Anchors and anchoring, one of Panope's latest videos

[Neeves]

So - Norman what are the other two anchors and what is your spare rode?

I recall when you leave the yacht at anchor for long periods you also use a Bahamian moor - which is another anchoring technique seldom mentioned.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

So - Norman what are the other two anchors and what is your spare rode?

I recall when you leave the yacht at anchor for long periods you also use a Bahamian moor - which is another anchoring technique seldom mentioned.

Jonathan

OK This is confession time. None of the glitter here.
The anchor that I use on a day to day basis is a 20kg genuine Bruce. It came with the boat, and has proved excellent. That is on 65m of 10mm chain.

My normal second anchor is a Fortress FX23. It is very close in dimensions to the 20kg genuine Danforth, which it replaced. (See, I'm not a complete Luddite), and presumably has similar holding capacity. We treated ourselves to it, as being easier to handle, if laying it out from the dinghy. With it I use 5m of 11mm chain, and either a 60m length of about 18mm three strand nylon, or a 50m length of stretchy climbing rope. If the boat is to be left for a few weeks on a Bahamian Moor, I use the heavier nylon. If it's just to lay out a second anchor, in a Vee for example, I'll use the climbing rope. We actually carry two of them. Yes, I wear a belt and braces. ?

The third anchor is a 20kg Fisherman, fabricated in mild steel by myself, with slightly larger flukes than a standard Fisherman. To be honest, it is so seldom used, it's more of an ornament, but the way it is stowed, lashed to one side of the taffrail, it takes up no space. In questionable ground it is excellent, but of course, it's very awkward to handle, since it has to be hand balled with care over the pulpit.

 

[Seven Spades]

I have seen a few of his videos and have stopped watching as he does not have an Ultra. I am convinced that the Ultra is the best anchor but there are very few comparative tests.

 

[geem]

I have seen a few of his videos and have stopped watching as he does not have an Ultra. I am convinced that the Ultra is the best anchor but there are very few comparative tests.

What evidence convinced you?

 

[Robih]

I have seen a few of his videos and have stopped watching as he does not have an Ultra. I am convinced that the Ultra is the best anchor but there are very few comparative tests.

Steve has tested the Ultra anchor

 

[Sandy]

Goodness, Steve also reviews anchors for seaplanes! I am quite sure they have a totally different under and above water profile, how he can test those with a boat is beyond my understanding. I'll look out for the review on the Knox then give up watching the channel.

 

[Neeves]

I have seen a few of his videos and have stopped watching as he does not have an Ultra. I am convinced that the Ultra is the best anchor but there are very few comparative tests.

I was leant an Ultra anchor for testing in mud but was not permitted to test for ultimate hold. It is a very good anchor, has been evaluated by ABS as a SHHP anchor, as has (by other Classification Societies but using the same protocols) Spade, Excel, Rocna.

But it is so expensive it fills a very niche market. It may be better than, say, an Excel in terms of hold (or not) but when the hold developed is factorially larger than any yacht will experience then other characteristics are important - but no-one is quite sure what those characteristics are. Yawing?, horsing?....

If you believe in the Ultra - it would be of great value to know why.

It is known that a polished (or smooth) surface will engender setting - so any stainless steel anchor should be better than its galvanised sibling

Jonathan

 

[Seven Spades]

There are few tests that I have seen but of those I have and they are limited it seems to always rank as the better option. I am assuming the price is the main reason for the lack of testing. However if you do watch it it seems to bury itself faster and deeper than most other anchors.

This is a good video which seems to suggest that it is superior to the Rocna.

 

[Neeves]

Goodness, Steve also reviews anchors for seaplanes! I am quite sure they have a totally different under and above water profile, how he can test those with a boat is beyond my understanding. I'll look out for the review on the Knox then give up watching the channel.

If you refer to seaplane anchors in terms of the Northill.

The Northhill was developed as folding anchor for seaplanes, and maybe flying boats (I think) in the '30s. The anchor is a 'sort of' folding admiralty pattern. It is used in a welded up form by 'small' commercial vessels, I've seen it on 60' ocean going fishing boats in the Pacific operating out of islands with strong American influence Samoa, Guam etc and there is a cast version used by South Korean fishing boats, go to Pusan you will see hundreds of north hill types anchors - non folding. I have never seen a Northhill in a location without, strong, American influence.

The folding mechanism of the original was simply because space is limited on a seaplane - when unfolded, ready for use, its characteristics are no different to anything we might use. A seaplane is not too different to a multihull except it has a wing, or 2 wings, but no mast.

Thinwater uses one as his every day anchor - because he too has limited storage space - and he will give chapter and verse.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

I was leant an Ultra anchor for testing in mud but was not permitted to test for ultimate hold. It is a very good anchor, has been evaluated by ABS as a SHHP anchor, as has (by other Classification Societies but using the same protocols) Spade, Excel, Rocna.

But it is so expensive it fills a very niche market. It may be better than, say, an Excel in terms of hold (or not) but when the hold developed is factorially larger than any yacht will experience then other characteristics are important - but no-one is quite sure what those characteristics are. Yawing?, horsing?....

If you believe in the Ultra - it would be of great value to know why.

It is known that a polished (or smooth) surface will engender setting - so any stainless steel anchor should be better than its galvanised sibling

Jonathan

Re a smooth/polished/stainless anchor being "better" than a galvanized one. Would you like to expand on that?
(OMG, imagine asking Jonathan to expand on something - we could be here for ever ?)
Seriously, I can imagine that in the case of a very small and very light anchor, shineyness might help with initial penetration into the seabed. However does that same shineyness contribute to a better grip, or does it make the anchor more likely to slide through the mud?
I can't see shineyness making any useful contribution to a heavier anchor. I hesitate to suggest that for some people, the exotic shiny article adorning their foredeck in the marina, has already achieved its purpose.
Perhaps, if shineyness does make a useful contribution to holding power, Jonathan or other believers, can tell us about the differing benefits at different weights of anchor.

 

[Neeves]

Shiny - reduces friction, there being friction between fluke and seabed. It has nothing to do with size.

It well known in big anchors - which is but one reason, of many, cast anchors are not used for oil rigs any more. Lots of research to support the idea. Not sure the difference in a small anchor merits the additional cost. I'm with you - bling sells (at least to some). Jewellery for your yacht.

Sufficiently succinct?

Its also a reason, there are others, why Fortress sets better than a Danforth. Danforth has a rougher fluke surface, Fortress are not polished but are certainly smoother.

Jonathan

 

[geem]

I wonder if there is the tendency in some people to think because the the Ultra is so expensive it must be better than anything similar. To me it looks like a copy of the Spade anchor with a few tweaks. The tweaks dont seem to be aspects that would improve holding either

 

[Neeves]

Norman, now that I know you are not a Luddite we should be able to understand each other

I confess I have never laid a Bahamian moor. You anchor in the Western Isles where the prevailing winds are westerlies (?) how do you know that the other winds will be easterlies (and not northerlies nor southerlies).

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

Shiny - reduces friction, there being friction between fluke and seabed. It has nothing to do with size.

It well known in big anchors - which is but one reason, of many, cast anchors are not used for oil rigs any more. Lots of research to support the idea. Not sure the difference in a small anchor merits the additional cost. I'm with you - bling sells (at least to some). Jewellery for your yacht.

Sufficiently succinct?

Its also a reason, there are others, why Fortress sets better than a Danforth. Danforth has a rougher fluke surface, Fortress are not polished but are certainly smoother.

Jonathan

We see things differently. I use an anchor in order to achieve friction between the fluke and the seabed.

 

[Neeves]

No wonder we don't understand each other. I suggest you get rid of that Fortress and buy a Danforth (genuine).

I use an anchor whose design allows the anchor to dive and allow development of a mass of seabed in the front of and above the anchor whose shear strength is sufficient to stop the anchor moving. Friction would reduce, to a greater or lessor extent, the ability of the anchor to dive.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

Norman, now that I know you are not a Luddite we should be able to understand each other

I confess I have never laid a Bahamian moor. You anchor in the Western Isles where the prevailing winds are westerlies (?) how do you know that the other winds will be easterlies (and not northerlies nor southerlies).

Jonathan

The several places where I have left boats anchored in Bahamian Moor (Shetland Isles, and Western Isles), don't really do "prevailing winds". If you're going to leave a boat at anchor, unattended, for several weeks, you have to rely on the set-up being capable of being able to take whatever is thrown at it.
On our first cruise to Shetland, many years ago, we told everyone that we spoke to, that it was our intention to anchor the boat up somewhere, fly home, and come back later, and where would they suggest? We were heading up the West side, and several people suggested the village of Voe. I remember one old worthy sucking his teeth, and saying that at Voe, it sometimes freezes over. That seemed unlikely to happen in June, so that's where we went.

At that time, we had a 60ft converted fishing boat, built in Buckie by Herd and Mackenzie. Voe was indeed very sheltered, and we laid out our two 140lb anchors, a Plough and a Danforth, both on chain, and on excessive scope. There was plenty of space. With a Bahamian Moor, the two rodes are joined beneath the water, so that the boat can swing as dictated by the wind. It is important to make sure that both anchors are well set, and also important to ensure that there is sufficient slack in the system. Otherwise when the wind blows from the "side", it puts excessive load on the anchors. So, in essence, it's similar to being anchored in a Vee, except that the anchors are further apart.

When Bahamian Mooring on the West Coast, I relied on my own knowledge and experience to choose suitable situations. Obviously good shelter and good holding are paramount, but other considerations like not cluttering a recognised anchorage, a place to leave the dinghy, mobile phone signal (for a taxi etc), reasonable access to a road, all come into the equation. It has worked well for us.

 

[Neeves]

Ah!

I had never thought that the rodes would be sufficiently slack that if the (big) wind developed from the beam (to the alignment of the 2 anchors) that there would be sufficient room for the rodes to 'turn into' a 'v' arrangement.

Clever

I had not envisaged that rodes would be taut, or short, but had certainly not thought of them becoming a 'V'. I need to polish my imagination and 'think outside the box' a bit more.

Here - a slightly different configuration and application - our mooring contractor laid a Classification Society approved mooring for Murdoch's, then, Superyacht. The mooring was composed of 3 x 1.5t Danforth (or copies). They were laid at 120 degrees to each other with a central swivel and central riser (which I think would be rope). It has a similar result to what you do - but with some more complication.


Assuming the 2 anchors are of a similar size your Fortress would develop more ultimate hold than the Danforth as the fluke is smoother and thinner (which contributes to the anchor diving more deeply). Test results I have seen show similar sized anchors - the Fortress is better. But as the ultimate hold of both anchors is far in excess of the hold you can develop with engine power or the tension developed from a strong wind event the ultimate hold is academic. The tension developed by both anchors if you power set or use the wind to set will be exactly the same as the set hold is determined by tension which is a function of engine horse power or windage (not the anchor). The big advantage of a Fortress remains its light weight and the fact you can increase the fluke angle to 45 degrees - and this latter will give you increased hold in mud. If you use the Fortress regularly then its demountability joins the academic advantages as I have never found them 'quick' assembly and we carry ours assembled.

Having looked at our Fortress set over a number of sets I was concerned that the stock always stood 'proud' and if used by itself then in a change of tide (or wind) the rode could get under the stock and trip the anchor. I also noted repeated comment and criticism that when a Fortress tripped it seldom re-set by iteself. I put these two 'facts' together, protruding stock and frequency of self tripping, and replaced our FX23 (the size recommended by Fortress) with a FX 16 and a FX 37 for mud. We can bury the FX 16 at full revs in a decent sand seabed.

Now I know - I do like your Bahamian moor.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

My home mooring, the three anchors and ground chains for which, were laid at 120°, for the 60ft boat, is still the mooring for my 35ft ketch. Overkill, but so what?
I have never used my Fortress on its own, so the potential for tripping has never arisen.
Lots of our anchorages are mud, but how soft is "soft"? Consequently I have never tried the 45° setting for the Fortress. Equally, I have never dragged it, so am happy with the normal setting.

 

[Pete7]

(OMG, imagine asking Jonathan to expand on something - we could be here for ever ?)

Seriously, what were you thinking We haven't even reached Burns Night and Jonathan has started a 2021 anchoring thread

Suppose the question we should ask Johnathan is what will the slant be to make the February anchor thread just different enough to get away with it without being repetitive. That and how many JN initiated anchor threads will there be in 2021?

Pete

 

[thinwater]

Goodness, Steve also reviews anchors for seaplanes! I am quite sure they have a totally different under and above water profile, how he can test those with a boat is beyond my understanding. I'll look out for the review on the Knox then give up watching the channel.

Really? I'm guessing you either have no idea what a Northill is or have not watched the videos. Northills were marketed for boaters as well.

I used one everyday for years, because it was the only thing other than a Fortress/Danforth that fir the locker on two boats I had across 15 years. More recently I switched to Excel for everyday, but the Northill is the backup--very effective on rock and weed.

As for Knox, you haven't been looking. It took me on search on You Tube to find multiple hits on Northill, Ultra, and Knox.
veer test