Getting Used to Fear

[Giggitoni]

I must be a very lonely man...or perhaps the happiest.* I*love the voyage into the un-explored; anticipating what's around the next cape or beyond the horizon.* However, I also love relaxing in that quite cove, on the flybridge with binoculars in hand waiting for that rare*bird to fly overhead or watching a Nordhavn anchor several hundred yards away; wondering where they've been or where they're going.**After a day or two, and*a couple*of brown bottles,*I move on*to do it all over again...* Life is good!* I'm never in a hurry but I sure love seeing different seascapes and folks.* Sea ya' on the water.

Ray

 

[Tom.B]

Wasn't this thread all about me someways back?

I like some of Marin's points above. I am looking forward to a modern repower of my 6,354 when it's day comes.

-- Edited by GonzoF1 on Wednesday 19th of May 2010 06:41:43 PM

 

[Marin]

GonzoF1 wrote:

Wasn't this thread all about me someways back?

Yes, it was.* And you have probably learned from all this that you have little to fear as you gain experience in boating.* If a whole bunch of active boaters have the time and inclination to argue about engines and anchors and all this other crap, it's obvious we have found very little to worry about with regards to actually operating our boats.* So you don't have very much to worry about, either.

When we got our GB we had never run this kind of a boat other than charter.* So we were at the bottom of the trawler*learning curve to a great extent.* On the advice of a long-time boater, famous (in this area)*seaplane company founder, pilot, and friend (Bob Munro of Kenmore Air)*we*simply*took the boat out and "did it."*

You can read all sorts of books (and learn a*lot,*don't get me wrong), and talk to all*sorts of people in person and in forums like this, and get all sorts of "do it this way, don't do it that way" advice-- most of which*you'll find is not applicable to your specific situation-- and have everybody tell you to get a different anchor and a different rode and run your engine(s) in a different way.* It can get confusing and lead you to worry about every aspect of operating your boat.* "Am I doing it the right way?"

So my advice is to ignore all the advice and go use your boat.* Use*whatever anchor you happen to have.* Use whatever rode you happen to have. Peruse Earl Hinz's book (Complete Book of Anchoring and Mooring) and you'll have been exposed to all the anchoring theory and information you'll ever need other than what you learn yourself over time.*

Operate the engine(s) according*to their operating manuals and ignore what I and everybody else tells you to do with them because 99 percent of it will be wrong or applicable to a different engine or boat or situation or--- worse---*will be armchair theory.

If you have questions about electronics, engines, transmissions, electrical systems, toilets, whatever, ask the pros who sell or work on them.* Your diesel shop is your friend.* If you have questions about bottom paint,*all the major paint manufacturers have area reps that are happy to provide advice, and most of it is pretty good.* For a second opinion, ask one or more local yards*that have good repuations.

If you can meet and get to know a good, reputable shipwright in your area, that*relationship will be worth more than every internet boating forum on the planet.

If*the make of boat you have has an internet owners forum, join it, ask*questions, and provide answers or observations as you learn them.* If you're lucky, you will "meet' thorugh the owners*group some very experienced people.* On the two*GB owners groups we have Bob Lowe and Mike*Negley.**Between them, they know everything there is to know about Grand Banks boats, period.* And that's a lot more than even*Grand Banks, LLC, knows itself.* Find one or two people like this--- who really know your make of boat, not simply spout assumptions or generalities--- and they will make your boating life way easier.

But, most important of all, just go out and use your boat.* We operated our boat for the first*three or four years without the "benefit" of any internet forums, owners groups, or anything else.* Our advisors were our diesel*shop, the*local electronics dealer and local marine electric shop*we use, the few people we got to know in our marina*who we*determined knew what they were talking about, and one of the area's best shipwrights.

I don't know what you've done in your life so far, but I'm guessing you have taken on some challenges or you wouldn't be taking on boating.**So the chances are that you've done one*or more things--- it can be a business undertaking, a travel adventure, a career change, a major relocation with an unknown outcome,*it*doesn't matter what---*that can let you say, "If I could do that, I can certainly*figure out this boating thing."* All you need is some confidence and you're not going to get it from the internet.*

For my wife and I it was a lot of things but the clincher was the fact that we'd flown floatplanes up and down the Inside Passage for the better part of two decades.* That was our "if we can do that" confidence builder that made getting into trawlering seem in our minds to be a piece of cake.* By the time we realized it wasn't a piece of cake, we'd been doing it long enough to be confident in our ability to operate the boat safely and continue to learn.

And above all, remember, this is supposed to be fun.

-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 19th of May 2010 07:37:45 PM

 

[FF]

"$1200 modern injector probably costs in real value no more or less than an injector did decades ago. "

However I am out cruising NOW , with whats left of a retirement from a bankrup airline.

Today from my wallet ,I get the choice of purchasing a DD Reliabilt injector for $36* or a nice unrepairable one for $1200+.A set* for a* DD cost less than the sales tax on the new crap.

"Saying electronics are the result of government mandates is a kind of meaningless arguement, because government mandates aren't going away and in fact*are the realities of what the engine folks have to live by from here on, be they automotive, industrial,*marine,*or aviation engines.* Computers/electronics are the best*way to meet the requirements, so they make the computer systems as reliable as possible."

The problem with Gov mandates are that none are reality based.

The trucking industery (the base stock for small to modest sized boat engines)* suffers from the FORCE and FRAUD of the gov demamd* for results that were / are unrealistic.

The trucks after 2004 had some form of EGR , that still does not work, still costs truckers 15% EXTRA fuel , every single mile .

Finally after almost a decade the engine builders have finally given up , and will no longer build EGR truck engines.
The compromise (still stuck on the truckers backs) is Urea put in the exhaust. Another system to purchase and maintain , and another tank to fill, But to the truckers its worth it!

The fuel milage is up 30% , so the cost of the Urea spray in less of a burden .

No one has yer explained why a truck in LA or NYC is required to have an exhaust that puts out cleaner air than goes in the intake.


While the Mental Masterbation of squinting and seeing a modern electronic tiny wonder* installed on the engine bed . The practical concept that an unrepairable , DEAD for hundreds of reason converted car engine would allow mer to cruise at my 7K on a gallon an hour less , is a brainless exchange.

Now in my bus conversion a 1998 Series 50 DD will get better milage than the old 1160 CAT and have almost 3X the hp and torque , so its being installed NOW.

AS itsa old it doesnt require "exhaust gas fluid" the gov euphimism for UREA.





-- Edited by FF on Thursday 20th of May 2010 04:56:49 AM

 

[bobfnbw]

Not sure at all about a lot of this discussions on engines.
But what I know from past experience is that a old Perkins 4-108 will run for a long time and be easily rebuilt, is cheap and pretty much bullet proof. A modern yanmar is expensive, not at all bullet proof, but more efficient and a lot less vibration. This is from a sailboat perspective.
When it was time I chose to rebuild the Perkins rather than install a new engine at a significantly less cost.

For a Trawler, from the limited research I have done, I would take a old Gardner diesel anyday over a new turbocharged engine. Or a Kelvin. Both will last 20000 hrs run on anything (from what I hear) but can be higher cost to rebuild due to parts not being that available.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I've read this whole thread and it's been great. I really enjoyed lots of posts * *.. especially SDs. I remember when he was Newbie Dude instead of Skipper Dude and he like many others who have done time on this site have gained confidence with the internet and the "Old Salts" that were here when they came. Very few of us change our minds about much or anything but we get a lot of input from the other side of our own views and that gives us a higher level of objectivity. We can either change our views or get a better understanding of our own established views. We've all come some distance.As to using old equipment I think we should look at the question on a issue by issue basis. When I bought my Willard I thought I needed to rebuild but found a complete rebuild cost $5000 but w a new Mitsu for $6000 I went for new. No new obviously new technology but 100% new. The Yanmar was priced at about $10000 so I shopped around and bought from a dealer that does most of their business w commercial fishermen and haven't been sorry. As to running a 6-71 yeaaahhhh I love the sound of that engine * *.. if I had the money for the fuel I'd have one.
Regarding fear it's just a matter of familiarity. Break things down to their simplest form and do that until it gets boring or a bit before. Then go to the next stage. With hang gliding going from the sand dune to the 800' mini mountain/cliff launch was a big step and boating has some rather large steps too but doing the step just before the big steps many times, until it's old stuff really helps. It's best for safety too. Ther'e are times when we need to do some fear to geter done.
I disagree w you Marin * * .. I like the fish finder picture sounder running next to my *high end digits only sounder. I can see at a glance if the bottoms ramp'in up fast or mostly flat or whatever. History frequently tells us a bit about what's ahead.
I checked out the Rocna and I've got some reservations about the roll bar. I'm going to make one more modification to my XYZ and try it this summer. If it fails I'll get the Rocna.


Thanks for all the great posts guys,
Eric Henning

 

[Codger2]

nomadwilly wrote:.. I like the fish finder picture sounder running next to my *high end digits only sounder. I can see at a glance if the bottoms ramp'in up fast or mostly flat or whatever. History frequently tells us a bit about what's ahead.

I couldn't agree more , Eric.


*

 

[Tom.B]

I too have enjoyed all the advice and hope it continues. We actually did anchor out this weekend, but decided not to stay overnight because of a few mitigating circumstances. Our fridge has failed and the geset would not start. There were also a lot of people at the marina we wanted to visit with. So we set the anchor, deployed the snubber and sat for a couple of hours until we felt like it was a successful test. We will, of course, do more in the future, but for now, we'll ease into it.

One other thing is that our depth sounder flakes out almost always at just the wrong moment. I've got to spend some time working that out. I have no clue what the problem could be. It just stick at one depth and starts flashing. Hummingbird says to check the cable for kinks or breaks or that the transducer may have air bubbles in the "goo" that the previous owner used to mount it in the bilge. We'll see.

Anyway, due to a couple of non-boating things, like the immediate need for a new vehicle and pool liner, expenses are getting a little overwhelming. I need to get it back under control before we swamp ourselves. We still need a new bimini this season and 300 gallons of fuel. Let's hope this whole thing doesn't do us in.

THIS, my friends, is the NEW fear that is taking over for the old one. My glass is half empty.

 

[RickB]

FF wrote:
No one has yer explained why a truck in LA or NYC is required to have an exhaust that puts out cleaner air than goes in the intake.

Let's try the simple version. Since most of the crud in the intake air is engine exhaust , maybe cleaning that exhaust will lead to cleaner intake air.

Does your toilet discharge into your well?

*

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:
I checked out the Rocna and I've got some reservations about the roll bar. I'm going to make one more modification to my XYZ and try it this summer. If it fails I'll get the Rocna.

Eric---

The roll bar is the key to the whole anchor (same as the Sarca, Manson Supreme, etc.).* The roll bar ensures that the anchor always ends up on its side on the bottom no matter how it lands when its' first deployed.* This in turn ensures that when the pull to set it begins, the anchor is pulled around on its side so the point of the fluke is aiming at the boat.* As the setting pull is continued, the pointed fluke (on its side) is forced to pivot down into the bottom like a knife blade.* At that point the anchor rotates as pressure continues until the fluke is broadside to the pull in its maximum resistance position.

I suspect this is one reason why Rocna recommends an all-chain rode for their anchors, as the additional weight of the rode will help the fluke slice down into the bottom even faster.* However this style of anchor is said to be effective with a combination rode, too.

According to Rocna the anchor typically digs in and is set within a meter of where it first lands.* I can see how this could be the case in ideal bottom types but I supect it's not an "every time" occurace (Rocna doesn't claim it is).

There is a good video on the Rocna website that illustrates how the anchor works if you haven't seen it.* The illustration of the way it sets is also applicable to the other roll-bar anchors like the Sarca and Manson Supreme.


-- Edited by Marin on Monday 24th of May 2010 10:55:17 AM

 

[Nomad Willy]

Hi Marin,The XYZ shows a video too. The thing I don't like about the roll bar is that it introduces a ton of drag well above the shank attach point. If you put a roll bar like thing way up high on an aircraft it would cause it to pitch up a lot. When an anchor pitches up I would assume it would be easy to pull out. Other than the shank my XYZ has only a very small thing high up and that dosn't burry until all the rest of the anchor is 3 to 10" down in the sand or mud. All other anchors need at least 3-1 scope for reasonable performance but the XYZ holds at 2-1. It needs a longer scope to set but then you get to shorten up scope. The short shank and other things allow for the 2-1 performance (I suspect). No other anchor will perform w the short scope (very desirable in SE) the light weight (13 lbs) and the holding power (equal to a 33# Bruce or CQR). I think I'd need *5-1 scope to get that performance w a Rocna. My problem is I can't get the thing to set dependably. Numerous people in the anchor tests couldn't either. The sharpened point and the extended fluke tips may make it dig in and set. If it dosn't work I'll get the Rocna.


Eric Henning

 

[Peter B]

Eric, rest assured the roll bar has no adverse effect whatsoever, and there is no comparison between it and an aircraft. It's just not an issue. However, I am intriged as to what this XYZ anchor is you have there. Is that an alias, or is it the real name? Any anchor that can be used on a 2 : 1 rode has to be of interest. Even using a Sarca I would never trust any less than 3 : 1.

 

[Marin]

Eric---

The roll bar on a Rocna, Sarca, or Manson Supreme bears no resemblance to what happens on an aircraft at all. I can sort of see what you're concerned about--- that when the roll bar encouters the bottom you're concerned it will lever the fluke out--- but this doesn't happen. In fact, if pressure builds on the anchor the roll bar simply disappears under the bottom along with the fluke. This is one reason that Rocna recommends the use of a trip line if bottom and weather conditions are such that the anchor can dig in deep under pressure. Like sand, softer mud, etc. The anchor will drive itself so far down, roll bar and all, that a trip line will make it easier to un-set by backing the fluke out.

If there is any characteristic about the Rocna that could be construed as less-than-desirable (besides the price) it's the fact that when you bring it up it often brings up a fair amount of bottom with it. Think of one of those huge dragline buckets they use in open-pit coal mines. That's what the Rocna can do. It's no big deal if you have a powerful washdown pump, which a previous owner of our boat installed at some point. But if you're anchored in gluey mud, you'll have a job cleaning it off without a pretty powerful blast of water.

I don't really object to this because if the anchor has buried itself so thoroughly as to bring up that kind of pile, I figure it's holding the boat pretty well. And since we usually use a trip line with the anchor, we're not too worried about it becoming a huge job to get out of the bottom

 

[Nomad Willy]

<wwwgoboating.com/products/DM_article.asp?id=4056>Click on the small thumbnail.


<www.xyzanchor.com/pdf/PracticalSailor-April06.pdf>
Old anchor test.


Peter B,
The picture on the goboating page is exactly what I've got. I have done some grinding on the tip and I'm going to weld fluke tip extensions on the flukes. I pull up on my anchor rode while setting the anchor and all other anchors feel mushy even when they set but the XYZ feels like I just hooked a battleship. Bang * * ... no more movement. Boat stops suddenly. Odds are only about 1 in 5 I'll get it to set good * ..in my opinion.


Marin,
I'm not say'in it (the Rocna) dosn't work i'm just say'in physics is physics and drag high will pitch a vehicle up. But like Peter B says "has no adverse effect" but the force is without doubt there and Peter does say he would'nt try his SARCA at 2-1 scope. Note the trailing edge of the XYZ. It's like down elevator on an aircraft. It should pitch the XYZ down. The trailing edge on most other anchors is more like "up elevator" with the obvious probable results. I like this XYZ and I'm going to try and make it work.


Eric Henning
<file:///Users/erichenning/Desktop/Anchor_04_06%202.jpg>

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Tuesday 25th of May 2010 11:30:12 AM

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Tuesday 25th of May 2010 11:39:14 AM

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Tuesday 25th of May 2010 11:42:25 AM

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:Peter does say he would'nt try his SARCA at 2-1 scope.

Well, I wouldn't try any anchor except a huge mooring buoy anchor at 2:1 scope unless I knew for a fact the wind wasn't going to blow.

At that short a scope the down-curve on the back end of your XYZ won't do much, I think, since the vertical component of the pull of the rode on the shank*will negate what little downforce* there might be.* Actually, I suspect the amount of "downforce" generated by that back end will be virtually negligable under the best of conditions.

I think trying to relate what a wing does in air to what an anchor fluke does in mud, sand, gravel, etc. is a sort of meaningless excercise, anyway.* Yes, physics is physics but apples are not oranges.* The forces acting on an anchor are totally unlike those acting on a surface being moved through*the air.* There is the leverage of the rode on the shank, the angle that the pulling force is transmitted to the fluke,* the jerks from the boat pitching in*waves that are being transmitted down the scope (particularly if it's only 2:1)*and on and on and on.

You could probably do a lot of things to the XYZ--- weld on stuff to change the shape of the flukes, sharpen the tip, add weight to the tip, add a rollbar so that it wil lie on its side and bite in faster, and so on.* But then if won't be an XYZ anymore.

From your posts I get the impression that the XYZ hasn't really performed very well for you.* It occasionally sets well and holds but I get the impression that it takes a lot of tries before it does this.* In my book, that tells me it's not a very good anchor design*and that I should be looking for something else.* Not working is not working, and BELIEVING that the design should make it work won't make it work if it's not going to.

If your primary criteria in anchoring is to use a 2:1 scope then I would not recommend a Rocna.* Actually, there's not any anchor I'd recommend if all they're going to get is a 2:1 scope.* Especially if that scope is all or mostly nylon line, which I believe I recall is what you want to use.

In that case, I think you might be better off taking your anchor rode ashore and tying it to a tree

*


-- Edited by Marin on Tuesday 25th of May 2010 05:11:34 PM

 

[Peter B]

Yes, sorry Eric, butI have to agree with Marin here. I looked up the anchor tests link you provided. Couldn't find the Go Boating one - looks like that site is down, but got the Practical Sailor anchor test site ok, and looking at how and what was tested, I think I can see the dilemma. You bought the one they rated best in their test - fair enough, but it was only tested in soft mud, the exact bottom it's design would be best suited to. However, I can also see why you feel it only sets well once in five times. On any other bottom, it would tend to drop onto its side and bounce along, as it has so little inherent weight, and nothing about its shape to make it want to swing over and dig that tip in. I can see if the tip did dig in, then yes, it's sharp-edged, and would tend to pull right under the surface, as a result of that and its shank configuration, but it would need to be a fairly soft surface. On anything like weed or firmer sand, gravel or rock it would be pretty hit and miss I think. And for peace of mind with any anchor you do need more then 2:1 rode at any time, unless only a cuppatea stop-over in perfect weather, surely?

 

[Nomad Willy]

I thought my aviation analogies were very good and easy for all to comprehend. Since your'e not responding to them I think your'e just stirring the Baugh Humbug pot. As I've said I've just got to figure out a way to get it to set. I've already sat out a 50 knot+ gale in Allison Harbor with the Willy slamming her bow back and forth against the XYZ. The short shank is what makes it work at 2-1. All other anchors have a long shank that rotates the flukes up on short scope. I'll try it with mods this summer and report back * * + or neg.

Eric Henning

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:

I thought my aviation analogies were very good and easy for all to comprehend. Since your'e not responding to them I think your'e just stirring the Baugh Humbug pot. As I've said I've just got to figure out a way to get it to set.

While the analogy would*seem to be logical I think the diffrences between a wing moving fast through air and a heavy steel plate moving slow (if at all) through dense material like mud are so different that any sort of*meaningful*comparison is pretty hard to make.

It's not really bah-humbug, more just a matter of not understanding why you think this anchor is worth messing with if it doesn't set.* Given the wide variety of anchors that DO set, even the Bruce, I'm puzzled why you feel it's worth trying modify this one to set.

On the other hand, I can see where it could be an interesting mechanical challenge.* If I'm recalling correctly, I believe when you first posted about trying the XYZ (which was some time ago so I could be misremembering) it's appeal was the manufacturer's claim of being able to use a very short scope.* However I don't recall your motivation for wanting*a very short scope.*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Morn'in Marin,The other big issue is weight. I don't use a winch. I hand deploy. A 15lb anchor is easy to deal with and a 30lb is not.
The last time I anchored (last fall) it was in 50' of water and the little cove was so small 3-1 scope was a strech. That's probably why the XYZ wouldn't set. They recommend 5-1 to set the anchor. *Very small anchorages are really common here. The interesting thing about that experience is that the old Danforth actually set in that tiny little cove. About the AC analogy * *.. a typical glider w a high pod and engine cowling way up above the fuselage would cause considerable pitch up attitude under tow or in free flight. Fluid is fluid and the same applies to anchors. The roll bar does cause pitch up but apparently it's small and/or overcome by other forces. I wonder how the Rocna, SARCA and Bruce would perform w shorter shanks? Care to guess?


Eric Henning


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Wednesday 26th of May 2010 08:19:11 AM

 

[Marin]

I certainly agree that hauling an anchor by hand makes weight a major consideration, particularly in the deeper anchorages we are likely to encounter in the PNW and SE Alaska. It also tends to rule out all-chain rode simply because of how hard it is on the hands.

I don't know anything about the XYZ, but another option for you is a large Fortress. We carry one on our swimstep to use as a stern anchor but we sized it to be the main anchor of the boat if necessary,along with its rode which we keep in a covered milk crate on the aft deck. So it would be easy to carry it all forward to deploy off the bow if we needed to. This relatively large Fortress weighs, I think, about 15 pounds or perhaps a bit more.

A drawback of the Fortress in these waters is that it's a Danforth design, which is not ideal for setting in some of the bottoms we get up here. But if you typically set in mud or sand or a combination of both, the Danforth does very well and in fact is usually rated at or near the top of the list in holding power tests. And a pretty big Fortress doesn't weigh much.

Peter Smith spent a fair amount of time coming up with the final design of the Rocna, and since he was trying to create an effective anchor for his own use he wasn't under the pressure of trying to get an anchor into production as soon as possible. So my guess is that he experimented with a number of configurations before arriving at the configuration the Rocna has today. I suspect the shank length is what it needs to be to get the anchor to dig in, set, and hold properly. A shorter shank may not let it knife in sideways as quickly, or it could affect the angle at which the fluke penetrates the bottom, making it more difficult for it to dig in. I have no idea, but to my way of thinking it's an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of scenario. Given the impressive track record the Rocna has amassed (and I assume the same goes for the Sarca, Manson Supreme, etc.) Smith seems to have gotten the design right.

As others have noted he did not come up with the Rocna design out of the blue but combined features--- basic fluke shape, the roll bar, etc--- that had been used on other anchors and added refinements. Like so many other evolutionary things like cars, planes, boats, computers, etc., what Smith did was combine existing design elements and new ideas more effectively than had been done before.

Can this particular design be improved upon? Maybe, maybe not. But I'll leave it to someone else to saw off the end of their Rocna shank to see how it does

But I will certainly grant you that a 33-pound Rocna--- which is probably the ideal size for your boat--- with perhaps 150' of all-chain rode out is not what you want to be hauling in by hand. I had to do it once when the big no-name windlass that came on our boat bent a couple of teeth on the intermediate drive gear and locked the unit up. We had already retrieved all the slack in the chain so all I had left to pull in were the 30' or so hanging straight down from the bow plus the weight of the anchor itself. Not anything I'd care to do on a regular or even not-so-regular basis.




-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 26th of May 2010 12:10:56 PM

 

[Nomad Willy]

Marin,Some good comments. The Fortress is one I've considered before and as you point out for good reason. You'd think we'd get rocky bottoms frequently but in practice * *..not often.
Most of the time our bottoms are mud or sand in that order. Even the Guardian ( econo-Fortress) is pricey and w all the logging debris not a perfect option. I have 3 Danforths (about 22lbs) but only one has a forged shank. Ther'e free so perhaps I should use them up and see how often I have trouble w snagging. The forged shank (real Danforth) seems to work well but I don't know if the other two do.
I'm quite sure the roll bar contributes significantly to holding via drag addition. Many anchors have a shank about exactly the same length so one would thing there's a common reason but that could be that everybody's just copying everybody else. It could be that a lot of obvious things hav'nt been tried. Thank's for the input.


Eric Henning

 

[Marin]

Eric---

Regarding snagging logging debris, anchors like the Rocna, Bruce, etc. have holes either at the wide end of the fluke or in the bottom of the shank for the attachment of a trip line that can be used to haul the anchor out backwards if it gets snagged.

I'm not aware of a similar setup on a Danforth-type unit.* Our Fortress doesn't have the accomodation for a trip line on it anywhere.* However, there are those metal rings (some people just use a huge and heavy logging shackle) that you can put around the anchor rode and then slide it*down to the anchor and pull it to the bottom of the shank at which point pulling on the trip line fastened to it will back the anchor out.* I've never actually done this although we have one of the rings. But if you don't already have one*that's something that could help you not lose a Danforth-type anchor if you get it hung up on debris on the bottom.