Modded Anchors

Three modified anchors are ready to go and on the boat. We have 4 days of teen temps and four days of snow. But after that?

The three anchors are an old standby of mine the XYZ, the much modified Manson Supreme and my most recent plaything .. a modified Claw.

First the XYZ.
This is an anchor I started using about 12yrs ago. I got one of their first (I think it is their first model) shown as the last pic. On our way to Alaska we got into a 50 knot gale and anchored at the top of Queen Charlotte Strait in Allison Harbour. A 13lb anchor is not very big for a 30ft boat but I was sure it would hold better than the 13lb Danforth.
Setting was the problem w this anchor but after a try or two I got it to hold and set-et-hard. Couldn't budge it. The big wind came and blew for a day and a half. Lots of violent sailing that put large sudden loads on the anchor and rode. We were using 5/8ths Brait (brand) line and probably 12' of chain. Didn't drag any that I could tell.

I ceased using the original XYZ as it was so much trouble to set.

Got interested again in the XYZ when I discovered the new XYZ product the "Extreme" anchor. See pic #1 (top). This is the 18lb XYZ Extreme I bought in Alaska. It always worked and held .. and set. I've always been keen on anchors that performed well at short scope and this was claimed for this anchor.
There's a story I'm not going to bother telling but I wound up w a missing the fwd piece (toe) for my anchor. XYZ wouldn't sell me a new one. That's another story. So I had one made by a machinist in Craig. See that in pic#2 and 3. It was bigger that the SS original toe providing more surface area, a different shape and protruded slightly further fwd. I was seeking the ultimate in short scope performance.
I had planed to use it primarily on our run south to Puget Sound In Wash State. Thought w it's wide toe end it would only set in mud and I viewed it as a "mud anchor". So I was very surprised it set well every time we used it (about 7-8 times).
We did get into another 50 knot gale w many gusts more than that I'm sure. We were in Patterson Inlet w two other larger boats. The big sailboat didn't drag that I could tell (w a big CQR) but the 42' KK dragged down on us and we were close to the downwind rocks so I picked up and reset where the KK started out. We did 2hr watches through the night staring at the lights of the other boats and the GPS. In the morning the wind was almost over and we left. While passing the KK he told of snagging a small submerged tree and that caused his dragging.
The Performance on all other anchorings was textbook good except in Fishermen Bay in the SanJuans. Weed. Short and thick. Gave up after two tries (It was cold and blowing) and used my old Dan 13. For some reason it hooked up. So I cut notches in the corners of the toe. See pics 4,5 and six.

After that experience I had the toe heated up and bent downward at about 10 degrees. See The last three pics. So it's ready for testing.

wow...Nice write up. I guess I feel fortunate that my handy dandy bruce anchors have never let me down.

My last post of the three is about a Claw. You may find it interesting.

Nice job Eric. Keep modifying the XYZ and you are going to end up with an anchor looking like one that I know really well!
Steve

Steve,
It’s pre-test but I don’t have any plan B ect in my head. But I didn’t have plans for the mod I just did before it failed to set on the weed. Change comes from need. But the majority of anchors don’t have a bent down toe. That’s food for serious thought as I bend mine down. Also I’d need to make another toe to bend it back up. OK plan B is at least a foggy thought now.
It may bend during use as it’s only 1/4” mild steel. So if I do another toe mod on this one it could be pointed like the original .. but bigger. It’s nice that I can un-screw the toe and work on it or make a new one.
Stay tuned Steve as the third anchor (modded Claw) is slightly related to your anchor.
There’s also a relationship between the small shank and the big relatively heavy “tail”.

Eric- What a hobby you have

Does this new XYZ have any problems righting itself?

Could you make the toe reversible so you could just flip it over to bend it the other way ?

I say we fund Eric and his mods....

The minute he mods an anchor that holds first, time every time in every blow we all encounter....

I say we all chip in and fund a production line and buy one.

I am all set, except my current anchor does way more than I ever expected, so I am waiting for the next miracle anchor.

Foggy thanks and Ben, yes it could be done BUT ... I could just flip this one but the bevel at the toe end would be bass akwards. A chisel works wonderfully w the blade end down and the “cut” up. Except for very shallow angles it works OK w the bevel down but anchors work mostly w the fluke at shallow angles so for all practical purposes the chisel face should be up. So no to the question. However if the bevel cut was made on both sides it could work though. The biggest “BUT” is that w the toe bent to promote penetration in it’s normal position (down) it the works very well but flip it and w the toe bent up it would likely be the anchor that never set. Would be a seafloor sled.

Foggy,
The “horn” at the top of the strut above the usual L shaped shank digs into the bottom and the fluke becomes unstable .. then falls over on it’s side. Then the XYZ is in the same setting attitude as a Supreme, Spade or Rocna. The chisel toe is vertical (nearly) and presents the sharp corner to the seafloor and quick setting should result. The exception would be in really slimy mud. Then this anchor would need to be re-deployed. Slime mud is not good for any anchor. See the Chesapeke Bay Mud anchor tests. I don’t know of any mud that slimy in the PNW but if I ever found it and had lots of area for 7-1scope or more I may try another set or two as this anchor has great potential for slime mud IMO. Or choose another anchor.

So Scott you feel the Supreme is a miracle anchor? Well it’s very good and hasn’t failed me even w all the mods I’ve made thus far except when I first cut off the roll bar and haden’t added a substitute for the roll bar. I just had to try it that way to see how necessary the RB was. With all other mods it worked well. Like Steve I only have about 40hp so testing for holding power is not very revealing. And I haven’t rigged to pull from the stern yet either .. soon.
Please don’t send any money or gold. Don’t stop looking for the perfect anchor either. That’s how we find the best there is now. Keep do’in that and you’ll never need a miracle anchor.

Many probably have never seen the XYZ anchor. I think I’ve seen others but I can't rember where. If you search {xyzanchor.com} you can read more about it. He sells them only via the internet. I’m not promoting them but if you use one you’ll probably want to store them on deck like a Danforth. There are bow rollers that accomodate the XYZ but they stick out quite far.
I just checked the website. Still available from NY but the Man who designed it Dragomir (Draggo) the enprepreneur is the man.
The present anchors are still 18 and 33lbs. They are wider (at the tail) than my earlier model and are available in SS and gal. Sterting at $450 and toping out at a tad over $1000.

How will this anchor fare in a rocky bottom or a heavily grassy bottom.

I am sure Eric will respond to the question about rocky bottoms and heavy grass seabeds regarding his anchor. However, knowing that my comments may create a whole new discussion, I would like to comment.

Rocks. One has to determine their definition of rocks. If we are talking gravel bottoms, that is later. If we are talking big rocks, read on! Last time I checked, no anchor in the market can penetrate a rock! Therefore any anchor is relegated to “hooking” a crevice or edge or depression or slot between two rocks. Some anchors may be better able to “find” these “hooking points” and grab. Luke style or Fisherman Anchors come to mind as a style that may provide a better hold. However, I have seen other anchors not known for being “rock anchors” catch a crevice and hold quite well. I have also seen a Luke Anchor miss the slot or crevice and not catch a hold. Bottom line, often anchoring in rocks is a crap shoot! Some great well-known anchors work well and sometimes not. Some would argue that some designs have components on their anchor that do not allow for deep catching in a crevice. Maybe. I would not dismiss a main bower because of rock anchoring performance unless someone primarily anchors in rocks. I would evaluate the performance of a main bower on its ability to set quickly and hold securely in the seabeds I primarily anchor in.

Okay, smaller rocks and gravel. Weight of the anchor, weight on the fluke point, and sharpness of the fluke point is key. A blunt end fluke will have more difficulty in penetrating this seabed than a rather sharp point or edge of the fluke. I would suspect that the design Eric has come up with will be able to penetrate this type of seabed.

Heavy grassy bottoms create a very similar challenge to the gravel seabed. You have to “cut through” the top layer. Once through that layer, the anchor is better able to set and hold. Similar designs: weight of the anchor, weight on the fluke point, sharpness of the fluke point can assist on this penetration. Lots of the popular brands on the market today can do this. Some better than others? Perhaps or probably but not sure one model is head and shoulders over the “second best” or “third best” etc. There can be arguments made for many models. (I am not going there).

For heavy grassy seabeds, think about the refrigerated stick of butter test using a blunt knife, spoon, or sharp edge knife at different angles of pull. What works best?
One more issue about rocks, I have heard from many who have caught a good hold on a rock formation only to have the wind and tide shift and the anchor dislodges.

Steve

jimisbell,
That’s why I first narrowed the tip of the toe and turned it down. Mostly turning it down. Perhaps you missed the blurb about my XYZ failing to hook up on some thick grass. Haven’t tried any of the three modded anchors yet. Supposed to be a foot of snow next two days and it’s 17degrees f out there now. Testing later.

Steve,
It seems we’re blessed as most all bottoms in the PNW are mud. Like the 27 different kinds of snow in the eskimo language there’s many different kinds of mud bottoms here.

Most all mud is great for anchoring. Can’t say that for Chesapeke Bay but I’ve never found any mud to result in anchoring problems. That may be why the Danforth and Claw anchors sit on the bows and decks of so many boats in the PNW. Most any anchor will do in mud. But when it really starts to blow some other types like those w overly large flukes and more modern anchors like the Rocna are usually superior for holding. A lot of my anchoring success is probably due to mud and very sheltered anchorages.

Re rocks w a big area of football sized rocks or bigger finding another anchorage is best. It’s amazing no anchor comes close to the kedge type anchor for really rocky bottoms. Hundreds of years old and in one bottom there’s still none better .... IMO. But serious rocks are not a typical bottom.

I think it’s a bit funny .. in Anacortes Wa there is a West Marine store w two big pics of two different type boats. One has a Danforth anchor on the bow and the other sports a Claw. I would think they’d put Rocna's or a Spade on those boats. But then everybody knows walking the docks most of the anchors seen will be Danforths and Claws.

Well I guess I’m predictable as here I am resopnding. I’m obviously a bit of an odd duck as I think anchors are fascinating and love to think about them. There was a time on TF that had lots of other more interesting threads. We’ve done some of them many times and new ground gets less interesting all the time. Actually I’m amazed how new stuff does keep comming up. And many think that about anchors and anchoring. It’s a fact that Anchors and Anchoring was an add on, probably about 2009 or 10. Not even originally considered.

Picture

Edit gone already.
Here’s the pic I referred to in the above post.
OK I can’t see the anchors very well.
The boat to the right, a fast planing hulled boat has the Danforth and the mostly trawler like slow boat on the left has the Claw. I say this in case you can’t make them out. I’m on my pad and can’t quite but on my i-mac it will probably be clear enough. Those w phones just gotta take my word for it. Sorry I thought it would be clearer.

Eric, I sent you a PM, did you get it?

Oh yes I did and was quite pleased. Positive feedback is always grand.

Nomad Willy said:

Most all mud is great for anchoring. Can’t say that for Chesapeke Bay but I’ve never found any mud to result in anchoring problems.

Click to expand...

LOL...I was anchored in mud in Spindletop Bayou some years ago in a 5 knot current, in mud. The 22 pound Danforth hooked and held. But in the morning I tried to get it up. A China-man had a hold of it and after bending my bow pulpit while trying to let the bow lift it out and finally bending the shaft of the anchor using the engine to dislodge it, it came up with 30 pounds of mud in it. I would call that "a problem".

I'm going to present the Supreme evolution in three posts.
This is #1 group and a,b,c, and d pics.

These are the earliest pictures (#1 a,b and c) that I have of my Supreme. I bought it undersized at 15lbs to put more forces on the anchor thinking it would reveal more that way. I weighed it before cutting off the RB and it was actually 18lbs. When I got the RB off I was amazed how naked it looked. Eventually it was to get much more naked.

The next mod was to fill the holes (top and bottom) where the RB “stub” was. Reducing the huge drag of the RB put me in a frame of mind that the road to more performance would lie in the path of hydrodynamic cleanliness. The philosophy of design by one anchor manufacturer that I know was that the key to performance was to minimize all the anchor parts except the fluke. It’s obvious that a huge shank and small fluke is a poor formula for a good anchor.
However one could say the job of an anchor is to create resistance, the element of performance that should keep the boat from moving. Obviously there’s a great deal more to it than that. But burying deep seems to me to be far superior to me than being close to the surface so I sought to reduce drag that may impede downward movement. I was leaving the fluke as is and minimizing all else. Those that have Supremes can appreciate how clean the bottom of my Supreme is. The stock Supreme has the ends of the RB protruding into the substrate that should be sliding by as the anchor goes deeper.

Modded Anchoprs

This is #2 Supreme. #2 group and a,b,c and d pics.

The next major change came trying to find a better way to keep the anchor orientated to the bottom in a way that insured it would function as an anchor with a buried fluke.
At the same time I ground off most of the cheeks of the heart shaped toe of the fluke. Steve of “Anchor Setting Videos” did the same but he ground all of the cheeks off. I opted to leave a bit of the heart on as surface area saved .. however small.
At this point the major move was the appendage that would keep the anchor upright. I designed this lattice like structure on top of the shank to keep the anchor from dragging up-side-down. I think the weight and drag was less that the RB but I probably overdid it .. too much and too high. But you can see in picture B3 that the latticework was far less draggy that the RB. Speaking of drag see the picture 1c of the original leading edge of the shank. Compare it to later pics and see the degree of sharpness a lot of grinding produced. And some of this design was to provide a smooth path for a reversing rode to pass over the anchor w/o getting caught on the anchor probably upsetting it. But it did work anchoring 5 or 6 times.

This is #3 Supreme. #3 group and a,b,c,d and e pics.

But I wasn’t really happy w the way it worked. I adopted some of the things Steve (Panope) did. I was going to cut off the metal above the slot as he did before but decided it would weaken the shank too much. But then Steve did it and he convinced me it would “probably” be strong enough. So I removed the piece just as he did. With the lattice and the slot bar removed the CG suddenly was far lower. I decided to try it to find out if the big lowering of the CG would make the anchor behave.

But then I decided the fluke actually could get in an inverted position that probably would guarantee dragging along up-side-down. But I decided using a long scope the anchor could right itself.
Then I saw an anchor for kayaks that seemed to be working and came up w a much different appendage that I felt would do the job. And I concluded it would probably work well over 95% of the time .. just a guess. But the way I anchor it would probably work all the time. The device can be seen in pics C1and 2. Kind of a stinger-like thing. An extremely small and light appendage compared to the alternatives.

I have another modded anchor (Claw) that will probably come up chocked w mud much too often. I decided to put holes in the fluke (like Steve did) and more significantly like Anchor Right Australia does (Super Sarca and Excel). My holes are a little different than Steve's and much different than ARA. There’s about the same number but considerably smaller and all funnel shaped on the bottom to help guide water in. See group 3 pics c,d and e.

So that’s where it stands now (pic 3 b plus the holes) and w so much rain and more than a spot of snow (10" one day) it may be a few weeks before I get this guy wet. I’ll respond to almost any friendly question or other comment.
Eventually I’ll drop the anchor and the whole rode on top of it to see if it will fowl itself and I’m of the opinion that it will. How often I’ll not guess.

This is the last of the three modded anchors.

I've always thought the Claw had much more potential than had ever been realized. Many said that it didn't hold well because of insufficient blade area. I had agreed but felt geometry was more to blame. I kept thinking the twist in the outboard flukes was doing something that only the designer knew about or understood.

Re the geometry the biggest difference tween the decedents of the original Claw (Bruce) and most of the Claws to follow was the throat angle. The angle between the fluke bottom and the shank. The Bruce had considerably less.

When I was in Alaska I bought a 22lb no name Claw for $80. Thought I needed it for rocky bottoms. This no name Claw had the low throat angle (TA) of the Bruce and lately I've come to believe that the low TA was best previously thinking the opposite. I also have a 33lb Lewmar Claw w the wide TA. I wanted to increase the blade area on a Claw and see if I could make a larger area Claw that would set dependably and hold better. I wanted a 33lb anchor but my 33 was a wide TA anchor. So I did the mod deed on the no name 22lb.

I took my 22lb no name Claw to the fab shop w the self designed and cut appendages to illict the desired changes. You can see in the pics what I have done by looking at the welds. Re the add on to the center fluke I made it thin to minimize the tendency to impede the rotation from mostly up-side-down to right side up. This is an area of concern as Claws sometimes rotate part way to laying on their sides and set like that w one outboard fluke sticking up never entering the seabed. I of course hope that dosn't happen.

But if the modclaw sets properly right-side-up the added surface of the fluke should go a long way to solving the Claw's dragging problem.

Obviously, anchors are a hobby of Willy. I'm still curious, but then my Chinese Bruce-copy has always been reliable in my waters.

Mark,
Look at the bottom pic and imagine it was an anchor being set by a boater. First the small side fluke goes down in the seafloor. Lots of weight on the pointy end shouldn’t be a problem. But then as the setting continues the side of the center fluke must penetrate sideways as the anchor rotates. This is what I’m worried about. How can I tell if the anchor rotates right-side-up w/o a camera? One thought I’ve had is to set it best I can and then if it draggs w my little engine it must still have one fluke sticking up not in the seafloor. Not saying it is but it may be the reason Claws have the reputation for dragging. I may try and find a place to drag the anchor w my oid 4wd Suburban. Then I can see what’s going on. Good enough for Rex should be good enough for me.

Modded claw is very interesting. Cant wait for the test results. I have a 44 pounder of unknown origin and cant wait to improve it.


I also have a mega CQR, over 50 pounds. I am thinking adding a roll bar to compensate for, next, locking the hinge. Might make it a better anchor.

You’re gett’in in the spirit of the dark side of anchoring.

Lock the hinge on the CQR? That may cause the hinge/shank to hit the bottom lifting the fluke tip up above the bottom. Make a temp lock and lay it on your garage floor.

Don’t get too excited about the Claw. As I’ve said several times I think it will be too good at bring’in up mud. I intended to put holes in the Claw just like the Supreme but decided to get the Claw to work first.

Nomad Willy said:

You’re gett’in in the spirit of the dark side of anchoring.

Lock the hinge on the CQR? That may cause the hinge/shank to hit the bottom lifting the fluke tip up above the bottom. Make a temp lock and lay it on your garage floor.

Click to expand...

Freezing the hnge without a "rollbar" might cause a problem righting itself, but the addition of the rollbar is meant to replace the hinge as a righting mechanism......maybe?

Lot’s of different anchors. Many that haven’t even been born yet. Like my modified Claw.

It’s in the womb so to speak. I had high hopes for it at first but then got to thinking baut mud and decided the ModBruce would most likely be the mother of all mud buckets. I finally got around to trying it and sure enough it brought up lots of mud. But it set quickly and business like. Probably dragged 3-5’ to set solid. Wow it actually works I was thinking. Had si many bad thoughts about it I was almost shcked when it set promptly. Then we backed down on it (1200rpm or so) and the anchor line was very hard to pull up even an inch tween the bow roller and the anchor rode cleat. Next morning it took some work to get it up. Worked the capstan as hard as ever and used a vertical rode and some movement to break out.
The fun had just started though as it took 10 min or so working w the end of our boat hook to work most of the dark grey mud off.
My big worry (in addition to the mud) was the tendency of Claws to lay on their side and not fully set. I made the center fluke longer and feared it would prevent the rotation required to get fully set. However it seemed to hold well enough to be optimistic about it.
Just a first drop out of the gate but it shows potential to be sure. I plan on drilling holes in the fluke to nix the mud problem.

Sounds promising. I have an unmodified 40+ pound CQR and a 40+ pound Claw. I love the claw (always works) I hope your mods make it better. I am currently using a big Fortress.

Jim,
Failed the second time out.
False Bay is not my favorite place. Two visits. Both wern’t good.
This time I think I tried to set on a bit of a submarine cliff. Like a good sledding hill. Tried the Mud Claw first and it just dragged along. Then the modded Supreme. Sane thing at the same spot.
Had enough time so we went over to Hornby Is. and anchored in Tribune Bay. Used my Danforth as I didn’t want to do experiments in the dark. As usual the D worked perfectly.

My Fortress (aluminum Danforth) always works here in the Gulf where the bottom is almost always silt from the Mississippi. The only problem I have with the Danforth in mud is that sometimes it is very hard to retrieve it and it just continues to dive into the mud in a current. I have spent an hour trying to free a Danforth with full vertical retrieval and one of my big iron Danforths has a bend in the shank from having to "run over" it to get it out.