A rare anchor thread......

[noelex]

There has been a bit more wind again. Still not much at 20 knots, but it had a fair downwind/crosswind component so there was a bit of strain on the anchors of the Med-moored boats.

As you can see the Bugel has set further. (Third photo) It is now perfectly level. If it was not for the roll bar there would be nothing to see and it won't take much more wind for this to disappear. Unfortunately the soft sand has filled in the evidence of the drag marks, but looking carefully at the photos I think it has moved back very little when digging in deeper.

This is a great result, but for this to occur at such a low force does show, more than anything, how soft the sand is in this particular spot. The sand here is normally hard, but this spot has been ploughed up by all the boat anchors. This sort of medium soft sand is the natural substrate in many parts of the world. In those locations similar sets (or deeper with a bit more wind force) are the norm.

In medium-soft sand it is very hard to judge much about anchor performance. All anchors do well and set deeply. They also hold well.

It is in hard, weedy, or alternatively the other end of the scale in very soft substrates that the differences between the good and not so good anchors become apparent. There are also differences in distance taken to set, and in resetting ability, but even these differences are minimised when you test in close to an ideal substrate.

There don't seem to many photos of anchors performing in the real world and even fewer of an anchor gradually burring deeper in response to natural wind pressure, so here are the three photos of the Bugel at the various stages over a couple if days.

 

[J Neeves]

It is in hard, weedy, or alternatively the other end of the scale in very soft substrates that the differences between the good and not so good anchors become apparent. There are also differences in distance taken to set, and in resetting ability, but even these differences are minimised when you test in close to an ideal substrate.

There don't seem to many photos of anchors performing in the real world and even fewer of an anchor gradually burring deeper in response to natural wind pressure, so here are the three photos of the Bugel at the various stages over a couple if days.

end quote.

Great images!


Many anchors set this way:

When deployed they land on their side, tension is applied to the rode and the toe and shackle end of the shank engage, they anchor engages at 45 degrees and slowly straightens. When you have observed a Rocna, Supreme, Kobra, Spade, Excel, Delta - you will find they all do the same. Observing an anchor at 45 degrees usually implies it is in the early throes of setting and as long as there is no contaminant in the seabed and the rode tension is in roughly the same direction the anchor was set then it will align with the fluke dug further and parallel with the seabed. Whereas it is good to have confidence in ones anchor its better to set it as deeply as possible with the engines - contaminants do occur, seaweed, beer cans etc.

The exception would be a Fortress or Danforth type that starts flat, but may tilt as one fluke bites first. These anchors - the shackle end of the anchor is the last part to disappear.

Edit: In fact if you go to some anchor maker's websites they have video showing showing what you (with stills) indicate is real life. Mantus had some shots of their anchor setting 'in real life' (and actual yacht setting anchors) and Anchor Right have some video of their beach testing showing a cross section of anchors setting - possibly you are confirming that Anchor Right's testing actually does simulate real life. I am sure they will be pleased that you are showing full support for their efforts and demonstrating, independently, their work has realism.

end edit

If this was a 40'yacht, then the load at 20 knots is a paltry 80kgs.

But I'm interested in your comment 'resetting ability' - I thought you were suggesting good anchors shuffled round and never needed to re-set. I'm glad your thinking has changed to something closer to reality. Anchors must have the ability to reset as they do pull out.

Brian at Fortress does not mention testing Bugels but he does seem to suggest that in a very soft substrate convex anchors (I think you lump them all together, incorrectly in my view, as ploughs) are better than concave. It will be interesting to add his test results to those of yours as Fortress appears to be looking at one of the more testing seabeds - and not repeating previous work (in easy seabeds). it will also be interesting that though he is a manufacturer he is inviting the independent media to view his tests - so we should have a balanced and fair review. I do not know why but I have this prediction that Fortress anchors come out well

Jon

 

[noelex]

I am not sure what interest there is here in these anchor photos, but I thought this series of photos was a good message, indicating the difference between an anchor that is performing well and one that is struggling.

First the Mantus (note this anchor has been supplied at no charge for testing). It has set beautifully in this medium-soft sand in a very short distance. The fluke and shank are completely buried:

Next the Delta.
The first drop started dragging after several hours. The anchor was picked up and re dropped. It took 5m or so to set.
The anchor set, but the shank remained totally exposed and much of the back of the fluke was visible. The anchor was left like this overnight:

The 5m setting drag:

This was the next morning:
The wind switched around almost 180 degrees. The anchor having moved 5m now turned around and went back 2m in almost the opposite direction. It was now set worse than it began.

This was a few hours later:
The anchor moved back a further metre. It has at least now rotated level and looks like it would set. At this stage it was still slightly moving as you can see from the small bit of blurry sand at the bottom of the fluke. The patch of weed is waiting in the background if the anchor goes much further.

The skipper agreed to use some engine force to try and get the anchor to set better. It then set rather than dragging, but you can see it more a pile up of sand rather than a convincing diving down of the fluke.

The Mantus and the Delta were not very far from each other. The substrates looked (and with a poke with a dive knife felt) very similar. The bits of weed near the Delta are only broken strands and should not have effected the setting. This is only one example, but I think it carries a powerful message.

 

[J Neeves]

These are excellent images Noelex.

Maybe you could show an image side by side of the Delta and Mantus, the Mantus has a very low shank compared to the Delta - in fact the Mantus has the lowest shank of any anchor I have seen - so I would expect its shank to disappear before that of the Delta. You suggest the Mantus is well set, but the rear of the fluke is only just below the surface, you can see flange for the bolt holding the roll bar to the fluke. You say the Mantus is well set - but you do not say how this was achieved, by engine power or by wind - what revs for the engine, what size of engine or how much wind, nor do we know the windage of the yacht (if it is windage that has allowed it to set). You advise the Delta has been set by engine, how big is the anchor, how many revs, how large an engine?

To go with the excellent images we need a bit more background to be able to make any sort of judgement.

Jonathan

 

[charles_reed]

Good propaganda for concave anchors in soft sand.
IMHO, the Delta needs a lot of weight when being pulled in. I stop my 4 tonne boat on mine, in about 1 boat length. It always buries horizontal with no fluke showing (but usually in mud).
Good work noelex77 - facts, not opinions.

 

[J Neeves]

Propaganda might not have really been the word you wanted, but then neither might 'facts, not opinions'.

The anchor is question is not a Delta. It might look vaguely like a Delta but it is definitely not a Delta (unless they have markedly changed the style). To condemn an anchor without confirming the precise design and brand name is not fact, maybe opinion - maybe wishful thinking. But risks, again, being defamatory. The mis-information detracts from what could have been a sensible message.

In any seabed a 60kg anchor is going to perform differently to a 15kg anchor. To compare one anchor with another one needs to know a whole lot of information that is not available from images - facts not opinion?

The images are fantastic, backed up with sensible information they would be invaluable. With errors and without sensible additional information they are propaganda - that will take in the initiated and are dangerous and might be easily misconstrued as trolling.

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

The anchor is question is not a Delta. It might look vaguely like a Delta but it is definitely not a Delta (unless they have markedly changed the style). To condemn an anchor without confirming the precise design and brand name is not fact, maybe opinion - maybe wishful thinking. But risks, again, being defamatory.

There is a slight risk of misidentifying anchors, but this looked like a genuine Delta to me. I always have a careful look. That does not mean that my identification will always be correct.

What makes you think it is not a Delta?

 

[J Neeves]

Noelex

You are quite happy to condemn an anchor. There is no risk with the mis-identifcation of this anchor - its obvious. The upturn of the heel, the size of the strengthening cross rod - there are a number of features that confirm fairly decisively it is not a Delta (unless they have changed the design). But it might not be an original in any case - it might be a cheaper knock off. I am sure a colleague will help you very soon.

I'll put money on it.

Pictures do not lie - but they can also hide the facts from the innocent and gullible and again raise nasty questions.

Welcome to the world of anchor testing

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

Jonathan, the anchor concerned is quite old. It is one of the original Simpson Lawrence Deltas. There were some subtle changes with the later models when Lewmar took over production.

I was photographing the anchor in the water when it was being raised and you can see the characteristic triangular shaped stamp on the underside of the fluke. At the back of the stamp are the words "Simpson Lawrence".

I'll put money on it.

How much did I win

 

[J Neeves]

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. This anchor and the one in the image earlier are not the same, they are completely different. You must take people who are on YBW as complete set of idiots. Images do not lie. Such shenanigans! What next?

And I have a full images of original Simpson Lawrences - they were the specified anchors for older RNLI vessels, most of which are effectively unsued (and have SL labels on them).

Please explain.

I can only assume the owner changed the anchor underwater when you were not watching.

Jonathan

Welcome to the world of anchor testing

Edit: The post of the SL - excellent image, great clarity

 

[noelex]

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. This anchor and the one in the image earlier are not the same, they are completely different. You must take people who are on YBW as complete set of idiots. Images do not lie. Such shenanigans! What next?

And I have a full images of original Simpson Lawrences - they were the specified anchors for older RNLI vessels, most of which are effectively unsued (and have SL labels on them).

Please explain.

I can only assume the owner changed the anchor underwater when you were not watching.

Jonathan

Welcome to the world of anchor testing

Edit: The post of the SL - excellent image, great clarity

Sigh...

If you look at this photo of the anchor almost completely raised you can see the logo on the underneath and match the scrape marks on the underside of the fluke a bit like a fingerprint. The marks on the port underside of the fluke are quite distinctive at the tip and can easily be matched to the photo of the Delta with the weed in the background.

I have other photos showing the shank as the anchor was raised where a similar match can be made.

I really should not have to prove that I am not fabricating, or substituting photos.

 

[J Neeves]

I am really pleased you posted the latest image.

if you check back through your recent sequence of images you will find that in one of the images it clearly shows that the shank of the anchor protrudes below, or through, the fluke - a bit like a keel. its quite clear (excellent image). if you look at the most recent image - the owner has not only cut this keel off he has painted over the cut mark as well.

Jonathan

Edit - through it could be some artistically placed weed?

 

[noelex]

Jonathan that is a strand of weed. Not the shank protruding. Look again.

 

[J Neeves]

My sincere apologies, it must be a strand of weed. I do not know how I could have doubted you - it must be an anchor thread

Jonathan

Edit: sadly one does need to be able confirm exactly what is being said and done, you are challenging and in some cases, condemning the product of a commercial organisation. If you are not prepared to accept that someone might challenge then you should not be so happy to condemn.

 

[noelex]

Apology accepted.

 

[J Neeves]

Thanks Noelex, welcome to the wonderful world of anchor testing

Have a good day - its pretty bitter here (and Vic is taking a bashing), bet you are glad you are where you are.

J

 

[noelex]

Please understand, like any forum post, the opinions I express are my own and subject to errors. I do my best to identify these anchors and also to estimate depths and scopes etc. That does not mean I will always be right. If you cannot accept these limitations, you are probably best to ignore forums completely, as most posts are personal opinions. In this case, however, you can concentrate on the images alone if you wish and ignore my comments. Form your own opinions.

If you see anything in the photos that I have missed, or think my anchor identification is wrong, please point this out politely. Multiple opinions are one of the great assets of forums and photographs naturally lend themselves to people forming their own judgments. However, I hope this can be done respectfully. Accusations of substituting photos of different anchors are quite bizarre and insulting.

Anchor threads are usually heavily based on subjective opinion: "I think anchor A, is better than anchor B". I hope by presenting photos people have some objective data that they can use to gain an understanding of what is going on underwater and judge anchor performance for themselves.

 

[noelex]

Just to get the thread back on track, here is a photo taken this morning of the Mantus anchor with our yacht looming menacingly in the background.

The softer sand of the anchorage has filled in the drag marks so its not a great photo for judging anchor performance (other than the Mantus has set very well), but it's interesting to see the world from the anchor's perspective. It is still the same anchorage as the Delta.

5m @ 5:1. The anchor was set with engine power (full reverse for 30s), several days ago and has remained essentially unchanged since: