Do we need another anchor design?

A few thoughts on two anchors. I've done this a lot.

1. You really don't need chain on the second rode. It won't be rubbing on the bottom because the pull direction is consistent in most cases. Anyway, there is another anchor. Without chain it is WAY easier. With chain it is often too much work. Hard work if it is blowing and you are doing it singlehanded.

2. The direction of pull change WILL be zero if the angle is wide enough that there is never complete single leg loading or slack. This will not be true if there is a front passage, but it will be otherwise. Simple geometry that depends on how widely they are spread. About 90-120 degrees is optimal. Many people set them either too close together or too far apart.

If you expect radical shifts, there is always the Bahmian moor strategy, though you really need to keep the angle below 120 degrees to avoid force multiplication. Personally, since I nearly always know where the strong wind is going to come from, it's enough to set the second anchor a little wide of that direction; when it shifts, you will be in the V.

3. There is typically CONSIDERABLE increase in holding capacity for three reasons. First, if the boat is nervous (my cat and my tri are not because of bridles) eliminating yawing reduces rode tension 2-4 times the static value as compared to a boat that is yawing the typical 60 degrees. The exact amount depends on water depth and rode type. This is due both to snatch effects (chain rode) and increased windage (rope rode) when the boat is sideways. In other words, for the single big anchor to be equivalent, it needs to be not just a sized larger, but as much as 3 times as heavy. Also, it means you can use Fortress anchors, which hold a ton in the right bottom. Second, in soft mud (where holding is commonly a problem) the anchors can shift to share the load, although this takes special rigging (asymmetric lengths). Again, it allows one of the anchors to be a Fortress, with the NG anchor serving primarily to buffer changes. This is a VERY effective combination, greater than the sum of its parts; it can be stronger than a larger anchor, since it allows the optimum use of a Fortress. Not guesses, I've done a good bit of load testing on this topic. Finally, pulsation and twisting liquefies the mud around the anchor, reducing holding capacity. Variable, but perhaps 30-60% reduction in holding capacity in mud (more testing, but only 2 mud locations).

4. In-line tandems don't work. Smith posted something different, but if you look at the photos you will noticed two things: in no case are both of the anchors actually set, and the pull is never at any angle. Try it, dive on the anchors, and I will give you 10:1 the lead anchor will roll out within an hour, leaving you hanging from the smaller trailing anchor. I'll give you 3:1 that even after multiple efforts, you can't get both well set at the same time period. I succeded a few times, but it's not easy. Every other anchor manufacturer says "bollox." Additionally, even Rocna admits that in-line requires 2x scope and keeping the chain on the bottom 100%. That means at LEAST 20:1 scope for storms. The ONLY time in-line is smart is if the bottom is non-burying. Is it stronger than a single anchor of 2x weight? I've seen it go both ways, but that is a complicated explanation.

Is a single anchor better most of the time? Yes. But the whole yawing and reset topic area is complicated. I look at V-anchoring as a useful skill, but not a normal method.
 
Last edited:
People have equated the Mantus with Rocna, and the Viking look superficially like a Mantus. The design of the Mantus and test results show it has the hold of a Delta (half the hold of a Rocna). Mantus is not a bad anchor - it sets quickly and easily, it sets reliably, it turns to face a new tension direction (possibly because it is set shallow and the fluke set nearer the horizontal - both contributing to the low hold).

Many people will have bought a Mantus of a size similar to the old gen anchor, CQR, Delta, Bruce it replaced - thinking the Mantus was like a Rocna and thus had twice the hold of the old gen model. As reports of Mantus dragging have been like hen's teeth (they might have been suppressed by owners with a loyalty to the brand) its hold appears to be reliable (even if only that of a well set Delta).

However assuming people have not grossly oversized then as the Mantus has the hold of a Delta and the anchor does not drag.....

The hold of a Delta is adequate.

The idea of Bigger is Better suddenly looks a little bit weak.

The market ha been beguiled, the new gen anchor have twice the hold (but the hold of the old gen was adequate). Because of the fear factor engendered in anchor threads people were, unnecessarily, encouraged to buy a size bigger, 2 size bigger etc - for no reason (except filling the coffer of the anchor makers). Yes you might sleep better (it is important) but you actually did not need to oversize at all - and could, possibly, have bought one size smaller

A conclusion I come to is that there is nothing wrong with the holding of a Delta - it drags not because it has inadequate hold - but because it is more susceptible to yawing, horsing, and does not set more deeply easily (if only shallow set)

There is an inadequate amount of work on the reasons for dragging, see Thinwater's post above.

Thousands of people used Delta, CQR and Bruce and did not drag - suggesting if conditions are right they are perfectly adequate.

Viking in its original design was very like a Mantus, with judicious and small changes they have increased the holding capacity. It needs to be tested as the increase in capacity may have reduced some of the good characteristics of Mantus, ease of setting, turning to face a change in tension direction etc.

Time and testing will tell.

It is bizarre that after all the brouhaha of holding capacity and the ';anchor wars' that Mantus has been sold with no holding capacity data made available - by the manufacturer. It has been spruiked with no hold data mentioned. The only independent data is that of the Fortress Chesapeake mud tests - where it performed exactly as you would predict. You have to ask why the hold data has never been mentioned by the manufacturer - given that everyone else has shouted their hold from the mountain top - and across anchor threads and websites.

Jonathan
 
A few thoughts on two anchors.

1. You really don't need chain on the second rode. .


This raises the question of 'Why chain...?"

If one accepts the argument that an all-rope rode is fine, except for the 'chafing on the bottom where the anchor is buried' issue, why not have say 10' of 7 x 19 galvanised, and the rest single-braid or octoplait?

It is also clear that opinion was divided - with arguments raised, debated, demolished just like here - among expert ship-handlers more than 200 years ago. Here's a clip from John Harland's fascinating book showing the use of two anchors in two busy tidal estuaries....

48042426242_cc6472d2e4_z.jpg
 
My information might be dated but you do not need to limit your choice to chain (and textile). I believe Classification Societies are happy with wire rode, dyneema rode and high tensile steel chain rode (all primarily used to reduce weight). Wire is dated but Dyneema and HT chain are very 21st Century (and common practice) but neither of the latter, nor wire, has been embraced by those of you marooned in the 20th Century - over to you Thinwater - who has an opinion on Dyneema, I recall).

Jonathan
 
There are many ways to define anchors, Convex, concave; Old Gen, New Gen, Roll Bar, non Roll Bar etc. I like ‘Fluke’ and ‘weighted toe’ or ‘ballasted’ anchors. I would be interested in other, simple, differences and definitions

Ballasted anchors include: CQR, Delta, Kobra, Rocna, Supreme, Excel, Spade. Fluke anchors include Danforth (and Fortress), Bugel, SARCA, Knox and Bruce.

Ballasted and Fluke anchors have some common characteristics - one critical one being they are all designed to address a sand seabed with a fluke/seabed angle of around 30 degrees. It does vary, I have found from 25 - 35 degrees, and defining the ‘angle’ can be subjective. There are variants, Fortress allow alteration to 45 degrees for mud (the angle seems ideal for squishy mud) and the SuperMax also allows an alteration of angle. I did a survey on the Mekong - and the river barges seem to use 40 degrees, fairly consistently, on ‘Danforths’. The US Navy has done much work (and agrees with increasing the angle for mud) - but (in common with companies making anchors for oil rigs)- recommend reducing the angle, below 30 degrees, and sharpening the toe(s) for very hard seabeds. On this latter point - reports of anchors being ‘defeated’ by very hard seabeds are thin on the ground. I would also be interested in reports of ‘very’ hard seabeds.

For references - try Google, and be overwhelmed, but the US Navy, try Taylor); Houston University, try Kim; Bruce and Vryhoff are a good start.

There are other critical angles - but I am ignoring them :)

There are copious references as to why 30 degrees is an ideal fluke/seabed angle for anchors in sand and 45 degrees in mud.

There are also copious references as to how to achieve that 30 degree angle for fluke anchors, I have not found much for ballasted anchors - they have not enjoyed much investigation - possibly design has evolved through trial and error.

But for sand a reduced seabed/fluke angle will have a reduced hold - directly related to the Sine of the angle - in sand a 30 degree angle would have twice the hold of a 15 degree angle (there are references of the theory and of practical tests).

Fluke anchors have one characteristic in common - the crown, where the shank joins the fluke, is at the heel (back of the fluke) - except for a Bruce - where the crown is behind the heel (an interesting underlining of a design trend). Ballasted anchors have the crown ‘about’ 1/3 of fluke length forward from the heel. There is copious research on why the crown is situated at the heel for fluke anchors - again little documentation for ballasted fluke anchors.

The exceptions to this rule are Mantus, Bonaparte and Viking (in its original form - and I believe no longer available). These anchors had their crown in the location of a ballasted anchor. Looking at underwater images (and videos) of a set anchor, Mantus -this results in a shallow setting anchor (and tests I have conducted on a 15kg model) show ‘low’ holding capacity. Bonaparte’s anchor would have the same issues. Viking have corrected the problem and quote this article

https://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/37_74/features/An-Inquiry-into-Anchor-Angles_12153-1.html

Adding to the background, this article might also be educational, if you can access it:

https://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/45_5/features/Selecting-the-Right-Anchor-Size_12593-1.html

So - if you own a Mantus or are thinking of buying one - maybe food for thought.

Jonathan

Edit: The information is all out there, as someone frequently quotes 'google is your friend' How Mantus and Bonaparte missed this is a mystery. Why Mantus has not published any hold data is another mystery.

You can compare Mantus with Rocna - but, weight for weight, Mantus comes out wanting .
 
Last edited:
I have one story of anchoring attempts on a very hard seabed. Years ago I attempted to anchor on the beach immediately to the east of what is now Pwllheli marina, although at that time only the piles in the channel existed. This is effectively a surf beach, open to the south west, the sand being beaten down in every storm. At the time I had a Delta that was always totally reliable. We tried four or five times to set the anchor but were unable to achieve it, we assumed because it was dragging across the surface. Eventually we moved closer to the marina where the sand is less compressed and anchored first time. This remains the only time that our Delta refused to set in 20 years or so of ownership.
 
So from the last couple of posts, anchor selection should be based on the type of seabed material. In other words you either choose an anchor (if you have a choice) for the seabed you want to anchor over or choose your seabed based on your anchor. Assuming your anchor is a) big enough for your boat and b) sets reliably should the veering angle change (which should be a given for a commercially available anchor) then it is the design of the rode which needs addressing. The key is to minimise the dynamic loads since static /quasi static loads are small. The rode is a spring and you need to ensure the force extension characteristic is not exponential (or rather more linear instead of asymptotic) over the range of loads you expect. So it strikes me we need a better understanding of loads our boat generates on the rode and the spring characteristics of our rope, chain, dyneema, hemp, or other fabric of your choice.
 
The ABYC publishes a spread sheet on the tension in the rode for a cross section of windspeeds for yachts of varying lengths.

You can also look here:

http://alain.fraysse.free.fr/sail/rode/forces/forces.htm

This article offers data on actual measurements for a 'typical' 45' AWB. This is an all chain rode, no snubber.

https://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/37_35/features/Anchor-Snubber-Shock-Load-Test_11257-1.html

This is an earlier article from the same publisher

https://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/30_17/features/5005-1.html

BUT

If the chain is off the seabed, windspeed over around 20 knots, no chain is buried and the yacht is yawing and horsing then the constant movement of the chain will be transmitted to the anchor and the shear strength of the seabed will be reduced - reducing the holding capacity of the anchor.

The value of chain to absorb energy has long been debated on this, and other forum, and there is a strong body of opinion suggeting that beyond 30 knot, and with a normal and finite amount of chain, then chain's value is questionable. Use of snubbers are advocated.

https://www.sailmagazine.com/cruising/anchor-snubber-tips

The use of snubbers is a developing practice, both in popularity and techniques - we have a way to go.


You are correct - no anchor is perfect and the bet example of the extremes are the 2014 Fortress sponsored Chesapeake mud tests:

https://fortressanchors.com/news/chesapeake-bay-anchor-test/

scroll to the end to find the detailed articles. The tests were sponsored by Fortress, but independently witnessed. If you note, or feel, bias - simply ignore the excellence portrayed of Fortress and look at the performance of the other anchors.

Other tests in other seabeds show other anchors to be better, than Fortress - I would advocate carrying more than one anchor and of different designs, each to be large enough to be a primary anchor. We carry 4 such anchors, ours are all aluminium alloy.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
So anchor threads can now be considered obsolete and anchor rode threads can take over ����

On that we use 5m of chain on a Fortress alloy anchor and have 25m of nylon. Boat is only 20' so more chain is a PIA but the rode provides relatively comfortable nights in gales despite having minimal hydrodynamic damping with centre board, rudder and engine out of the water. We do shear about a bit but never dragged once we've avoided the weed (easy to see when you're in 300mm of water plus rise and fall!)
 
So anchor threads can now be considered obsolete and anchor rode threads can take over ����

On that we use 5m of chain on a Fortress alloy anchor and have 25m of nylon. Boat is only 20' so more chain is a PIA but the rode provides relatively comfortable nights in gales despite having minimal hydrodynamic damping with centre board, rudder and engine out of the water. We do shear about a bit but never dragged once we've avoided the weed (easy to see when you're in 300mm of water plus rise and fall!)

A problem with anchor and rode threads are that member do not alway define the term of reference, see post 49 compared with the detail of post 51. I think replies do try to be helpful - in general but might not apply to a specific

You cannot expect a focussed reply to a specific issue if you do not provide sufficient detail. There is an ever so slight different between a J24 and a Lightwave 45 - I think. What is true for 6mm chain and a 45' yacht will not necessarily be valid for 20' yacht with 10mm chain - or any other combination you might choose.

Jonathan
 
A problem with anchor and rode threads are that member do not alway define the term of reference, see post 49 compared with the detail of post 51. I think replies do try to be helpful - in general but might not apply to a specific

You cannot expect a focussed reply to a specific issue if you do not provide sufficient detail. There is an ever so slight different between a J24 and a Lightwave 45 - I think. What is true for 6mm chain and a 45' yacht will not necessarily be valid for 20' yacht with 10mm chain - or any other combination you might choose.

Jonathan
Since all manufactures of anchors (and chain) sell a range of sizes, there must be some scalability of the results.
For example this was outside my local chandler
 
Of course there is, or will be scalability of performance OF THE ANCHOR - which is what you, rightly, imply. Most large commercial anchors are accurately rated for 'scale'. Sadly our anchor have not been tested except for a couple of exceptions. Fortress have done sufficient tests to generate a constant and Bruce has been tested in, much, larger sizes (think commercial vessel sizes). If a constant of 100 means doubling of size equals doubling of hold then Fortress is around 83% in soft mud and Bruce 70% (don't recall the seabed). The idea that if you double size, measured by weight, doubles hold is a pipe dream.

Unfortunately we all use our anchors differently, different proportionate chain size to anchor, different types of rode, different seabeds, swivels or not, different scope - etc etc and each of these variables will impact the scaling.

If you look at scaling of anchors, lots of oil rig anchor data (and the best they achieve is 93%) - the scaling is defined by seabed, different seabeds produce different factors.


I don't know the scaling of 'our anchors' but considering the best that millions of $ can achieve is a scaling of 93% efficiency, Fortress is 83% and Bruce 70% a cautious generalisation might be around 75% - so double weight and you could achieve a 75% increase in hold. I am happy to accept it might be, or actually is higher, but in the absence of data - I'd urge caution.

One reason our anchors have not be quantified is that anchor testing is expensive and testing a 25kg anchor, very, expensive (and when result are revealed - everyone argues - it is a thankless task).

A reason anchors are not 100% efficient to scaling - as size increases the potential load on the anchor increases, sometime as the square, thicker - hence heavier steels - are needed (to withstand the forces) - so area (which has much influence on hold) and weight do not necessarily increase proportionately.

Mot of 'our' anchor are tested at the 15kg size - its manageable. To have any validity you would need 3 or more data points, say multiple tests of 10kg, 15kg 25kg and 40kg - you would generate one 'constant' - but reams of arguments.

I'd love to see it done but......

Jonathan
 
^^ did you have some reason to believe they are not scalable?

I've tested from 2-pounds to 45-pounds, using everything from 1/8-inch steel cable to 3/8-inch chain. On any kind of consistent bottom (sand or mud) results are very scalable, if you make the correct engineering adjustments. For the most part it's high school physics, sometimes simple college engineering.

Anchors hold in near proportion (we could argue over the exact exponent for days) from 2 pounds to 20 tons. Rodes behave similarly if the load is proportional to the strength of the rode... which it logically should be. The load part is complex, but that is not a scaling problem so much as a modeling problem. If you are curious about YOUR boat, you measure it.
 
Bouba,

To crystallise thought

That monster 110kg Rocna might have around twice the hold of the 40kg model but not twice the hold of the 55kg model.

The problem is you need to know what the 'yacht' needs - as a yacht twice the size will not have twice the demands (in terms of anchor performance) of a smaller yacht.

The length + displacement vs anchor weight charts have been honed over decades - and they are the best we have. What has happened is that the old charts are based on the performance of CQR/Bruce/Delta (and maybe Danforth). If you put an average of these charts (as they vary) for Bruce/CQR and Delta they are almost identical to the same charts for an average of Excel/Rocna/Supreme. Basically though the hold of anchors has increased (by a factor of 2) the weights recommended vs length have remained - identical (or near identical) .

So if a 20kg CQR/Bruce/Delta was recommended for your yacht then now a 20kg Rocna/Excel or Supreme is the size recommended. The new kids on the block do not show much confidence in their anchors! - though there is nothing wrong with caution nor increasing safety factors.

And then when you raise a query here - people say - 'go one or two sizes bigger for your 2nd generation anchor (New Gen)'.

And you think the anchor maker or chandler will query your decision.

No wonder no-one drags!

Now - I'm too young to know but in the say, 60s or 70s when the choice was CQR, Bruce (in the 70s) or Delta (in the 80s) did everyone say - go one or 2 sizes bigger?

Jonathan
 
Modern, state of the art anchoring equipment has made significant advances. These are not just improvements to the anchors themselves, but powerful, reliable anchor windlasses and electrical systems have enabled even short handed crew to manage heavy anchors with ease. There have also been developments in techniques such as the use of effective snubbers.

We now can expect a higher standard of anchoring security. Not dragging is not a negative :).

The locations suitable for anchoring have expanded considerably. Anchoring overnight is now possible in locations that would have been at best only suitable for short lunchtime stops when I started sailing.

The improvement has been significant. The bar has been raised, and I for one do not hark for the olden days. Nor do I wish to fit a smaller modern anchor that may have similar capabilities to the anchoring equipment I used a couple of decades ago.

I hope anchoring equipment continues to improve. We are still a long way from anchoring nirvana which would see ground tackle that would securely hold the boat in any wind strength and in any substrate, at a 1:1 scope.
 
Last edited:
...The locations suitable for anchoring have expanded considerably. Anchoring overnight is now possible in locations that would have been at best only suitable for short lunchtime stops when I started sailing.

The improvement has been significant. The bar has been raised, and I for one do not hark for the olden days. Nor do I wish to fit a smaller modern anchor that may have similar capabilities to the anchoring equipment I used a couple of decades ago.

^^ Absolutely!
 
As you are here Noelex and keen on having an anchor that has a good hold -

Where is the holding capacity data that compares your Mantus, about which you rave, with ANY other data?

Surely you have not bee spruiking an anchor with NO quantitative performance data?

A I have said theory and some testing show it to be the same as, or a bit better (for hold) to a similarly weighted Delta. I am happy to be corrected.

It a good thing you grossly over sized a you seem to be using the equipment from a couple of decades ago - which seems a bit contradictory - given your previous statement

Jonathan
 
It's a while now since I last did some scrutineering - one of my students is now doing that at RORC Med events - and the process has become much more complex. Nevertheless, I'm aware that those worthies ( or 'jobsworths' as I've heard them called, twice ) who determine the Offshore Special Regs have given the question of 'Which Anchor' quite some thought....

".....2 un-modified anchors that meet the anchor manufacturer’s recommendation based on the boat’s dimensions with suitable combination of chain and rope, ready for immediate assembly,...."

I have carried and used both of these......

29798323188_5701ab9e16_z.jpg



but find this one seems to have rather better 'holding power'.....


48060694792_ed486b7084_z.jpg
 
Top