Anchor test in chesapeake mud - bit of a surprise
- Thread starter dylanwinter
- Start date
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Fortress in the Pyefleet = a good nights sleep.
Trying to break it out in the morning :disgust:
Trying to break it out in the morning :disgust:
There are at least 4 articles in print in America now on these tests and here is another one:
http://www.boatus.com/cruising/tomneale/article.asp
The articles tend to be a bit bland (and have not evoked much interest outside America). They all seem to have been written to be as inoffensive as possible.
But the fact that a Fortress works so well in soft mud when the fluke angle is set at 45 degrees is not such a surprise, see sailorman's post #2. One might assume that in very soft sand the Fortress would be equally powerful. The real surprise is how poorly the, some, other anchors did. We see lots of promotions of specific designs - but the tests or experiences are all in sand - check this one spruiking the Mantus (but only in sand, sand and more sand):
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/photos-of-anchors-setting-126073.html
don't people, except you Dylan, anchor in mud, or weed anymore?
Jonathan
http://www.boatus.com/cruising/tomneale/article.asp
The articles tend to be a bit bland (and have not evoked much interest outside America). They all seem to have been written to be as inoffensive as possible.
But the fact that a Fortress works so well in soft mud when the fluke angle is set at 45 degrees is not such a surprise, see sailorman's post #2. One might assume that in very soft sand the Fortress would be equally powerful. The real surprise is how poorly the, some, other anchors did. We see lots of promotions of specific designs - but the tests or experiences are all in sand - check this one spruiking the Mantus (but only in sand, sand and more sand):
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/photos-of-anchors-setting-126073.html
don't people, except you Dylan, anchor in mud, or weed anymore?
Jonathan
Last edited:
PetiteFleur
Well-Known Member
Agree, Fortress superb in Pyefleet mud - bower plough anchor useless so used Fortress kedge which held securely.(I now have a Manson bower).
A Manson 'what' bower? - they make many different designs.
AngusMcDoon
Well-Known Member
Anyone who regularly uses a Fortress in soft bottoms will not be surprised by those results. As sailorman says, they can be sods to get out again.
charles_reed
Well-Known Member
Jonathan,
Archaic term for main anchor.
IMHO all the new-age anchors are optimised for use in Mediterranean sand - put them onto another substrate and they just don't justify their marketing hyperbole or their prices. Trouble is, there's lots who implicitly believe all that's written, that their Manson, Mantus, Spade, Ultra, Wasi etc etc will keep them safe everywhere they go and whatever they anchor on.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
=Main anchor
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Well that should wind up the Rocna camp!
I seem to making heavy weather of this one.
I appreciate a bower is the main anchor. But Manson make many different designs. Boss, Supreme, Plough, Racer and others - I meant which Manson design is your Bower?
sailorman
Well-Known Member
No mine i have a Fortress with a CQR stowed below if i need it
Its my own fault that I'm making heavy weather,
It was PetitFleur who suggested he had a Manson as his bower and I wondered which of the Manson designs he actually had. We originally had a Manson interpretation of a CQR, it now gathers dust in my workshop.
An interesting facet of Fortress tests was that ostensibly similar anchors performed so differently, Rocna to Supreme and Spade to Ultra. My personal belief is that take most 'modern' anchors and charles_reed's med sand seabed and most people would not differentiate, if blindfold, between them. It appears (that this might be so, or not) but in at least one 'peripheral' seabed, mud (and I think more than one) there are significant differences in performance between these modern anchors.
Jonathan
It was PetitFleur who suggested he had a Manson as his bower and I wondered which of the Manson designs he actually had. We originally had a Manson interpretation of a CQR, it now gathers dust in my workshop.
An interesting facet of Fortress tests was that ostensibly similar anchors performed so differently, Rocna to Supreme and Spade to Ultra. My personal belief is that take most 'modern' anchors and charles_reed's med sand seabed and most people would not differentiate, if blindfold, between them. It appears (that this might be so, or not) but in at least one 'peripheral' seabed, mud (and I think more than one) there are significant differences in performance between these modern anchors.
Jonathan
Saguday
Well-Known Member
Well, having anchored a lot in the Chesapeake I can well believe these results. Our main anchor is a CQR which was ok most of the time but on one muddy river in VA overnight when it blew a bit we dragged a hundred metres. We have a Bruce as a second bower but having listened to local experience we went out and bought a Fortress. Lots of reviews over there showed similar results to this. One problem is it's difficult to stow on the bow rollers so it's packed away and only used as needed. As sailorman says though they do have a reputation for being a bit tough to dig out again.
What I think this article does show is that the modern anchors are still pretty good (even in mud a Spade would be better than our CQR) and that you need a selection of anchors for different bottom conditions - there is no 'best' anchor for everywhere.
What I think this article does show is that the modern anchors are still pretty good (even in mud a Spade would be better than our CQR) and that you need a selection of anchors for different bottom conditions - there is no 'best' anchor for everywhere.
Salty John
Well-Known Member
In Chesapeake Bay any anchor with big flukes is going to do well. A bucket would make a great anchor in Chesapeake mud.
RichardS
N/A
Well that should wind up the Rocna camp!
The presentation looks wrong. The order seems to reverse for no apparent reason and the Rocna seems to be completely out of place in the graph compared to the table unless my PC is displaying the colours incorrectly.
Not impressed!
Richard
ghostlymoron
Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised that the Fortress comes out on top. I've got a Guardian which is a cheaper model by the same manufacturer but have yet to put it to the test. It's incredibly LIGHT compared with my old Danforth looky likey.
jimbaerselman
Well-Known Member
Agreed. List of anchors "up to 400" give 3 types, yet only two in the columns show under 400. List shows 4 "over 800" - only 3 listed.
Looks like the list and columns come from different sources, let along cocking up the colours.
estarzinger
Well-Known Member
There was a ton of statistical variation in the results of this test - even with each single anchor the results varied widely.
Whoever did this 'analysis' at sail does not understand statistics and statistical confidence testing.
The correct conclusions is "there is no significant difference between the results of the various 'next gen' anchors". The way that graph is portrayed leads the reader to an incorrect conclusion (that there is a real difference).
Statistically the only results that stands out in the test is the fortress using its mud setting, but it should be noted that the fortress was the only anchor in the test with 'adjustable pitch', and that it did not perform at all as well in it's 'normal' setting - so to get this performance advantage you do actually need to judge the bottom composition and change the assembly of the fortress to match.
The lack of statistically confident conclusion is the reason the other magazine's (like Boat US) articles are so "bland" - if you analyze this test at all properly there is simply not much here to see.
Personally what I learned for this test was how hard it was to get 'sufficient' (for say a gale) holding in soft mud with a 'standard bow anchor' - need to let the anchor soak in for quite a while to sink below the soft mud.
Whoever did this 'analysis' at sail does not understand statistics and statistical confidence testing.
The correct conclusions is "there is no significant difference between the results of the various 'next gen' anchors". The way that graph is portrayed leads the reader to an incorrect conclusion (that there is a real difference).
Statistically the only results that stands out in the test is the fortress using its mud setting, but it should be noted that the fortress was the only anchor in the test with 'adjustable pitch', and that it did not perform at all as well in it's 'normal' setting - so to get this performance advantage you do actually need to judge the bottom composition and change the assembly of the fortress to match.
The lack of statistically confident conclusion is the reason the other magazine's (like Boat US) articles are so "bland" - if you analyze this test at all properly there is simply not much here to see.
Personally what I learned for this test was how hard it was to get 'sufficient' (for say a gale) holding in soft mud with a 'standard bow anchor' - need to let the anchor soak in for quite a while to sink below the soft mud.
Last edited:
Joker
Well-Known Member
I have been anchoring in the Baltic where the bottom happens to be thick clay mud and eelgrass. I used to use a CQR, but found that if it broke out it wouldn't reset because of the thick ball of mud and grass which completely enclosed it.
I'm now using a Fortress, which seems to hold very well. It too comes up with mud and weed all over it, but at least I can see the blades sticking out. It hasn't yet broken out, so I'm not entirely sure whether it will reset.
I use an anchor line which has lead weight in the first 10 m rather than chain, since I don't have a windlass. Whilst in Asda recently, I bought a 7.5 kg weight designed for use in the gym. I intend to use it as an 'angel' and lower it about halfway down the anchor line. The boat tends to sheer around when at anchor, and I'm hoping the angel will help reduce this.
I'm now using a Fortress, which seems to hold very well. It too comes up with mud and weed all over it, but at least I can see the blades sticking out. It hasn't yet broken out, so I'm not entirely sure whether it will reset.
I use an anchor line which has lead weight in the first 10 m rather than chain, since I don't have a windlass. Whilst in Asda recently, I bought a 7.5 kg weight designed for use in the gym. I intend to use it as an 'angel' and lower it about halfway down the anchor line. The boat tends to sheer around when at anchor, and I'm hoping the angel will help reduce this.
