS shank worked on the Boss.
Vulcan took from the very successful Spade .. well practically everything. The shank has the HAS shape shared by the Oceane, Sword, Spade and Boss. However the Spade's hollow shank is (presumably) lighter and probably as strong or stronger. The key to the Boss and Vulcan is this shank shape originally seen on the Spade (to a lesser degree) and fully blown on the Oceane. The intent form the beginning was to provide a self righting anchor that would fit up through the slot on bow pulpits.
Also the Vulcan borrowed from the Spade re the ballast chamber. Perhaps they thought they needed to be different from their main competitor (The Manson Boss) and the boss had no significant ballast. So for whatever reason ballast the Vulcan got. But Rocna executed the chamber w a bit more flare than Spade. The Spade chamber is a very straight cone shape probably maximizing the chamber volume but perhaps limiting the ability to enter the substrate. The B Chamber on the Vulcan is a very nicely sculptured shape that almost certainly reduces drag while penetrating. But I'm fairly certain there is less ballast in the Vulcan chamber. So in this way the Vulcan probably chose a middle of the road course. Use ballast but less. Less than the very proven Spade but much more than the Boss.
This is how it appears to me but if the actual tip weights were disclosed the situation may be scewed one way or the another.

So it appears to be beefy and seemingly strong w smaller fluke area or as light as possible w the biggest fluke possible. I held a Boss in my hands at a boat show several years ago and it seemed sorta lightweight. But I've never heard of a Boss shank bending or any other structural failure and the Supreme has a stellar reputation re strength so either is probably excellent. But that's the issue .... one appears better for stout and one seems better for performance. Less likely to bend or more likely to hold. But I'm sure they are far closer than that makes them sound.
 
PeterB and Bigfish,
Steve of SV Panope resides in NW Washington. About 3000mi from Florida.
Watch his "Anchor Setting Videos" and PM him.
 
Last edited:
Steve Bedford,
Very nice to know about the almost MAX in the Chesapeake anchor test.

The MAX did very well in the 2006 Practical Sailor mag "soft mud" test.

I love you're new avatar!
 
NW. Very well stated I can't argue with anything except that an anchor seemed light. Anchors are rated by weight, are you saying a 40 lb anchor might not weigh 40 lbs?

3000 miles is a little far to deliver my anchor. LOL. I have seen some of his videos.

Thanks.
 
Bigfish,
My 15lb Manson Supreme actually weighed 18lbs delivered.
Most anchors are a bit off of their listed weight.

However when you say "are you saying a 40 lb anchor might not weigh 40 lbs?" You may be referring to my talking about the weight of ballast and appendages. Anchors almost always are very close to their listed weight. I was referring to a situation whereas if you were designing a 40lb anchor and you wanted to add ballast .. say 8lbs, You'd need to reduce some other component (or components) of the anchor by 8lbs. When you start you have 40lbs and you (as a designer) get to "spend" it on whatever specific parts of the anchor you so choose. So it's a balance act. When you add here you must subtract there .. or get/design a bigger anchor.
 
Last edited:
NW

This is what I was referring to " I held a Boss in my hands at a boat show several years ago and it seemed sorta lightweight". And I am confused. I realize the weight might not be exact and may be off by a percent or two.

Thanks.
 
Nomad Willy said:
"Steve,
In a few words (but not limited to) how do you set the MAX."
Setting a Super MAX Anchor
(Very abbreviated version)

For any anchor to perform to its maximum potential and design, it must be set properly. If in doubt, contact the manufacturer of your anchor regarding any specific setting procedures unique to your anchor.

1. Understanding your Ground Tackle: (a topic for another discussion).

2. Anchorage Selection: (a topic for another discussion).

3. Depth: The depth for calculating your scope ratio is the water depth at your anchorage location at high tide plus the height of the bow freeboard on the vessel to the water surface.

4. Scope: (a topic for another discussion).

5. The Anchoring Process: Once a suitable anchorage is determined:
*Point the vessel into the wind and/or current direction and bring the vessel to a complete stop.
*Lower the anchor to rest on the seabed with a length of chain/rode that is slightly longer than the depth from bow roller to seabed floor. (No need to put a large amount of chain on top of the anchor). The boat should be drifting backward to avoid the anchor chain from dropping on the anchor. The anchor's weight will allow it to settle into the seabed by its weight alone, unless you are anchoring is an extremely hard seabed.
*Allow the wind and/or current to begin to take the vessel backward and play out the rode to a 2-1/2 or 3 to 1 scope. If boat not drifting backward, use a momentary reverse engine at idle to take you away from the anchor. Taking your time allows the anchor to dig into the seabed in the exact location it initially made contact with the sea floor. If you back down to quickly, before the anchor has a chance to settle into the seabed, the anchor may "skip" across the bottom.
*Once the rode begins to straighten, the anchor is digging into the seabed. Secure the chain/ rode. This action protects the windlass. With the transmission in reverse, increase the RPMs of the engine to pull the chain or rode straight and tight to initially set the anchor. This is the initial set so care should be taken as to the RPMs used.
*Reduce the RPM and return to neutral. Lay out about a 5 to 1 scope and repeat the process, again, backing down slowly. As the chain straightens again, secure the chain or nylon rode and increase the RPMs until the anchor set causes the boat to a stop again. At this final set position, apply more RPMs.
*Practice provides confidence in the exact RPM level used in the final set and for what duration. A slow anchoring process allows the anchor to dig deep into the seabed as pressure is applied. Sudden jerks before the final set could compromise the anchor's position in the seabed.
*Once firmly set in the seabed, lay out the desired rode length. Determine anchor rode scope considering tidal changes, potential wind shifts or increase in velocity, proximity to other boats and land structures, seabed topography, seabed substrate, and predicted weather conditions. Under normal conditions the recommended scope ratios of most anchors range from 5:1 to 7:1. Many anchoring experts routinely lay out greater scope lengths up to 10:1. Check the manufacturer's recommendations and check with other users of this anchor for their recommendations based on experience.

6. Completing The Anchoring Process: (a topic for another discussion).

I am sure this will generate some comment and debate. However this technique has been used by many Super MAX users for a long years. I am sure many have some slight modifications but generally this is the process that has been most successful.

Steve
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Steve. I have heard others recommend this same procedure.

I don't subscribe to it because many anchors won't take a set at 2 - 3 scope so you may just load the anchor with grass and furrow the bottom because of this I immediately go to a 7:1 scope and make my initial set. If it holds I'll wait about 20 minutes and make a harder set and if it holds that where I'll stay unless I'm expecting wind and I may drop back to 10:1 and make another heavy set.

Please educate me as to what you gain with the initial set at 2 or 3:1. Personally I wouldn't trust a scope of 3:1 unless it is a lunch hook anchoring.

I guess I have a lot to learn.

Thanks.
 
Fish,
Without much tension on the rode even w a small amount of chain the rode droops. So just ahead of the anchor the angle of the rode is probably far flatter than the scope numbers would suggest. The angle of the rode when pulled straight is very much more vertical than it is during the initial back down on the set.
I have said many times in the past on anchoring threads that the biggest advantage of chain in the rode is to help set the anchor. The chain keeps the angle of pull at the anchor very low. And when the anchor starts to dig in more tension is felt on the rode and the rode to anchor angle gets steeper but the anchor has engaged the bottom and most of the time w most anchors they will continue to set.

Why Steve recomends starting at 2 or 3-1 instead of 5-1 I don't know. I do know that many anchors have quite different performance at short scope. And I've heard one anchor sets better at 3 to 4-1 than at 7-1 or more. Don't understand that either.

Steve recomends following the recomendations of the specific anchor manufacturer. Good advice IMO. They want you to succeed and to have a good opinion of their product. What you say will probably effect their sales in the future.

Steve I haven't heard of the multiple pull setting at different scopes/angles but it makes sense. Pull a bit at this angle and pull a bit at that angle. I've heard the "slow soak" setting is best quite a few times and agree but always wondered if you pull at 1400 rpm and pull again in the same direction and at the same scope ........ why not just pull more in the first place? But pulling at decreasing angles sounds like it would be worthwhile.

Thanks Steve I'm very glad I asked that question.
 
Bigsfish said:
Steve. I have heard others recommend this same procedure.

I don't subscribe to it because many anchors won't take a set at 2 - 3 scope so you may just load the anchor with grass and furrow the bottom because of this I immediately go to a 7:1 scope and make my initial set. If it holds I'll wait about 20 minutes and make a harder set and if it holds that where I'll stay unless I'm expecting wind and I may drop back to 10:1 and make another heavy set.

Please educate me as to what you gain with the initial set at 2 or 3:1. Personally I wouldn't trust a scope of 3:1 unless it is a lunch hook anchoring.

I guess I have a lot to learn.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I can understand your concern and question. The 3:1 is not "the set". I called this the initial set and I caution folks not to back down hard with this scope ratio. All you are attempting to do at this point is make sure the fluke is in the seabed and beginning to dig in. Extending the scope to 5:1 to 7:1 will then firmly dig the anchor in to "set" the anchor. Too many folks back down quickly after dropping the anchor and the anchor does not have time to dig in. In that case, the fluke (not being in the seabed) can indeed skip across the bottom until it catches. Actually slight tugs on the anchor with the fluke point(s) into the seabed will allow the anchor to dig in right at that point rather than moving to catch.

Many of our users pass right through this initial set to the 5:1 scope to set the anchor. I know that. They can do that usually because they take their time in the process and allow the anchor to do its thing on the bottom and not just rely on the engine.

Hope this better explains what I was trying to convey. I am one to believe that whatever works for you, do it.

Steve
 
There are a few reasons for the "initial set" and I want to emphasize this is initial. I am not recommending setting our anchor at 2.5 :1 or 3:1.
1. If the anchor is not catching at the shorter scope, you know this and can adjust quicker than backing down to 7:1 then trying to set. If it does not set, at that scope, you "may have" some quick work to do in an anchorage with other boats with that much scope out.
2. I can not emphasize the slowness aspect enough and allowing the anchor to dig in. Too many poor sets or no sets occur when the operator simply drops the anchor, lays out a 7:1, and then backs down quickly. Take you time.
3. The action on an anchor over time is tug and relax, tug and relax, over and over again. During more severe conditions there is more tug than relaxation on the rode. However, every time there is stress on a set anchor the seabed is being compressed against the fluke. When the tug relaxes, because there is less pressure on the opposite side of the anchor fluke, the "hole" in the seabed where the anchor is placed can/may/will allow the fluke to dig deeper.
4. The first initial set at 2.5 or 3:1 is designed to allow the anchor to stay put where it was intiially dropped and not move backward before it catches with the boat under power.

As I said in my last response, many of our users use this technique with their Super MAX and others go right to 5:1 to set. What both have in common is that they usually take their time so the same initial set takes place as the boat naturally moves backward on its own until the rode is taunt or straighter.

Also as I said, if what one does works, great, do it.
Steve
 
Funny...I sorta have an affinity to what the videos show..

Opinions are cheap when videos are worth 10,000 words.
 
Thanks guys. I beginning to think there is no absolute right or wrong way (well maybe a wrong) to anchor. I'll give the short initial set and then move further away and see how it works although I have no problem with what I am doing now.

Psneeld. I'm being lazy not to go look up the underwater videos, but what do you interpret the videos show is the best way to anchor? People look at things and see different things. Thanks.

This is an interesting discussion, better than others I've read.
 
Nomad Willy, Hey Eric, I was just driving over the Rainbow Bridge today and lo and behold I saw Willy headed south by Shelter Bay. Headed for the yard?
 
Bigsfish said:
I don't subscribe to it because many anchors won't take a set at 2 - 3 scope so you may just load the anchor with grass and furrow the bottom because of this I immediately go to a 7:1 scope and make my initial set. If it holds I'll wait about 20 minutes and make a harder set and if it holds that where I'll stay unless I'm expecting wind and I may drop back to 10:1 and make another heavy set.

Please educate me as to what you gain with the initial set at 2 or 3:1. Personally I wouldn't trust a scope of 3:1 unless it is a lunch hook anchoring.
Click to expand...


I can say that process works well with our SuperMAX. Initial set at short-ish scope, then real set at real scope, then improve the set with some power or time (Happy Hour) or both, then adjust scope to deal with how crowded (or not) the anchorage might be, or to prep for expected weather as necessary.

I wouldn't assume that applies to all anchors, just our MAX. Fortress suggests a slightly similar technique for setting their anchor in soft mud. Wouldn't expect to use that same technique for other anchors, either. (YMW -- will, likely --V.)

Whatever each manufacturer recommends is likely best for their particular anchor. If your anchors are happier with an initial set at 7:1 -- I assume you're not using a MAX? -- sounds like you've got a plan. But if you were to use a MAX, my guess is that you'd be happy starting with Steve's suggestions, modify from there according to your boat, substrate at the time, etc.

-Chris
 
ranger42c said:
I can say that process works well with our SuperMAX. Initial set at short-ish scope, then real set at real scope, then improve the set with some power or time (Happy Hour) or both, then adjust scope to deal with how crowded (or not) the anchorage might be, or to prep for expected weather as necessary.

I wouldn't assume that applies to all anchors, just our MAX. Fortress suggests a slightly similar technique for setting their anchor in soft mud. Wouldn't expect to use that same technique for other anchors, either. (YMW -- will, likely --V.)

Whatever each manufacturer recommends is likely best for their particular anchor. If your anchors are happier with an initial set at 7:1 -- I assume you're not using a MAX? -- sounds like you've got a plan. But if you were to use a MAX, my guess is that you'd be happy starting with Steve's suggestions, modify from there according to your boat, substrate at the time, etc.

-Chris
Click to expand...

Well said Chris, better than I could say. For everyone, I was asked to share the setting technique for the Super MAX. For anyone not using that anchor, you should contact that manufacturer's directions.

I can share with you all that I have a good friend with a "very popular New Generation" anchor (I have not convinced him yet) who used to initially and permanently set his anchor at 5:1. One time in a rather crowded anchorage, he found it did not set as he began to back down with his twin diesels. Once he realized he was not holding, he was scrambling to stop the boat, avoid other boat's space, retrieve his anchor with about 75' of chain out, and start again. I suggested he try the 2.5:1 or 3:1 very slow initial set to see if the anchor is at least digging in (rode straighten and minimal tension applied) before laying out more chain and backing down harder. He now does this technique with his non-Super MAX anchor all the time. He realized that slow is good, shorter scope initially means less to retrieve if not "catching", and not backing down more onto someone else's radius before realizing the fluke did not catch and allowing for a proper set at his normal 5:1.

Again, the shorter scope initially is NOT the firm "setting scope."

Whatever consistently works for each one of you is a good technique.

Happy anchoring.
Steve
 
Chris and Steve

Your correct, my anchor is a Boss. However I'll try your method and see if I like it any better but I've really never had a problem in setting the anchor except at one place.

Thanks.
 
I usually do the opposite of Steve's method .. set long (about 5-1) and shorten up to 3-1. Never dragged and never seen a Max.

However my method of setting involves laying out the rode w a small (very small) amount of tension on the rode (especially at first) to insure no chain (or line) lands on top of or behind the anchor. As I pay out line I sorta jerk on the line to keep it more of less straight. But as the layout of the rode continues I probably put enough tension on the rode to cause a fluke to penetrate the sea floor. So in a way I'm doing Steve's method by little "nibbles" of tension as I pull lightly on the rode while laying it down in a basically straight line. But when I back down I don't mess around more than slowly (a minute or so) getting up to my usual setting rpm of 1400.
 
NW.

Which leads me to another question: what RPM do others back down with? I have twin 480 hp and I originally back down at 600 RPM and then take one engine to 1000 and the back to 600 and then the other engine to 1000RPM and finally both to 1000 to 1200 RPM. I tend to rock the anchor in. If I'm expecting high winds 25 knots I will increase the scope to 10:1 and back down at 1500.
Not sure why I came to this but I've been doing it for many years. Seems to work at least for me.

If you experts see a way to improve this routine please let me know.

Thanks.
 
Bigsfish said:
Chris and Steve
Your correct, my anchor is a Boss. However I'll try your method and see if I like it any better but I've really never had a problem in setting the anchor except at one place.
Click to expand...

Bigsfish said:
I have twin 480 hp and I originally back down at 600 RPM and then take one engine to 1000 and the back to 600 and then the other engine to 1000RPM and finally both to 1000 to 1200 RPM. I tend to rock the anchor in. If I'm expecting high winds 25 knots I will increase the scope to 10:1 and back down at 1500.
Not sure why I came to this but I've been doing it for many years. Seems to work at least for me.

If you experts see a way to improve this routine please let me know.
Click to expand...


a) Think I'd do (or try) whatever Boss recommends, and

b) Sounds like your method is working for that anchor. Unless Boss recommendations are significantly different from what you're doing, don't know what I'd suggest changing anything.

-Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Adopo
Supreme Court Upholds Back-Door Denials of Boat Insurance Claims
Replies
6
Views
1K
SteveK
SteveK
DavidM
Liability as Captain or Crew
Replies
21
Views
3K
Hippocampus
H
JoeKel
Liveaboards in south Florida - What are our rights?
2
Replies
57
Views
10K
rwidman
rwidman
S
Krogen Krogen manatee 36 - pre buy
Replies
5
Views
737
Mac2
Mac2
jhance
Where to drop anchor when stern tying?
Replies
8
Views
2K
hollywood8118
hollywood8118

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom