Anchor setting Videos

Steve,
There's always something behiend assumptions, opinions or whatever anybody says.
No such thing as "baseless assumptions".

Nomad Willy said:

Don,
You'll scare him re the short scope.
And that frightens me because I'm very interested in short performance. If an anchor does not do well on short scope I'm not interested. My thinking could probably be shown to not be universally true. Anyway I want to see Steve continue to do the reducing scope test.

Click to expand...

Eric, I had been using a 5 to 1 scope with my Delta in normal weather. Looking at Steve's work I started using about a 3 1/2 to 1 with the Sarca. This just takes less swinging room. At night with the Delta I would usually let the scope out 7 to 1.

Moonstruck said:

Eric, I had been using a 5 to 1 scope with my Delta in normal weather. Looking at Steve's work I started using about a 3 1/2 to 1 with the Sarca. This just takes less swinging room. At night with the Delta I would usually let the scope out 7 to 1.

Click to expand...

I'll bet cha 20 to 1 that 7 to 1 holds better than 5 to 1 or 3.5 to 1.

Swinging room can become a limiter... I'll place no bet on that!

I routinely anchor overnight on my S-Sarca with 3 : 1, or 5 : 1. Only use 7 : 1 if a blow is forecast. Have never dragged.

3.5:1 on Sarca has worked for us. Not sure Rex would approve, he`s a 5:1 stickler I think, but Steve`s tests are persuasive, even at < 3:1.Not that I`m trying that overnight.

Peter B said:

I routinely anchor overnight on my S-Sarca with 3 : 1, or 5 : 1. Only use 7 : 1 if a blow is forecast. Have never dragged.

Click to expand...

This is also how I anchor with my Lewmar Claw imitation Bruce with the same results.

Positive "shorter scope" experiences likely reflect that advances in anchor design really work.
But if it`s blowing I`ll not be taking a punt at 3.5:1. Short of a go-pro on a string, it`s hard to know what`s really happening down there, which is why Steve`s testing has been so valuable.

There have been many post I have read many but not all. My thoughts on the matter of setting include one aspect which is the angle of attack of the forward tip of the anchor. The proper angle and a sharp tip lead to quick deeper set. Most anchors depend on the design and centenary or pull angle of the rode for the set. Perhaps we can help some anchors assume the proper angle of attack. The camera with its float in the video may actually be improving on the geometry of setting. Some deploy anchors with retrieval lines attaché at a rear pivot point and I have seen and used a small float 6 feet up from the anchor to keep line clear. Why not just increase size of that float enough to give a slight downward tilt and also help assure that anchor lands right side up?

Eyeshulman,
The float mentioned above would effectively reduce the weight of the anchor. A sharp tip or "toe" (if Rex is listening) needs weight to drive the tip/toe into the sea floor.

There was an anchor w an air chamber (Hydro Bubble) that was supposed to keep the tip down in the perfect setting position. Performance was intermitent and I don't think they are on the market anymore.
I think the fluke to bottom angle is determined by several parts of the anchor that are choosen for beneficial geometry. And frequently the drag of the fluke tip will tip the anchor up (in the back) increasing the tip to bottom angle. Many variables.
For most of anchor history skippers have typically had several different style anchors aboard to overcome the variables. Most modern anchor designs will accomodate more variables than older designs. One shch anchor was thought to be 100% effective in this reguard until the Chesapeke Bay Mud test came along.

Willy I think there is evidence that the weight of an anchor is not always a critical factor. Many light aluminum anchors preform very well and some test actually found the smaller lighter version of an anchor set and held better than the larger heavier model. I am thinking a small float will not be a problem. Look at all the sets here on video with a small float and I am wondering if that float is not actually helping. Note how many of the anchors land just right with that camera and float just above. Certainly the better preforming anchors are built in a way to present the best attack for setting but maybe some could use a little help? Sharpening and down slanting the leading edge seems to also work on some and there are a few built that way. I do agree with the rest of your post.

Well eyeshulman it would be easy to try that on a number of anchors. Claws ( because they have a high up and well aft trip line attach hole) roll bar anchors like Rocnas or Supremes and others w a trip line attach hole well aft on the fluke or shank. Ataching the float line in the center/top of a roll bar would have a beneficial righting effect .. I think.
I'm working up to doing some testing on my Hogback Supreme (modified Supreme) and I want to rig a bridal on the stern to get almost the same thrust that Steve gets w his Panope. The Hogback is a 14lb anchor and I want to see if I can pull it out after a good set in a good bottom.

Nomad Willy said:

Well eyeshulman it would be easy to try that on a number of anchors. Claws ( because they have a high up and well aft trip line attach hole) roll bar anchors like Rocnas or Supremes and others w a trip line attach hole well aft on the fluke or shank. Ataching the float line in the center/top of a roll bar would have a beneficial righting effect .. I think.
I'm working up to doing some testing on my Hogback Supreme (modified Supreme) and I want to rig a bridal on the stern to get almost the same thrust that Steve gets w his Panope. The Hogback is a 14lb anchor and I want to see if I can pull it out after a good set in a good bottom.

Click to expand...

What if you could get in a swimming pool or clear water with a clean anchor and a few different sized floats and see what was just enough to give a little forward tilt to the anchor without too much unweighting affect. It would also be interesting to watch and see if the anchor positioning upright on bottom is aided by a small float.

eyeshulman,
Another thought is that the anchor designer went to a lot of trouble to get the fluke to bottom angle just right. For example there is a difference in the fluke angle on some Claws. Remember Steve pointed that out in his post that was all commentary showing two Claws that had different shank to fluke angles. And of course some work better than others. If the fluke was too vertical assuming the anchor was set and buried, that could make an anchor prone to breaking out. Conversely if the fluke was too close to parallel to the shank the anchor would slide right out of the bottom .. or drag.
With a Dan if the fluke angle was 55 degrees instead of the time honored 32 degrees the anchor would tend to pop up in the back and break out. Seems to me I saw a Claw pop up it's rear end and break out like that in Steve's vids. Makes me wonder if maybe the fluke angle is too much on some Claws.

So I'm thinking altering the angles designed into the anchor may be counter productive. This is assuming the anchor was designed right in the first place and I think quite a few can be improved on. Knock off anchors are usually a bit different and the differences will either help or hinder the anchors performance. It is probably very hard to identify what variation in design is good or bad.

Assuming your float line anchor did set and bury itself and the fluke angle was right (optimal) the lifting force of the float line would probably tend to upset (or at least lift the anchor up) and that may promote a breakout.

Have you seen the Hydro Bubble (brand) anchor? The advantage of your float line anchor over the Hydro Bubble (as I see it) is that there is only a thin line to drag into the bottom. Whereas the Hydro Bubble needs to drag an air chamber (about the size of a baseball) into the seafloor to get good penetration. Big advantage to your idea.

Willy I don't think we can improve on the anchors that set and hold well but there are many that do not and it is there where some testing would be interesting. IN some places it is smart to have a trip line and the type of float I am thinking of would not be enough to trip the anchor just enough to cause a slight change of the angel of attack maybe no more float then is on the camera used for the video obviously some experimentation would be needed. The float on the camera does not seem to have a negative effect and I am wondering if it is actually helping some of the anchors used.

eyschulman said:

Willy I don't think we can improve on the anchors that set and hold well but there are many that do not and it is there where some testing would be interesting........The float on the camera does not seem to have a negative effect and I am wondering if it is actually helping some of the anchors used.

Click to expand...

I suspect you are right, in that the camera flotation did appear to flatter some anchors, in helping them avoid landing all askew, and certainly it helped the Super Sarca, which I use, land upright virtually every time. I don't think that actually affected what Steve was actually demonstrating, and that was the set and multiple re-set characteristics of each. However, one slight downside as far as the S-Sarca was concerned anyway, was it prevented it showing its amazing ability to quickly right itself and set, whatever way it happened to hit the seabed, which of course, is the raison d'etre of the roll bar and its overall design.

Steve,
Pigs can fly and so can kelp. HaHa
Looks like a lot of kelp now.
The Delta seems to plow a lot but don't see much evidence of penetration.
On the anchor tests I've read the Delta does OK. Seldom really well and seldom poorly. Don't think I could name a more middle of the road performer. But that's not bad.
I'm at Starbucks so can't turn on the volume and hear your comentary.
Wondering if your boat is still on the hard? Later

In the video the narrator seems to think its a bad thing that the anchor won't hold firm under full throttle. Since I can't imagine a wind or wave state that a boat couldn't push through with full throttle, a boat at anchor would never be subjected to that much force ( unless you are talking about conditions so extreme that you shouldn't have left your boat there anyway )

Benthic2 said:

In the video the narrator seems to think its a bad thing that the anchor won't hold firm under full throttle. Since I can't imagine a wind or wave state that a boat couldn't push through with full throttle, a boat at anchor would never be subjected to that much force ( unless you are talking about conditions so extreme that you shouldn't have left your boat there anyway )

Click to expand...

Steve's testing, by his own admission, is rather extreme. He is trying to test under worst-case conditions in some ways. Also, consider that his boat isn't powered the same as our typical trawlers. He doesn't have an over-sized engine in his motor-sailor.

His videos and testing are testing a lot of anchors in as similar conditions as he can. Rather than saying any anchor is good or bad, he is allowing us to compare anchors and see how they set and reset in tough conditions and how they behave when a fair amount of force is applied.

Thanks dhays....that makes sense.

Best "general brands" and close to "exactly same conditions" anchor tests I've ever heard of or ever seen. In-depth to be sure. I'm appreciative of Steve's test work and great video collection.


BTW - If you've ever been on anchor when a squall suddenly comes up in an expansive wind-swept anchorage??? Quality of anchor "set" becomes a Big Thing then.

Thank you Steve. Great work as usual.

Including the Delta in the test series is very useful at is such a popular anchor. Here in the Med it seems to me the most common anchor.

In my previous boat I had a Delta and was generally pleased with it. It set fairly easily and never dragged in the several summers I used it anchoring every night. In my current boat I have had a Rocna for two summers and I am also quite satisfied with the results.

One difference I noticed between the Delta and the Rocna is how much more "decisively" the Rocna sets: when it grabs it stops the boat solidly. With the Delta this did not happen so much and is consistent with Steve's finding that the Delta tends to "plow" rather than continue to dig in.

All in all, I don't think the Delta performed badly in Steve's tests. Unlike the Rocna in its tests, the Delta set and re-set just about every time.

Given its relatively low cost maybe a good solution is an oversize Delta?

According to his pull tests, the forces are about right for microburst wind forces in a thunderstorm.....maybe not a hurricane which might double them.

Xlantic wrote;
"Given its relatively low cost maybe a good solution is an oversize Delta?'
Very excellent point Xlantic. And you're not alone in thinking that way.

IMO (and I've said as much before re the Claws) many anchors would or could be keepers if they were only bigger. Some that come to mind are Northhill, CQR, stockless anchors like the Navy, Bruce and clones (Claws) and any other anchor that sets well and functions well on a wide range of bottoms but lacks holding power. There's at least several others but I won't mention them for fear of setting off a small war. But one can always solve a holding power weakness by using a larger anchor.

The Claw is the most widely used anchor that can be used in this way. Many think nothing of using an extra 100 or 200lbs of chain but a small fraction of even 100lbs can turn a weak anchor into a solid performer. Fishermen do it all the time in the PNW with Claws, Northills and even Forfjords. Never seen a high performance anchor on a real fish boat. I'm about ready to ditch my experimental anchors and use my Lewmar Claw. It's 33lbs and that's about twice as heavy/big as most all of my other anchors.

Size matters of course. But anchors need much more than holding power to be considered good keepers. Setting ability (the subject of this thread) is perhaps or quite likely equally as important as holding power. Numerous anchors have flaws that almost no size increase would turn them into desirable keepers. Then there's opinions .... l'll quit there.

Nomad Willy said:

Xlantic wrote;
"Given its relatively low cost maybe a good solution is an oversize Delta?'
Very excellent point Xlantic. And you're not alone in thinking that way.

IMO (and I've said as much before re the Claws) many anchors would or could be keepers if they were only bigger. Some that come to mind are Northhill, CQR, stockless anchors like the Navy, Bruce and clones (Claws) and any other anchor that sets well and functions well on a wide range of bottoms but lacks holding power. There's at least several others but I won't mention them for fear of setting off a small war. But one can always solve a holding power weakness by using a larger anchor.

The Claw is the most widely used anchor that can be used in this way. Many think nothing of using an extra 100 or 200lbs of chain but a small fraction of even 100lbs can turn a weak anchor into a solid performer. Fishermen do it all the time in the PNW with Forfjords, Claws and Northills. Never seen a high performance anchor on a fish boat. I'm about ready to ditch my experimental anchors and use my Lewmar Claw. It's 33lbs and that's about twice as heavy/big as most all of my other anchors.

Size matters of course. But anchors need much more than holding power to be considered good keepers. Setting ability (the subject of this thread) is perhaps or quite likely equally as important as holding power. Numerous anchors have flaws that almost no size increase would turn them into desirable keepers. Then there's opinions .... l'll quit there.

Click to expand...

Eric - My opinion is that you are quite correct! In That: Regarding most Anchors - Size does matter. And, heavy also adds a definitive bottom-holding/penetration aspect.

That Said: IMO it is the design of flukes [in regard to shank and rode angle] and the shanks' bottom-penetrating capabilities that mean as much or more of an anchor's setting and holding capability than size and weight.

In other words... A light weight, strong material anchor that excellently penetrates sea bottoms to set its flukes deeply into the bed is much more attractive to handle and safe to use in windy conditions than a much heavier anchor that does not penetrate the bottom's surface as easily, fully or as well.

So to say: "It ain't the meat it's the [design] motion that makes my baby [anchor] want to rock!!

Cherry picking ideas is great in theory....

But each anchor and rode for a given boat limits that...broadstroking ideas is just confiusing those that arent all that familiar with anchoring...so newbies beware of those talking in the theoretical.

psneeld said:

Cherry picking ideas is great in theory....

But each anchor and rode for a given boat limits that...broadstroking ideas is just confiusing those that arent all that familiar with anchoring...so newbies beware of those talking in the theoretical.

Click to expand...

That's kind of a very correct warning to newbies. Good that you posted it. You are right... They should not get too fully into the deep-chats about "Anchor" design, brand and use discussions... for fear of becoming overwhelmed by input of experienced 'anchor-users/designers".

However, in the world of 21st Century there is hundred + choices of anchors. Therefore the newbie needs to be able to at least somewhat separate the grain from the chaff. Otherwise they will become lost in a sea of boating magazine anchor advertisements, web based promotion videos and marine store sales person's recommendations - without having even gleaned some of the expertise about anchors and anchoring that we "old-salts" feely [and, at times too often - lol] offer.

Happy Anchor Daze! - Art

Steve,
I'm not thinking big differences in performances will come to pass if greater scopes are used w more testing. But many viewers that have Delta anchors may feel very differently. To me if an anchor dosn't do well at 3-1 no amount of scope will make a different anchor out of it. However a different seabed may show considerable improvement. This spot you have seems to have a rather loose seabed. A firmer harder seabed may help the Delta. In another anchor test the Delta achieved 5000lb pulls w longer scopes and harder bottoms.

In this other test I mentioned the D had consistant setting but very unconsistant holding. Four tests in different seabeds produced holdings of 3000, 3600, 5000 and 1500lbs pull. Same except for the bottom. Always the biggest variable in anchoring.

They said it didn't do "as well at 3-1 scope". In this test the same was said of the Rocna.

I'm amazed at the comparison pics of the D and the Excel. So very similar but the detail differences have a great effect on performance. Interesting that the ballast on both is steel. I had assumed it was lead and your comment about galvanizing was very appropriate.
The sharp fluke tip seems to boost performance of many anchors. Interesting that the tip of the Excel is SS. My XYZ originally came w a SS tip. The Claw I put on my boat yesterday had the typically blunt Claw tips but I ground them down a lot. I don't know if Claw manufacturers don't grind them sharp because the labor is too costly or the metal wouldn't hold up w a thin edge. I'm think'in even w a chip here and there it would still perform better sharpened. But chips on the leading edge may not impress the buying public. Interestingly there is an anchor called the Kobra that kinda looks like a D clone. It's made in Europe and seems to perform well above the Delta level and it has a very sharp fluke tip.

Most interesting to me was your conclusion that the D lacked the ability to penetrate and lacked holding power as a result of it. It sorta plowed along like one would expect a Navy anchor to do. My modifications to my Supreme were made to increase penetration. I was going to remove the steel above the slot like you said you were going to do w your Supreme. But I wanted very badly to grind the leading edge of the shank considerably to give the shank a sharp edge for penetration. I was afraid removing the upper pice of the shank and the considerable amount of metal I intended to remove grinding the leading edge would possibly make the shank too weak. I felt the sharp leading edge was more important than loosing weight despite the fact that loosing weight is frequently a high priority w me.
Speaking of weight I think the anchor is 14lbs now.

Art wrote;
"Eric - My opinion is that you are quite correct! In That: Regarding most Anchors - Size does matter. And, heavy also adds a definitive bottom-holding/penetration aspect."

I've had those thoughts lately about my Claw (Lewmar). Compared to my other anchors my 33lb Claw has tremendous weight on it's fluke tips. But they were so very blunt or "fat" as my wife would say. So I ground the fluke tips sharp.

Nomad Willy said:

Setting ability (the subject of this thread) is perhaps or quite likely equally as important as holding power.

Click to expand...

To me setting ability, or rather re-setting ability, is even more important than ultimate holding power. What I most dread in anchoring is a wind shift in the middle of the night in which the anchor pulls out and doesn't reset. Winds strong enough to pull-out a decent, well-set anchor are much less frequent, I believe, than a 180º or so wind shift. Very strong winds are also more predictable and more likely to wake one up so one is able to deal with them (more scope, engine power, ...).

I am surprised Lewmar did not design the Delta with sharper flukes and a sharpened leading edge on the shank (like the Spade) as suggested in this thread. A bit of extra cost may have helped the digging ability and ultimate holding power. Maybe it was because they did not have the benefit of Steve's video.