Anchors. I hate to do this but...

[Djbangi]

Hi VYV Cox,

If you were sitting in 5m water with 50m of 8mm chain and the load cell was recording maximum of 120kg then the load on the anchor is almost nothing, in comparison to the holding capacities quoted in the mag articles etc. Assuming max loads come when the chain is at least part lifted off the bottom then the chain weight itself contributes upto 75kg of the 120kg total load. Which surely raises a few queries?

But interesting that you have made the measurements - were these measurements made when you used a snubber? and if you were using a snubber how long is it and where do you put the load cell in the rode, between snubber and chain, between snubber and attachment point on boat etc.

But if you have only loaded your anchor to 120kg in the gusts(what size yacht are we talking about) and that same anchor has a 'magazine article rated' holding capacity of 2t then you are so far from ultimate loading as to be unreal - and the chance that it is set it to max capacity looks non-existant.

Actually I suspect that yacht deck gear is not designed to take 2t loads, but that's only because I think most modern yachts are built to a parsimonious budget.

Have a good night.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

The opinions published about Delta are not condescending. .

We'll just have to disagree on that. As I read their opinions they look like the usual Rocna attempt to rubbish the competition. A put down here, an unsupported comment ("The Delta, by no means perfectly engineered") there.

However, I take issue with you over the "Why fight against progress?" comment. Nobody is seriously criticising the Rocna anchor; this whole debate is about their integrity and their whole strategy of continually "knocking" the competition, sometimes with concocted evidence, sometimes just by a continual drip feed of implication. Hundreds of postings. Not just here, but on sites around the world, all using the same corrosive approach. You may like it. I, and many others don't. Just look up any boaty forum anywhere and you will find people complaining about Craig Smith. Frequently, they are Rocna users!

Yes sure, almost any anchor on the market will be adequate for your needs, and if you only anchor in light winds you are probably fine with just a lead weight and lots of chain. But why are you then so vocal in this discussion? There are some of us who actually do anchor much more than that, and take this discussion serious. For us the kind of childish slander now being directed at Rocna, Peter, and Craig Smith is starting to get extremely annoying and startlingly it is even perpetuated by a YM/IPC staff member. I think Holdfast (the new Rocna owners) is doing right to stay out of this kindergarten.

My earlier description of my own use of the anchor was an honest assessment. As I said, it is probably more than most, but less than a few. However, we are not in a macho debate about who anchors most, we are not even in a discussion about which anchor is best, we are primarily in a discussion about the integrity of a supplier which is ruthlessly using the internet to push his product and knock his competitors. If you are prepared to take what they say at face value then that is your call but, in my own modest way, anchoring is important to me and I want to be sure that what is being fed to me is supportable and honest.

I am not going to trawl through the West Marine/Sail argument again but I, for one, am delighted that Snooks has picked up on it. There are serious answers which need to be addressed and it is right that the, almost forensic, examination is taking place. I am pleased to see IPC checking things out, rather than just blindly accepting bumph put out by manufacturers. You obviously don't agree. Again, your call.

With regards Holdfast/Rocna staying out of this; it only confirms that they are unwilling to respond to the many serious questions which have been raised.
Incidentally, even the ownership seems to be open to doubt. It is by no means clear who actually owns the different companies; unless you have more information?

I shall continue to be vocal, as I believe that Rocna should be called to account.

 

[CONGO]

longest story

Hi all.
My Name is Rex Francis from Anchor Right Australia, I have had many emails requesting that I respond to some of the questions raised in this forum.
I have been boating for over 35 years and deployed most anchor designs, don’t know whether I am doing the right thing here as my expertise is developing new anchor designs and testing methods, not forums, I feel I have a bucket of bricks swinging above my head here with a rope fixed by Mr C.
I will just have to pull out a few tricks from my Houdini bag to prevent it from falling, Mr C has stated that our methods of anchor testing are slide of hand, smoke and mirrors, trickery, monkey business the list goes on, I have entered this forum to offer you the readers information that you appear to be searching for, answers as to why we test on the beach, why new anchor designs are better, how they differ in design and so on, sadly reading through these discussions it appears to be the life and times of Mr C.
What you should have learnt from this is you are helping him with his marketing strategy, it works, not bad, over forty pages of advertising on this one alone; no wonder the company don’t muzzle him.
Never mind he started on me before their anchor was launched, but I won’t go there, I am not interested in discussing the West Marine tests as the Sarca anchor that took place in that test was manufactured in N .Z. and supplied to West Marine by Anchor Right N.Z. irrelevant now as neither exist.
All of Anchor Right Australia’s product is now manufactured in Australia, many of you ask the question about testing anchors on the beach, this testing is simply to gauge the ability of an anchors orientation and penetration, if it will dig in to these dryer harder surfaces it will simply work far better in water, for instance take a CQR or Delta, rarely you will see these anchors compete with the new anchor designs on the beach.
It is rubbish to think that this demonstration replicates their performance in water, but if the CQR and the Delta could match the penetration of the new anchors on the beach, there may not be a need for new anchor designs at all.

As an example, in the West Marine test they dragged a Delta some seventy meters along the beach before it would set, yet the test data in water showed the Delta to be an excellent performer.
This beach testing has absolutely no bearing and is not used when anchors are tested for certification, all anchors must be tested under water, we have spent many years developing better and more accurate methods for testing anchors, for example Tug boat testing, the problems most of you have picked up with Smith and Son towing anchors on the beach with their 4x4, whilst their actions are questionable, what you are seeing is not dissimilar as to what happens when a tug boat is deployed, throttle speed, variations in the sea bed added problems weather conditions, anchor Rhode weight.
Many times over our years of anchor development we have experienced these problems first hand, we have trialed our anchors on tug boats but found it impossible to get reproducible results, the variables we have mentioned all ways come in to play, Our T.A.T.S. Rig Tidal Anchor Test Skid is certainly not gimmicky, it has been a breath of fresh air to us not just in anchor development but for the first time being able to reproduce an anchors performance without the variables, if you are interested go to our web page www.anchorright.com.au and click on T.A.T.S
I believe we can contribute to your forum for some real interesting discussion, I am prepared to answer questions, supply photo’s test cert’s and explain the concepts of our anchor designs, if any of you happen to be visiting Australia we would love to have you sample the transparency on all of our tests, how our anchors are put together, why we believe they are as good, if not better than the world has to offer, no we do not sell in your part of the world as yet, but are working on it. We are the only company performing anchor test’s that actually invite interested persons along to witness our findings.

Regards
Rex

 

[noelex]

we are not even in a discussion about which anchor is best, we are primarily in a discussion about the integrity of a supplier which is ruthlessly using the internet to push his product and knock his competitors

Personally I not sure if the threads that involve personal attacks are a bit sad, or just amusing, probably a bit of both, but please, lets not reach the stage where anyone who wants to discuss anchors in an anchoring thread gets shouted down.

 

[Djbangi]

They are probably sad, but as The Smiths, Rocna, Holdfast, aka SRH, or which ever have no compunction about attacking all and sundry we have simply fallen to their level. If the biter gets bit, do not shoot the messenger.

Personally I agree with Rigger - but a few in the wilderness are not very many, so I would not worry. Plenty of people think SRH and their marketing strategy is acceptable and suggest anyone commenting negatively to the SRH road show is wrong - maybe we have different standards of decency, integrity and professionalism. I would hope we do not need to be sad and we could simply comment on technical (is the word technical redundant in this thread) issues - SRH set the standard, we simply lowered ours to a level they understand.

Hopefully we can see a refreshing change and that some of the positive issues that have been raised can be addressed. But given the rancour it will take some time for wounds to heal.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

 

[snowleopard]

if any of you happen to be visiting Australia we would love to have you sample the transparency on all of our tests, how our anchors are put together, why we believe they are as good, if not better than the world has to offer, no we do not sell in your part of the world as yet, but are working on it. We are the only company performing anchor test’s that actually invite interested persons along to witness our findings.

Might just take you up on that as I'll be staying in Australia next summer (yours) about 15 mins drive away!

 

[CONGO]

Hi snow leopard,

We would be delighted to have you drop in.

Regards
Rex.

 

[snooks]

For us the kind of childish slander now being directed at Rocna, Peter, and Craig Smith is starting to get extremely annoying and startlingly it is even perpetuated by a YM/IPC staff member. I think Holdfast (the new Rocna owners) is doing right to stay out of this kindergarten.

So by asking questions and making personal observations I'm perpetuating childish slander?

Shame, I thought I was trying to get to the bottom of all this.

I'm uncomfortable with Yachting Monthly being named as a source of this independent testing when the figures Rocna are using came from Sail Magazine. Yes Yachting Monthly participated it that test, but they did not put that graph together, and were not responsible for it.

By being named as a source and then Yachting Monthly printing their results which don't agree with the one Sail graph, I was as curious as the editor, and members here, to find out what the heck was going on.

I'm even more uncomfortable with the testing being independent, but the figures being "adjusted" (the link on the first page to Petersmith.net.nz comparing Manson and Rocna) to suit the designer's needs.

I don't believe I have been derogatory to anyone, or accused Rocna of falsifying data. Yes, I have questioned the data and the testing methods in their videos as others have done. I had the original test data in front of me and was at a loss to explain the data in the Sail graph. The fact that the first graph one views on the Rocna site about testing is not the Sail graph as stated is not apparent. Yes the data is the same, but not all of the data on the original graph is reproduced.

 

[RichardS]

I believe we can contribute to your forum for some real interesting discussion, I am prepared to answer questions.....Rex

Hi Rex

Many thanks for your contribution and some interesting points about land versus sea testing.

Your land-based machine which tests the anchor in an underwater setting looks interesting as it can presumably pull the anchors at an exact pre-determined speed or force whilst measuring the corresponding force exerted or speed of drag. OK, there are still bound to be issues concerning the reproducibility of the seabed, the dangers of testing an anchor where another anchor has already been tested and the seabed disturbed, and the angle of pull which might suit some anchor designs more that others. However, I'm sure that we can all accept that no test is going to cover all bases and a properly calibrated purpose-built machine must be better than a 4WD truck.

However, while I can see the benefits of testing individual anchors against each other with the machine, I am less sure of the point of the cross-beam device. This seems to be a qualitative rather than a quantitative test as any balanced beam will deflect if the pull on one side is greater than the other, even if the difference in forces is relatively insignificant and could easily be caused by local ground conditions. Once a deflection has been caused by an initial difference in setting conditions, surely the trailing anchor will never "catch up", even if the force after any initial deflection is more or less balanced, which obviously gives a misleading impression.

And attaching three or four anchors to one cross-beam seems even more meaningless. Am I missing something?

Richard

 

[westernman]

..... And attaching three or four anchors to one cross-beam seems even more meaningless. Am I missing something?

Richard

Good question. I would like to see an explanation as well.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

In another place I recently wrote....
"After recreational / occassional cruising and sleeping on the anchor for a few years along the U.K's South coast, in many varied conditions and having had two ploughs and a CQR, I now have the greater trust in my 'mod gen' anchor.
Ahhhhhh! all said without a mention of a particular product".

In the bowels of my new boats anchor locker, I have found a Danforth.
Will this complement my 'mod Gen' anchor and what tests should I employ with it to assess its merits?




www.sailingscotty.com

 

[Djbangi]

Scotty,

If its a real Danforth hide it under your berth - most of us only ever see cheap copies - just a shadow of the original. I once borrowed a real, drop forged, model (the owner wanted it back). It was excellent, though I only used it in sand - but it was gusting 35 knots in the anchorage and my swivel broke (never used one since).

Do I really need to mention all the other anchor brands, please can I be excused of being biased this time!

 

[vyv_cox]

Hi VYV Cox,

If you were sitting in 5m water with 50m of 8mm chain and the load cell was recording maximum of 120kg then the load on the anchor is almost nothing, in comparison to the holding capacities quoted in the mag articles etc. Assuming max loads come when the chain is at least part lifted off the bottom then the chain weight itself contributes upto 75kg of the 120kg total load. Which surely raises a few queries?

But interesting that you have made the measurements - were these measurements made when you used a snubber? and if you were using a snubber how long is it and where do you put the load cell in the rode, between snubber and chain, between snubber and attachment point on boat etc.

But if you have only loaded your anchor to 120kg in the gusts(what size yacht are we talking about) and that same anchor has a 'magazine article rated' holding capacity of 2t then you are so far from ultimate loading as to be unreal - and the chance that it is set it to max capacity looks non-existant.

Actually I suspect that yacht deck gear is not designed to take 2t loads, but that's only because I think most modern yachts are built to a parsimonious budget.

Have a good night.

The measurements are not mine, they were carried out by a sailing school principal in Scotland, over a period of more than two years. They anchored virtually every night during this period, constantly measuring wind speed and load cell output, all measurements saved to a laptop. The work was originally published in Yachting Monthly, since when I have been in touch with the author and with the developer of Anchorwatch.

The graph shows the results with the intention that by reversing the boat at particular engine revs the expected pull on the anchor could be exceeded for security purposes. The boat is a Sigma 33. As far as I know there is no snubber involved. The Anchorwatch load cell is fitted on deck between the bow roller and a cleat.

Your point about the weight of the chain acting to hold the boat is incorrect. As I said in an earlier post, when I lost my anchor with about 20 metres of chain out its effect was virtually negligible in slowing or holding the boat. That was in a wind of around force 3.

 

[westernman]

The measurements are not mine, they were carried out by a sailing school principal in Scotland, over a period of more than two years. They anchored virtually every night during this period, constantly measuring wind speed and load cell output, all measurements saved to a laptop. The work was originally published in Yachting Monthly, since when I have been in touch with the author and with the developer of Anchorwatch.

The graph shows the results with the intention that by reversing the boat at particular engine revs the expected pull on the anchor could be exceeded for security purposes. The boat is a Sigma 33. As far as I know there is no snubber involved. The Anchorwatch load cell is fitted on deck between the bow roller and a cleat.

Your point about the weight of the chain acting to hold the boat is incorrect. As I said in an earlier post, when I lost my anchor with about 20 metres of chain out its effect was virtually negligible in slowing or holding the boat. That was in a wind of around force 3.

An interesting graph - which shows that I have been overdoing it on the engine revs when digging in. If I am expecting anything other than a flat calm, I have been diging in at full revs which then should be good for a F9 in a decent anchorage. And sometimes I have trouble getting the anchor to hold (usually because of grass/weeds etc).

In actual fact I should be able to sleep soundly even if only dug in at half the revs.

Ok, my boat is bigger (52ft vs 33ft) different, has a higher windage but then the engine is 80hp vs 20hp so presumably the graph still reflects reality.

 

[noelex]

Thanks for the data.
Surprising little is known about anchoring so its nice to see some hard data that someone has taken the trouble to collect.
I have some reservations about the validity of the information however. Having anchored a few times in strong winds the force on the rode seems much greater than they are reporting.

Just to site one example which does not seem to fit the data.
I am currently going through a spate of breaking snubbers. Part of the problem is that I am trouble getting any suitable nylon rope so I am trying to get away with as thin polyester as possible to maximize the stretch. In the last blow a few weeks ago a broke a brand new 12mm polyester line. I inspected the line not long before it broke and there was no chafe that I could see. I know real world breaking strengths are less than the published figures due to various factors, but its hard to conceive breaking any rope close to this size (allowing for my larger yacht) if the figures in the graph are correct.

 

[vyv_cox]

My experience tends to support it. Before I had a windlass I remember hauling my chain in a variety of wind conditions. I could certainly hold it in winds of around force 5 - 6, whereas the theoretical loads for these wind speeds (ABYC 900 lbs) would require significantly bigger muscles than mine!

This photo shows my snubber and chain hook. I have owned the line and used it for this purpose for more than 25 years. It's 11 mm nylon doublebraid and I have never broken it despite sitting out some considerable winds. This hook failed in heavily surging conditions in the Sporades and has been replaced but the rope is still good.

 

[CONGO]

Hi Richard,
Thank you for your question, Richard you are quite right, when it comes to testing anchors nothing is a hundred percent, the T.A.T.S. when being deployed to test anchors for S/H/H/Power is taken to a location where we have at least a hundred and fifty meters or more of substrate exposed at low tide, there are many of these estuary beaches here in Victoria Australia, the area is surveyed at low tide, pot holing to identify similar substrate is easily done when all is exposed, these areas of consistency are then staked and marked of with tape.
The T.A.T.S. Rig is then wheeled out into approx. a meter of water, the wheels are then lifted up and skids are exposed, any land based winch can be used, the T.A.TS. is pulled from the front of a draw bar and a load cell attached to the rear only reads the load produced from the anchor, this information is fed to a monitor and then to a constant print out in the T.AT.S. Rig, the Rhode length is eight to one and is of non-twist steel cable, this length is stipulated by the N.M.S.C. (National Marine Safety Committee) when testing for S/H/H/Power certification. Who are they? You can Google them.
It is deemed by the N.M.S.C. that if the Rhode is shorter it will restrict an anchor from reaching its maximum depth thus producing less holding power, furthermore the anchors we had to test against were Manson Supremes as they are certified with Lloyds. These anchors were seized on delivery to Robertson’s anchor testing Authorities, they were stamped with ID and kept under lock and key until all testing was complete, Robertson’s are an authorized testing Authority that are Australia wide, they test just about anything.
By the way this testing was done over months, same thing with the T.A.T.S. during all testing the Rig could only be operated by Robertson’s, and three individual officers manned the T.A.T.S. Rig.
Any way back to your question, it is not possible to pull anchors over already ploughed ground, further more you are not allowed when testing for S/H/H/Power certification, as mentioned we have the T.A.T.S. Rig sitting in approx. a meter of water 150 meters from high tide mark, we have most times anywhere up to 300 meters either side of us, depending on where we have sampled the substrate, we can move left or right after each pull continually using unbroken ground with the tide forever pushing in behind us.
You are quite right there will all ways be small discrepancies but compared to the variables from a tug boat or 4x4 pull there is no comparison.
The amount of consistent pulls produced with T.A.T.S. was something we had never witnessed before; we can actually have reproducible results from this Rig. On our test cert page read what Robertson’s had to say about our unique rig.
To further reduce inconsistency every time an anchor is pulled it is removed and another one hooked up for the next so they are continually being alternated, the N.M.S.C has now accepted our test rig as a new standard for testing anchors. You know the great thing about all of this was we had so many witnesses strolling along in the water watching the anchors every move.
I am going to have to leave it there for now but will endeavor to answer the second part of your question tomorrow.
Regards.
Rex.

 

[truscott]

......
However, while I can see the benefits of testing individual anchors against each other with the machine, I am less sure of the point of the cross-beam device. This seems to be a qualitative rather than a quantitative test as any balanced beam will deflect if the pull on one side is greater than the other, even if the difference in forces is relatively insignificant and could easily be caused by local ground conditions. Once a deflection has been caused by an initial difference in setting conditions, surely the trailing anchor will never "catch up", even if the force after any initial deflection is more or less balanced, which obviously gives a misleading impression.

And attaching three or four anchors to one cross-beam seems even more meaningless. Am I missing something?

Richard

This is quite an interesting point, and one that I'm curious on too. Say for example in the test, the first anchor that sets has actually hooked on a great big lump of concrete buried just under the sand, it would be possible that if it then released and both anchors exhibited the same amount of drag, that from that point on, regardless of the angle of the beam, that anchor would "appear" to be the better one at setting, when in fact the whole test would be based on a false premise.

Am I missing something? Or is the whole point of the beam simply to show which one sets first?

Not dissing any of the anchors, just trying to make up my mind.

Cheers, PT.

(Currently anchoring with a Delta and Bruce knock off).

 

[noelex]

This photo shows my snubber and chain hook. I have owned the line and used it for this purpose for more than 25 years. It's 11 mm nylon doublebraid and I have never broken it despite sitting out some considerable winds. This hook failed in heavily surging conditions in the Sporades and has been replaced but the rope is still good.

11mm nylon has a break load of about 3000Kg so its survival doesnt help prove or disprove the case that the load would only be 125Kg in a force 10 . Its hard to imagine the pictured chain hook failing with such a small force

Another example of the discrepancy I see is to look at a an anchor windlass fitted to a 33 foot yacht like this. It will have a maximum pull of about 1000Kg and a working load of about 350Kg.
If the 125Kg figure in a force 10 is accurate the anchor windless should be able to pull three 33 foot boats, tied in a row, comforably up to the anchor in a force 10 without the use of the main engine and still be within its working load (allowing a bit for friction on the bow roller) and nowhere near its maximum load.
This doesn’t fit with the observed performance in practice by a considerable margin and makes me skeptical of the figures in the graph.

 

[NormanS]

11mm nylon has a break load of about 3000Kg so its survival doesnt help prove or disprove the case that the load would only be 125Kg in a force 10 . Its hard to imagine the pictured chain hook failing with such a small force

Another example of the discrepancy I see is to look at a an anchor windlass fitted to a 33 foot yacht like this. It will have a maximum pull of about 1000Kg and a working load of about 350Kg.
If the 125Kg figure in a force 10 is accurate the anchor windless should be able to pull three 33 foot boats, tied in a row, comforably up to the anchor in a force 10 without the use of the main engine and still be within its working load (allowing a bit for friction on the bow roller) and nowhere near its maximum load.
This doesn’t fit with the observed performance in practice by a considerable margin and makes me skeptical of the figures in the graph.

The angle that the chain makes over the bow roller, and the friction of the roller, has huge implications in these cases. In the loadcell measurements, a considerable load is taken on the bow roller. In the case of the pull by the anchor windlass, again much of the force is wasted on the bow roller.

If I had realised that anchors could produce so much heat, I wouldn't have bothered to replace my old Eberspacher.