Anchors, once again.

Just to clarify what I was saying - there is group of people who think 'anchor' first and 'marina' only when there is really no alternative but we are in the minority. However, we are also the ones who pay real attention to our ground tackle and talk about it, and the condition of the bottom, regularly. The knowledgeable ones always ask others when entering a strange anchorage, if possible, before dropping the hook. "What's the bottom and holding like?" "What ground tackle are you using?" "Had any problems?" Sadly many people are too proud, too stupid, or both and they don't ask.

Reading books on anchoring, how often do you read the recommendation that you should ask others present or locals for advice? Surely that is more important than the type of anchor and rode (within reason)? After all, even the most basic anchor - provided it is of the appropriate size - will work if used correctly on an appropriate bottom. Until you know what the bottom is like, how can you make any decisions?

Finally, the market for new generation anchors is almost entirely manufacturer-driven. I doubt whether the world has been seeking a better anchor. What the world has been seeking is a way to anchor on a bottom that is too hard or too smooth to let anything penetrate it. Or too loose for anything of moderate size to get a grip; however 'advanced' it might be, nothing will hold in a bottom comprised of mica pellets or something of that nature. Neither will anything, however 'advanced' hold on weed that is too deep to penetrate and is inadequately rooted, so it comes away in clumps. These are among the bottoms we want to anchor on and the truth is that nobody has yet come up with a design that will - and I rather doubt that they will. When they do, we will test it first of all on a billiard-table bottom /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Truly, it does seem to be manufacturer-driven.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify what I was saying - there is group of people who think 'anchor' first and 'marina' only when there is really no alternative but we are in the minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

We do realise not all of you up there are marina hoppers /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif and can live without away from shore power and pub meals /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, the market for new generation anchors is almost entirely manufacturer-driven. I doubt whether the world has been seeking a better anchor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutly manufacturer driven as most new things are. I do think there has been a far few looking for an 'improvement' with regards to setting at least. Holding power has never realy been a big issue with well set-up systems but the phrase "set you piece of s**t!!!!" has been heard many times drifting around anchorages, down here anyway and from my own mouth for than once. I really believe this is the big advantage the newer anchors have.

I was just talking to the guy who runs our Navy sailing training craft, 40ft med-heavy offshore yachts, and he was saying that the number of anchoring related issues has all but dissapeared since they swapped from CQR's to Rocna's. They were having alsorts of issues as so many differant people (and skill levels) use these boats. Currently all away full of your Navies people by the way, some 'lets swap boats' scheme they have with other navies. He was saying all they have to do now is stop people backing while deploying the anchors as they don't realise how quick they set and stop the boat. He is expecting a winch to pull out of one soon if it continues /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But you and Ships cat are right. Manufacturer driven as marketing is with all products and why replace something that is not really broken, so the speak. As I've said to many a punter "why replace something that has worked well (mostly) for many years? When you get a new boat or need another anchor (for whatever reason) then take a serious look at the newer ones". Many are running this policy and I'm sure in time, and it won't be too long I suspect, we will see them as the top end gear CQR seems to hold at present.

PS Ships cat, You're right with the Lloyds HHP thing, SHHP works just the same I understand.
 
[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> Craig Smith - ROCNA: So as to avoid those awful comments clouded by an involved individual's self serving claims , results from the recent West Marine and SAIL magazine testing:
</span>

[/ QUOTE ]


Sorry, I am an idiot! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

It tooks a little time for the Sail Magazine’s article on anchor tests to arrive at the bottom of South America. I was very curious to read the totality of the test, and not only the single figure published by Craig of ROCNA, on practically all known nautical forums. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I am a little bit idiot in the great Southern latitudes of America and I am not certain that SAIL and SAIL Magazine are the same magazine?. However Sail Magazine publish also on the October issue an anchor test realized in collaboration with West Marine..

But are we talking about the same thing?? To my great surprise, I did not find nowhere the graph very favorable to Rocna, published by C.Rocna. There are some others...

For information purposes, I join the one of the page 68: "Effect of Location on holding power":

effectoflocationonholdingpowerR.jpg


- In two places out of the three, the results of the Rocna is good and average in the third:
- at "East of warf" Rocna arrives in third position behind Fortress and Spade
- at "West of Warf" Rocna arrives in fifth position behind Fortress, Hydrobulbe, Océane and Spade
- Finally at New Brighton, Rocna arrives in third position behind Hydrobulbe and Suprème..

Then can somebody explain me how, while being respectively twice third and once fifth, Rocna can publish a figure of unknown origin, attesting that its anchor was the best in the test? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Thanks in advance for the explanation.

Alain
 
Thank you Alain. I had smelt a rat much earlier. Do you know whether this report is, in its entirety, available on the internet? I suppose not as they want to sell their magazine but I cannot buy that here in Spain.

I was interested to read that Fortress came out so well. I have a conviction based on the history of the Danforth, personal experience, the experience of others and plain engineering commonsense that the Danforth/Fortress design has a lot going for it. The big drawback is that it is a very clumsy thing that is difficult to carry on deck, making it difficult to deploy except as a fixed bower anchor. Having said that, I carry mine on the pushpit and it sees most of its use in tandem with the Bruce, deployed from the foredeck so it is possible, just inconvenient.

Commonsense tells me that there will be times when the Danforth/Fortress will set and hold when others can't and won't.
 
Isn\'t that most of the problem ...

Anchors work - so its good. As to the level of success - who knows when its down there below waterline, out of sight. It's done its job - boater's a happy bunny.

Trials of an anchor only show ... yes it works - which let's be honest 99% of the time a lump of rock will work ..... no it doesn't when most would fail as well.

How do you really sort the good from the bad ... yes mag tests should be able to sort the rubbish from the working ... but further than that ??

As said above .... many still use CQR's / Bruce etc. - why ? Cause they work for them and have no reason to change. It is also a common fact that live-aboards carry a size or 2 up from yer average AWB Solent boat ...
 
looking at that chart we should all be buying hydrobulbe's - whatever the hell they are!

this new brighton area looks a right pain - what was the ground there and why did the spade do so poorely there relative to rocna, let alone the other 2?

I too look forward to finding the whole article in due course
 
[ QUOTE ]
But are we talking about the same thing?? To my great surprise, I did not find nowhere the graph very favorable to Rocna, published by C.Rocna. There are some others...

For information purposes, I join the one of the page 68: "Effect of Location on holding power":

- In two places out of the three, the results of the Rocna is good and average in the third:
- at "East of warf" Rocna arrives in third position behind Fortress and Spade
- at "West of Warf" Rocna arrives in fifth position behind Fortress, Hydrobulbe, Océane and Spade
- Finally at New Brighton, Rocna arrives in third position behind Hydrobulbe and Suprème..

Then can somebody explain me how, while being respectively twice third and once fifth, Rocna can publish a figure of unknown origin, attesting that its anchor was the best in the test?

Thanks in advance for the explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]At the risk of getting drawn into a mud slinging competition, here is the explanation, in the form of the main chart of the article, published on the first spread (page 63):

wm_testing_chart_orig.gif

Average figures.

Our chart is the same as this, except we use a ratio of holding power to weight in order to compensate for the differences in size (clearly one cannot fairly compare a larger anchor to a smaller anchor), and have also adjusted the aluminium anchors so as to be comparable to the much heavier steel ones.

It is consistancy which pays off, and a good test will illustrate that. Here anchors were subjected to three different conditions with three different scopes, and while some did very well on occasion, they let themselves down on others. When you are out in the real world, you do not want to be playing a guessing game when you launch your hook. You want to be able to rely on it, not worry that it happened to hold "the best" in one particular test but no others.

As such we point to the crucial "max before releasing" in the above chart.

The SAIL article should be read and studied in depth before arguing the details of the results. In actual fact the specific data for every pull is not provided. So, we are simply happy to quote averages.

Apologies to those who have seen this for the 2nd or 3rd time on as many different forums, but at the risk of sounding immature, "he started it" /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I do think there has been a far few looking for an 'improvement' with regards to setting at least. Holding power has never realy been a big issue with well set-up systems but the phrase "set you piece of s**t!!!!" has been heard many times drifting around anchorages, down here anyway and from my own mouth for than once. I really believe this is the big advantage the newer anchors have.

[/ QUOTE ]
This surprises me. If an anchor doesn't set and then eventually sets it is usually because the anchorage has patchy holding. Patches of weed, patches or rock or hard sand... And, of course, the habit some people have of trying to pull back on their anchors without leaving any time for them to settle in, is quite often doomed to failure. I don't accept that new generation anchors are necessarily the way forward in conditions of extreme weed, rock or very hard sand so will prove to be as patchy as any other anchor, in a patchy anchorage.

Could it be that these new anchors are often tested by yachtsmen who don't generally anchor at all and who therefore have no good frame of reference to compare them with? I'd love to hear from a couple of serious anchoring-types who have tried a new anchor over at least 90 nights in different anchorages. One who has no connection with the industry, of course.
 
"Our chart is the same as this, except we use a ratio of holding power to weight in order to compensate for the differences in size (clearly one cannot fairly compare a larger anchor to a smaller anchor),"

I believe I 'm starting to understand.. it was YOUR chart.. :0(

The chart you published was not the one from Sail Magazine, but only a personal interpretation of the results??

(clearly one cannot fairly compare a larger anchor to a smaller anchor),"

OH YES.. perfectly right, but.. I think everybody now accept that holding is more related to the SURFACE area of the anchor, than to the weight!

Why did you choose to "correct" the results in relation to the WEIGHT and not to the "Surface area" It would have been more fair and also perfect to include aluminum amchors..
 
Are you saying that your chart came directly from Sail or are you saying that it did not come directly from Sail?
 
Re: Anchor comparison chart is flawed

[ QUOTE ]
Bower anchor is a 30kg Bruce. A couple of centimetres behind the Bruce's connector, I shackle a 1.8m 10mm chain, to which I shackle the Danforth I use as a kedge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Danforth Anchors cos's I have used them in the past (albeit not totally without problems) - the present boat does not have a Danforth. main anchor is a CQR which I do not really like, for me it seems to much like a plough share, and I know it does make a nice furrow, but not exactly what i am after from an anchor! - I also have a big Bruce (not sure if it is a copy), but I have not yet used it, doesn't seem somehow "natural" shape for an anchor to me..........but I like that fact that it is "One piece".

But I guess that it has worked well for you on it's own (I am guessing also that you do not always use the 2 anchor set up?) - I can see the logic of having 2 Anchors of differing types in line, but am not sure if I should do the same as you (which has the attraction of no cost, cos I have a smaller Danforth Kedge already) or going for a big "f#ck off" sized /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Danforth with a Bruce (something else??) bigger or smaller ? before or after the Danforth.

Not really expecting "the" answer, just musing I guess /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Old combatants ......

Hi Hylas ....

I agree that Surface area is important .... but weight IMHO is also as equally important.

I do not like the idea that any boat should rely on an anchor biting into seabed only by surface area .... that IMHO is a recipe for disaster.
I like to think that anchoring is a combination of rode weight and catenary .... that looks after initial snatch / pull and boat - then anchor weight to give inertia and the surface area to provide holding power.

There have been attempts in past to convince yachting world to buy lightweight alloy anchors .... quoting ease of handling and "fluke" area etc. Yes when pushed into bed and then a tractor / mobo pulls on it - of course the flukes dig in and area holds ... BUT that is after they are dug in. Without weight there is no force pushing down to aid the flukes to dig in ... in fact a lightweight LARGE surface area anchor could dance across the sea-bed

Anchors are like tyres .... like keels ...... like many things in life ...... combination of design, brute force (ie kg's in this case) and method of deployment as well as bed used on.

In my case .... a Plough anchor has been shown to normally dig in because its point is at angle down .... the plough shape then aids its digging in .... but I believe weight works in this - every case - to ensure that the point does not skip over the bed .....

In terms of surface area .... I could use a Danforth of a lot less overall size / weight and still have same surface area "to dig-in" .... but I won't .... cause to me it's too light then. It's a "spoon" on the end of my rode .... not a balanced system.
 
Re: Old combatants ......

One of the reasons why a Danforth is so good is because of the high surface area. The design is so efficient that it is possible to make a light version of the Danforth. Which was done years ago...the Fortress! These are very good anchors. Maybe they don't look sexy but they are the business!
 
Re: Anchor comparison chart is flawed

I prefer to use the Bruce alone but I only do that now when I can see the bottom or have it confirmed by others at anchor, or where it is 'well-known' from the pilots. Otherwise, especially if we are staying overnight, if the wind is uncertain, or if the anchorage is very crowded and I want to keep my rode shorter than I would like, I deploy both anchors. It is very inconvenient but it gives a great deal of peace of mind. We have never moved an inch with both anchors down. Actually, the way I deploy them, the Danforth is the main anchor and I suspect that the Bruce is mainly acting as a huge 'chum' for the Danforth but, if nothing else, the Bruce sweeps a path clear of weed for the Danforth to bite into. Weed is the biggest problem in this part of the Med and using one anchor it can be impossible to get a good hold.
 
Re: Old combatants ......

Hi SBC,

I believe we disagree on some points there.

First we are talking about different things, Surface area is important for holding, weight not.. but weight is important for digging in, although Craig Smith will explain you that weight is not important at all.. and considering the digging in results of the Rocna in the Sail Magazine test.. he has some good reasons to say that.

“ <span style="color:blue">I do not like the idea that any boat should rely on an anchor biting into seabed only by surface area ....” </span> the word there is “biting” which should rely to Diggin in. (not to holding) In my book “ the complete anchoring handbook ” (to be launched early next spring) I explain that there are two types of penetration:
- the first one, the static penetration which is related to Pressure (Weigh by surface) and for the static penetration, Weight is of the most importance
- Then the second one, the dynamic penetration is more dependent of the pulling force exerted by the boat through the mooring line.

You should have both, as (at least for the anchors of our boats) weight will not be enough to dig the anchor in, but without static penetration, and only with the force exerted by the anchor line, the anchor will just slide on the bottom (this is what happens to the CQR in the Sail tests)

“ <span style="color:blue"> I like to think that anchoring is a combination of rode weight and catenary .... that looks after initial snatch / pull and boat - then anchor weight to give inertia and the surface area to provide holding power.”</span>

- I have a radically different opinion there, as you can perfectly anchor with no rode weight at all, as long as you have enough SCOPE.
- Catenary is again a different problem, which is related to the damping of shock load from waves . but in strong weather conditions (When you need most the damping effect) Chain doesn’t procure anymore the damping effect, and you should use any kind of shock absorbing system.. either a mixed chain/rope line or an efficient snubber..

- Inertia from a 40 lbs anchor is completely negligible..

“ <span style="color:blue"> in fact a lightweight LARGE surface area anchor could dance across the sea-bed” </span>
Perfectly right,, but when set, aluminium anchors have, size for size, the same holding that their counterpart in Steel..

<span style="color:blue"> Anchors are like tyres .... like keels ...... like many things in life ...... combination of design, brute force (ie kg's in this case) and method of deployment as well as bed used on</span> .
Agree.. as it is said in Sail test: “ effectiveness of any anchor is highly dependent on a long list of variables”..

<span style="color:blue"> In my case .... a Plough anchor has been shown to normally dig in because its point is at angle down .... the plough shape then aids its digging in .... but I believe weight works in this - every case - to ensure that the point does not skip over the bed ...</span>
Agree.. again if you look at the SAIL magazine test, they have been surprised to observe that the CQR didn’t dig in.. just because it was hard sand bottom and the CQR doesn’t have enough weight at the tip (only 18%) . The Delta anchor which has a more heavier tip (28%) did set fast and deep..

Surprisingly, during Sail tests, the Performance anchor (Danforth type by West marine) did poorly when the aluminium Fortress gave impressive results.. Then? Aluminum or steel??
 
Are you saying that your chart came directly from Sail or are you saying that it did not come directly from Sail?

Seems he was a baker in a previous life. Add anchors, add water, add yeast, stir and keep stirring and stop when the Rocna has risen to the top. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Did the same with beach test videos some time back - all the other anchors on moist sand (so grains held together by surface tension), Rocna in saturated sand so no surface tension - big, big difference between moist sand and saturated sand as anyone who has tried digging in both will attest.

Jumping to now comment on GMac's post and the navy yachts (Chico 40's) whose anchors he mentioned their CQR's being replaced by Rocnas - my understanding is that these yachts were under anchored size wise with the CQR's as for being independant free ranging boats. I am friends with one of the regular skippers of these yachts and he had the same thing with his own newly bought yacht, had a CQR but undersized for the boat so he replaced it - but he chose a Delta.

Am not claiming from that that the Delta is neccesarily superior but that in many ways the choice between all these anchors is one of personal choice, they are much of a muchness otherwise - perhaps one a bit better in one circumstance, and another in another - but in the end it may even be how pretty it looks (even if it is available in ss for appearances) or whether it fits the existing bow roller arrangements.

I immediately smell rats (cats, and dogs, are good at that /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) when an anchor builder promotes his as the best or even worse, cooks the books.

John
 
Re: Old combatants ......

Alain, I like to let my anchor fall fast and free to the bottom, so helping it to dig in. A 30kg Bruce hits the bottom at some speed, even taking into account the effect of the water. However, I am upgrading my anchoring system this winter and will now have a powered-down facility on my windlass. Have you conducted any trials to determine the difference between slow-release anchors and fast-release anchors? This factor does not appear in any reports I have read. The reason for adding the power-down function is to allow an easy way to let out another five or ten metres when the wind gets up but it would be convenient to let it down that way under normal circumstances as I am short-handed (just my wife and me and she doesn't play with anchors).

[ QUOTE ]
Surprisingly, during Sail tests, the Performance anchor (Danforth type by West marine) did poorly when the aluminium Fortress gave impressive results.. Then? Aluminum or steel??

[/ QUOTE ]

The Sail team concluded that this was due to the flukes of the Fortress being sharper than the type 20. They were on the spot so presumably that was the most likely explanation? My Danforth is the traditional steel version and the flukes look as sharp as the Fortress flukes I've seen.
 
Re: Old combatants ......

Hi Lemain,

I have two types of direct experience with anchors:

Before sailing my own steel boat, I did mostly racing and competition, and very seldom anchoring.. On my own boat I had both a Plow and a fluke anchor: the SOC (CQR copy) and the Britany anchor both from Plastimo.. Until I develop the Spade.. and since that time ( more than 10 years now ) I never have used anything else..

As an anchor designer, I have made a very large quantity of tests, with nearly all existing anchors.. including some “exotics” ones.. I had also the chance to closely work with an engineer school, with governmental administrations, with nautical magazines.. etc.. doing a large quantity of tests in various conditions..

I never try any experiment by letting the anchor fall freely to the bottom , I believe it can be quite hazardous and the chance that the anchor will hit the bottom in the right setting position is very hazardous..
But nearly all “new generation” anchors are now designed in such a way, that they are digging in much faster, much deeper and often including in difficult grounds such as weedy bottoms..

I have to admit that I’m always dubitative concerning the Bruce anchor.. I have good friends, very experienced sailors, sailing full time in High latitudes and anchoring in very difficult situations, they are very happy with their Bruce. On my side, all tests I’ve done with the Bruce have shown that this type of anchor dig in fast.. but its holding is quite poor by comparison to modern anchors,. This is also pointed out in SAIL tests and they wrote .. <span style="color:blue"> “ it seemed to set and release rapidly without ever really catching”.. </span> which I have also noted and is well described in Earl Hinz’s book on anchoring..

I’m not sure that the fact of letting the anchor go down slowly or fast will change anything.. if the anchor has a poor setting ability, perhaps it could improve it a little bit?? But with a fast setting anchor of the new generation, it will not change ( I believe ) anything..

With the power down function ( very convenient when single handed) the anchor will only falling slowly to the bottom..
 
[ QUOTE ]

Did the same with beach test videos some time back - all the other anchors on moist sand (so grains held together by surface tension), Rocna in saturated sand so no surface tension - big, big difference between moist sand and saturated sand as anyone who has tried digging in both will attest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh John..tisk tisk tisk! (I think it goes like that /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif)
I know for a fact the statement above is incorrect. There were multiple pulls of each anchor in the same area below the tide line. Maybe the photo posted was one where there was more surface water than the others, I haven't seen it but do know there was no dodgy done. I'm sure if you wanted to sit for a couple of hours and watch the entire raw footage you could only but agree. Warning - a bit like Americas cup racing, long periods of boredom with the odd 'Oh thats neet' inbetween. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

To be honest some dodgy was done on one anchor only after all the serious stuff was finished. This was to try and get a holding power number more than 2 didget kg's on this particular anchor. Alsorts was tryed but it did just not stack up at all good. The anchor is not mentioned in this thread and while not a knock-off or a asian made shocker it is still a shi*ter of the 1st order.

[ QUOTE ]
Juping to now comment on GMac's post and the navy yachts (Chico 40's) whose anchors he mentioned their CQR's being replaced by Rocnas - my understanding is that these yachts were under anchored size wise with the CQR's as for being independant free ranging boats. I am friends with one of the regular skippers of these yachts and he had the same thing with his own newly bought yacht, had a CQR but undersized for the boat so he replaced it - but he chose a Delta.

[/ QUOTE ]

The CQR's fitted were one size up from CQR's recommendations. These are Navy boats and undersizing (and in most cases correctly sizeing) anything is unknown to them. They were launched with 1 x 10 and 1 x 8man liftrafts onboard and often only had 2 people on board with a max of 10, go figure. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think noting that the Navy did it's own tests before going with the Rocnas, is worth a mention, as is they did it all without Rocnas knowledge. Many gasps were heard around town when they changed to something not less 50 years old as well, a big surprise. Speaking with the Boats Chief yesterday and now they are even talking Spectra ropes... what is the world coming too.... our Navy in the 20/21st century... something spooky is a foot /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I immediately smell rats (cats, and dogs, are good at that /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif) when an anchor builder promotes his as the best or even worse, cooks the books.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Ships cat - All advertisers worse nitemare. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

zoidberg
The definitive anchors article?
2
Replies
20
Views
760
Wansworth
W

Share this page

Top