Anchors and anchoring, one of Panope's latest videos

[thinwater]

The video was watched hence the comment. I'm just challenging Steve's methodology, there are a lot of people out there who take what he is saying at face value and the single source of truth and I don't.

Still, I'm out of this thread. We all understand that anchors are a contentious topic. Until the anchoring/boating industry can develop a standard set of tests to compare different products the arguments will run and run, meanwhile I'll wait for the UK to return to a post COVID normal and go sailing.

Instead of criticism, offer something creative. How should anchors be tested? It can't be a single method, because there are so many variables in useage. Nice easy tests won't separate the wheat from the chafe. Overly exaggerated tests can reveal problems that don't actually exist. Relying on anecdotal evidence (sailor reports) is a very slow an inaccurate method, because sailors don't record the circumstances accurately, reporting is uneven, and each only understands his own experience. And then their is bias. They like their old reliable. They don't want to admit that what they just bought is no better than the old one. Often sailors up-size when they buy a new anchor--they can't compare that fairly to the old one. Sure, my 35# Manson was better than the 25# Delta. So would a 35# Delta. As I said, I started testing because anecdotal evidence was all over the place. I'm sure Panope and Neeves feel the same.

There is also the assumption that "testing" does not include regular field use. I'm pretty sure all of the testers have hung more than a few anchors on their rollers when cruising, to help fill in their knowledge base.

So what tests do we have?

• Straight pull. Multiple bottoms. Long scope vs. short; there are argumentative threads on the merits of each. Uniform bottom or a little variable (some anchors fail suddenly if they strike an irregularity)? Steady pull or static?
• Chain or rope rode. Yes, we use chain, but it disguises differences. But 100% rope is unrealistic in certain ways. Of course, using chain we never really know what the actual scope was.
• Veer test. Slow under load, as in frountal passage, or abrupt, as in a tide change or squall? Both happen.
• Fouling. What sort of mud? If sticks and stones, how big?
• Challenging bottoms. Cobbles. Rock. Very hard and very soft. Repeat all of the above tests... again?
• Data analysis; maximum (many mags report this), average, minimum, or perhaps several sigma minimum (my preference)? Minimum repeats on each test?

Oh dear.

One more thing. What is the best rock climbing anchor? In fact, that is an intentionally stupid question. It depends on the situation. How do you test them? Since it depends so much on placement and the rock, you really can't, other than basic strength. But a good climber can work with most of them in most situations (even if only recognizing they are crap and climbing so as not to fall) and poor climber can crater with any of them. Therefore, like boat anchors, we need to understand what proper use is... and that's a whole nuther' argument.

 

[Sandy]

Instead of criticism, offer something creative.

As I said I'm out of the conversation.

I've hung up my safety engineers hard hat and want to go sailing. Hopefully, others will take some of the questions I've raised and start looking at the methodologies that Steve and others use in the testing of anchors and add some rigger. That could be as simple as a website page linked to each video describing the test conditions and the equipment in detail so that people can understand why he comes up with an opinion about a particular anchor, e.g. in the veering video how quickly was the test done and does this truly reflect the turn of the tide? Thus allowing people watching and considering a particular anchor to come to their own conclusions on the validity of the test and the opinion given.

 

[geem]

As I said I'm out of the conversation.

I've hung up my safety engineers hard hat and want to go sailing. Hopefully, others will take some of the questions I've raised and start looking at the methodologies that Steve and others use in the testing of anchors and add some rigger. That could be as simple as a website page linked to each video describing the test conditions and the equipment in detail so that people can understand why he comes up with an opinion about a particular anchor, e.g. in the veering video how quickly was the test done and does this truly reflect the turn of the tide? Thus allowing people watching and considering a particular anchor to come to their own conclusions on the validity of the test and the opinion given.

Aren't people already coming to their own conclusions with the videos?
Trying to come up with a definitive test would be impossible. We found after a number of years cruising around UK waters that we had an idea of what to expect with holding of our anchors. We were used to anchoring and had few problems.
We then sailed to the Caribbean in 2004 and realised that our knowledge counted for little. The holding in the Caribbean was a whole new issue. Very little mud. Hard packed sand, coral rubble and seagrass. An anchor that worked perfectly well in the UK was terrible in the Caribbean. It wasn't just us. Friends with similar old generation anchors who had likewise had never thought too much about their anchor because it had also worked fine found exactly the same issues. How do you legislate in a test for the vast differences in seabeds around the world! There is no test that could do this.

 

[thinwater]

Makes me think about my engineering career, which included many millions spent on developing definitive tests for engine oils and coolants. And after decades of work, I can say with certainty that the tests are not definitive. They can sort out the most unsuitable products... maybe, and even then it depends on how you interpret the results and the exact application. New tests are developed and there is progress, but it is slow.

No, the best we can do is present information to our sailing friends. All of this is a labor of love, with barely enough money floating around to cover direct expenses. Often we don't present all of the supporting data; we are each doing this for our own reasons, no one will publish the whole lot because of space limitations, and because we're too lazy to do any better. If you wrote a book you would be forced to cut 90% of the detail out for length (I did, and I did). Sue me.

I like that each of it comes at it from a different direction. We describe what we see, and when we agree on trends, that suggests the methods are not random. I like that more and more, testing is looking at things like veering and yawing, and different bottoms, because most of the time, it's not straight line holding in good sand that is the problem. It's some other damn thing. and figuring out what that "other damn thing" is remains a challenge, since there's never a diver on the bottom, with a camera, in the middle of a storm, when you need him!

 

[Neeves]

When I was a young lad, I built a sand yacht out of bed angle irons and motor bike wheels. I would have been quite happy to have tested its anchor on the beach. ?
Now, with a boat, I anchor in water.
But I take your point, it is well nigh impossible to carry out proper scientific testing, removing all the variables.
I do my own testing, by anchoring and anchoring and anchoring.......

Norman, I have noted over the years your background to sailing. Some are born into sailing families Mum and Dad were keen, they sailed at the weekend, their summer holiday were spent on the water. I confess to be slightly envious. My exposure to the sea, in formative years, was the occasional day ( if the forecast was good, cowering behind the sand dunes, so facing the golf course, at St Andews sheltering from the bitter winds off the N Sea). My guess is I did not see a vessel with a sail until I was in my teens - and it was so removed from desire as walking on the moon.

You were brought up anchoring, I could not spell it.

Many of us never anchored until we became owners - we had to learn the hard way and quickly. You had it in your blood. I spent my formative sailing years racing, hone my skills on sail trim and the rules, anchoring came later (when we decided we were not going to stay in the race to have the newest sails and the fastsest/lightest yacht but wanted a bit of comfort, hot running water). We did not have the time to learn what you found second nature we needed an answer, to what anchor, NOW!!! not after years of experimentation ourselves. I was lucky and was involved in Classification Society testing - I saw all these anchors tested, by a 4x4 in numerous seabeds. It was all a revalation. I then started to do it myself, buying the necessary kit, load cell, display etc. The really big advantage of the 4x4 is you can see what is happening, you can stop a test, mid test, and investigate why an anchor is not 'diving' - this is almost impossible if you do it 'properly' in deep water. You make your compromises - and remember there are compromises.

But with anchoring and a whole bucket of sailing skills I'm jealous of those who have it their blood.

Jonathan

 

[JRCO26]

You just couldn't resist could you How about maintaining the moral high ground rather than the constant digs at the Mantus anchor? twice in this thread I think and yet you recommend the expensive Viking copy. You can do better Johnathan.

Pete

Hi Pete,

Ah so this Jonathan guy has form in dissing the Mantus anchor.
In another thread, he made the extremely bold claim that Mantus holds no better
than a Delta.

 

[thinwater]

Hi Pete,

Ah so this Jonathan guy has form in dissing the Mantus anchor.
In another thread, he made the extremely bold claim that Mantus holds no better
than a Delta.

Watch the last Panope veering test. The Delta was in the same group as the Mantus M1 . Mantus set quickly, but it tended to keep creeping forward (not setting or "locking up") and released suddenly a few times.

His claim is counter to the internet meme, but not counter to all of the facts, in all bottoms. Perhaps the greatest difference between the Mantus and other scoops is that the angle is sharper. This results in faster engagement, better performance in hard bottoms, and ... sometimes reduced holding capacity, particularly at short scope, when the fluke becomes more parallel to the bottom. This is a simple corollary to the fact that a Fortress set at 45 degrees is strong in soft mud, but won't even engage firm bottoms.

This is not something you will notice, if like most people, you buy a Mantus that is 1 to 2 sizes larger than your last older anchor. It will be better all-around. How would you know otherwise, unless you test both side-by-side?

It is his opinion, and some of the facts support it. We all have a favorite anchor, but we can't let that make us become fact deniers. This thread is about looking at all of the available information, and if we have learned nothing else, it is clear that no anchor is best at everything.

 

[Pete7]

Hi Pete,

Ah so this Jonathan guy has form in dissing the Mantus anchor.
In another thread, he made the extremely bold claim that Mantus holds no better
than a Delta.

There is history, so I ought to refer you to post 43 in this thread:

Panope Rocna video

Not all those who live in the world of anchors are sharks, there are some good guys like Brian who worked for Fortress. His customer service and ethos was superb and I would venture he was worth far more to Fortress than his salary. They got rid of him.

I think I have previously said that Johnathan the Journalist deserves some merit for encouraging the use of new generation anchors, you can't knock him for trying that's for sure. Shame he can't just present the evidence in a professional way and allow the reader to make their mind up. I should also refer you to his comments in the 2012 Pratical Sailor anchoring review which he wrote up. He gave the CQR anchor a rating of good. It dragged

 

[RupertW]

Well, that's me put in my place. Sorry if I seem to have touched a raw nerve. ?
All I'm saying is that in my amateur experience, the load on the anchor rode, in strong wind, is anything but the steady pull of a winch or 4 X 4 vehicle. It fluctuates. Is that not why you use a snubber and I use catenary?
I always think it strange that so much time and effort is put in to the theoretical behaviour of anchors, and that so little is put in to the choosing the actual seabed that they will be used in/on. You can have the best anchor in the world, but if its tip fouls even a tiny obstruction lying on the seabed (think tin can, piece of cloth etc), it simply will not get a grip.

You don’t have catenary once the wind gets up but you know that.

 

[NormanS]

You don’t have catenary once the wind gets up but you know that.

Hmm. You do know that with a chain, if there is any horizontal displacement, it is impossible for it to be straight. In other words, the only absolutely straight chain is a vertical one. Those of us who use chain of adequate weight, still benefit from catenary. Those who choose their size of chain simply to achieve a safe working load lose that benefit. Anyway, that's not the point I was making. A 4 X 4 or a fixed winch gives a steady and relentless load, if used for anchor testing. This is very different from the load which a boat exerts on its rode, which is constantly fluctuating.

 

[RupertW]

Hmm. You do know that with a chain, if there is any horizontal displacement, it is impossible for it to be straight. In other words, the only absolutely straight chain is a vertical one. Those of us who use chain of adequate weight, still benefit from catenary. Those who choose their size of chain simply to achieve a safe working load lose that benefit...

You really don’t have any benefit at all with heavy chain but you have never been interested when anybody has posted anything showing the maths behind that obvious fact. Technically there is still a slight curve with heavy chain under load but the forces required to straighten it are so high that it’s as elastic as a steel bar when a moderate wind becomes a strong gust. So the tiny catenary provides no noticeable help, except in the belief system of the owner. That’s why snubbers provide a much needed shock absorbtion to lessen the chances of an anchor breaking out.

 

[NormanS]

You really don’t have any benefit at all with heavy chain but you have never been interested when anybody has posted anything showing the maths behind that obvious fact. Technically there is still a slight curve with heavy chain under load but the forces required to straighten it are so high that it’s as elastic as a steel bar when a moderate wind becomes a strong gust. So the tiny catenary provides no noticeable help, except in the belief system of the owner. That’s why snubbers provide a much needed shock absorbtion to lessen the chances of an anchor breaking out.

As you have obviously made a study of my beliefs re anchoring, you will also know that I am a believer in reducing the factors which cause the load. I simply do not get shock loads - ever. But you are correct in one aspect - I'm not interested in the maths. My anchoring is strictly practical, not theoretical. That's why I don't accept tests done using fixed winches or 4 X 4 vehicles. I've nothing against the use of snubbers. In fact, for those who choose, or for those with light weight boats who feel that they have to use light chain, then I would say that a snubber is pretty well essential.

 

[RupertW]

As you have obviously made a study of my beliefs re anchoring, you will also know that I am a believer in reducing the factors which cause the load. I simply do not get shock loads - ever. But you are correct in one aspect - I'm not interested in the maths. My anchoring is strictly practical, not theoretical. That's why I don't accept tests done using fixed winches or 4 X 4 vehicles. I've nothing against the use of snubbers. In fact, for those who choose, or for those with light weight boats who feel that they have to use light chain, then I would say that a snubber is pretty well essential.

Ok, I’ll give up. The reason I probably have studied your anchoring beliefs is because all your other views seems to be so sensible and practical and based on experience, so as somebody who used to think catenary was real I’m surprised that you don’t want to change your opinion in the face of evidence.

 

[thinwater]

Hmm. You do know that with a chain, if there is any horizontal displacement, it is impossible for it to be straight. In other words, the only absolutely straight chain is a vertical one. Those of us who use chain of adequate weight, still benefit from catenary. Those who choose their size of chain simply to achieve a safe working load lose that benefit. Anyway, that's not the point I was making. A 4 X 4 or a fixed winch gives a steady and relentless load, if used for anchor testing. This is very different from the load which a boat exerts on its rode, which is constantly fluctuating.

Please continue the thought. How does this affect testing and how would you suggest proceeding in a practical way?

There are many ways to exert force: constant rate of pull (force varies, anchor keeps moving), slowly increasing force (anchor movement variable), periodic start and stop (to allow the anchor to sit still and see what it can hold when not moving), and a pulsing load (pulse with wave-like frequency, or with lulls and gusts?). Each has merits and short comings, and each tells us something different, generally much more related to the soil type than the anchor design.

 

[thinwater]

...I've nothing against the use of snubbers. In fact, for those who choose, or for those with light weight boats who feel that they have to use light chain, then I would say that a snubber is pretty well essential.

Add to this anchoring in shallow water. I'm guessing your minimum depth may be greater than my maximum depth, which 90% of the time is less than 2 meters. This is results in different math. If I were to anchor with 4:1 scope in 4 feet I would only have 28' of chain out. By 20 knots there really is very, very little catenary and the boat jerks a lot if there is any exposure. Heck, I've watched the chain lift off the bottom in 10 knots (with a few waves). If I have 150 feet of chain out in 20 feet of water, it's a very different story.

And this is one reason for the endless argument. Our situations are often very different, and both of our answers are correct.

 

[RupertW]

Add to this anchoring in shallow water. I'm guessing your minimum depth may be greater than my maximum depth, which 90% of the time is less than 2 meters. This is results in different math. If I were to anchor with 4:1 scope in 4 feet I would only have 28' of chain out. By 20 knots there really is very, very little catenary and the boat jerks a lot if there is any exposure. Heck, I've watched the chain lift off the bottom in 10 knots (with a few waves). If I have 150 feet of chain out in 20 feet of water, it's a very different story.

And this is one reason for the endless argument. Our situations are often very different, and both of our answers are correct.

Agreed that it would take a higher wind force in the second case to remove any useful catenary but I don’t think it would be unusually high to make the chain effectively inelastic.

 

[NormanS]

Please continue the thought. How does this affect testing and how would you suggest proceeding in a practical way?

There are many ways to exert force: constant rate of pull (force varies, anchor keeps moving), slowly increasing force (anchor movement variable), periodic start and stop (to allow the anchor to sit still and see what it can hold when not moving), and a pulsing load (pulse with wave-like frequency, or with lulls and gusts?). Each has merits and short comings, and each tells us something different, generally much more related to the soil type than the anchor design.

I agree with what you say. I'm just not convinced that the current anchor tests give the full story. I'm sure that they're better than nothing, but there are so many variables in real life anchoring.
I do my best to select clean ground, with the aid of a fishfinder, and my boat (ketch) is rigged so that she doesn't swing about very much. I sometimes use an anchor sail. All these methods contribute towards happy anchoring.

 

[NormanS]

Add to this anchoring in shallow water. I'm guessing your minimum depth may be greater than my maximum depth, which 90% of the time is less than 2 meters. This is results in different math. If I were to anchor with 4:1 scope in 4 feet I would only have 28' of chain out. By 20 knots there really is very, very little catenary and the boat jerks a lot if there is any exposure. Heck, I've watched the chain lift off the bottom in 10 knots (with a few waves). If I have 150 feet of chain out in 20 feet of water, it's a very different story.

And this is one reason for the endless argument. Our situations are often very different, and both of our answers are correct.

Yes, catenary is no use in shallow water. Indeed, if we expect a blow, we often deliberately choose a deep anchorage. Sod's Law, often the best sheltered anchorages are shallow. ?

 

[thinwater]

Agreed that it would take a higher wind force in the second case to remove any useful catenary but I don’t think it would be unusually high to make the chain effectively inelastic.

Now, what does "unusually" mean? Some think that 25-30 knots. They won't anchor out in more than that anyway. Some think that is a 60 knot squall. It depends on the sailing area.

I could anwser the question for me, but not for everyone.

 

[thinwater]

Yes, catenary is no use in shallow water. Indeed, if we expect a blow, we often deliberately choose a deep anchorage. Sod's Law, often the best sheltered anchorages are shallow. ?

On the Chesapeake Bay they are mostly shallow but well protected. But the holding ground is often pudding. Some locals say the water "just gets thicker towards the bottom."