Dragging anchor

[geem]

Vyv and I have the same windlass, as Vyv says - its fast. From memory 2m/second. This is much faster than Geem's 60'/minute (I've done the maths in my head) - that's 1m/3secs - that's much slower than power dropping by Vyv and us.

If 2m/sec seems fast it is - too fast to sometimes see the depth marks on the chain.

The only time when accuracy is an issue is when anchoring in thick weed but with sand patches - then you need to get the anchor in the sand.

We power down - that way the slippage on the clutch remains constant and needs no alteration.

We don't have a chain counter, amount of chain deployed, but by counting 'seconds' we have a good idea of how much we have deployed - which in the dark and rain means we can deploy from the comfort of the cockpit.

Jonathan

A quick Google and it suggests that the fastest Muir windlass drop is 25m/ minute.
I couldn't find the drop speed of my windlass but the recovery speed is 20m/minute. I know from experience with the windlass that the drop speed is a faster, as you would expect. So let agree that they are similar. Our windlass is 24v 1700w motor so huge grunt.
It doesn't change anything for us. Is still preferable to free drop for anchoring efficiency and reliability.
Have a look at the Lofrans Falkon. It's a neat bit of kit

 

[noelex]

Using the clutch to freefall the anchor and chain is a valid and perfectly acceptable technique, as is using the power down button.

Both techniques can work well. Some prefer one method or the other and that is fine. It depends partially on the equipment. For example, some windlass clutches are nicely progressive, others less so, some windlasses can power down quickly, others less so. The conditions also play a significant role. For example, in strong wind the drift of the boat can be greater than the maximum chain deployment speed using the power down option, which often makes the clutch a better choice.

Either, or a combination of these techniques is OK. Always keep in mind the goal, which is to drop the anchor and then lay out the chain in a roughly straight line without any piling up, but also without putting any force on the anchor until an adequate scope (say 3:1) has been achieved to allow the anchor to set.

If you put a load on the anchor by excessive force on the chain before a reasonable scope is achieved, the anchor will be dragged through the substrate, as it will be unable to set because of the short scope. The anchor is at risk of fouling or clogging with substrate. On the other hand, dropping chain in a pile risks fouling the anchor with this chain, or inducing a snatch load as the anchor rode eventually becomes straightened. Neither of these options is ideal.

There is no need to be perfect, as modern anchors are very forgiving, but the aim is for the chain to be laid out in a straight line with no force on the anchor until you have deployed the required amount of scope. When this has been done, the goal is to apply a gradually increasing force on the anchor, usually by slowly increasing the reverse power. This nice progressive increase in force is how anchors set best. This will be overkill in ideal substrates, but is sometimes needed. As you do not know the substrate always using this ideal technique is sensible.

Personally, I use both the free-fall technique using the clutch and the power down method. It depends on the circumstances. This mix of techniques I think is ideal, but I can understand some preferring one technique or the other depending on the situation and the equipment used

 

[john_morris_uk]

Using the clutch to freefall the anchor and chain is a valid and perfectly acceptable technique, as is using the power down button.

Both techniques can work well. Some prefer one method or the other and that is fine. It depends partially on the equipment. For example, some windlass clutches are nicely progressive, others less so, some windlasses can power down quickly, others less so. The conditions also play a significant role. For example, in strong wind the drift of the boat can be greater than the maximum chain deployment speed using the power down option, which often makes the clutch a better choice.

Either, or a combination of these techniques is OK. Always keep in mind the goal, which is to drop the anchor and then lay out the chain in a roughly straight line without any piling up, but also without putting any force on the anchor until an adequate scope (say 3:1) has been achieved to allow the anchor to set.

If you put a load on the anchor by excessive force on the chain before a reasonable scope is achieved, the anchor will be dragged through the substrate, as it will be unable to set because of the short scope. The anchor is at risk of fouling or clogging with substrate. On the other hand, dropping chain in a pile risks fouling the anchor with this chain, or inducing a snatch load as the anchor rode eventually becomes straightened. Neither of these options is ideal.

There is no need to be perfect, as modern anchors are very forgiving, but the aim is for the chain to be laid out in a straight line with no force on the anchor until you have deployed the required amount of scope. When this has been done, the goal is to apply a gradually increasing force on the anchor, usually by slowly increasing the reverse power. This nice progressive increase in force is how anchors set best. This will be overkill in ideal substrates, but is sometimes needed.

Personally, I use both the free-fall technique using the clutch and the power down method. It depends on the circumstances. This mix of techniques I think is ideal, but I can understand some preferring one technique or the other depending on the situation and the equipment used

Wise words. Its the free fall is best argument that is unsustainable.

It’s not necessarily. ‘best’. It’s merely one way of dropping anchor and it has its drawbacks.

There are circumstances where free fall might be better, but it requires skill and a switched on crew. There are lots of ordinary circumstances where dropping under power is arguably better.

I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Neeves]

Wise words. Its the free fall is best argument that is unsustainable.

It’s not necessarily. ‘best’. It’s merely one way of dropping anchor and it has its drawbacks.

There are circumstances where free fall might be better, but it requires skill and a switched on crew. There are lots of ordinary circumstances where dropping under power is arguably better.

I’ll leave it at that.

We invariably engage and set the anchor at around 3:1 (nothing precise). If any of our anchors do not set at 3:1 there is something seriously wrong (and if any modern anchor does not set at 3:1 there is something seriously wrong). We have yet to find a 'difficult' seabed, excepting weed, that defeats a Spade, Excel or Fortress. In fact the only time I recall being defeated was when the Excel caught a discarded gas cylinder with toe through the 'handle'. Sadly the Spade and Excel might engages and set in soupy mud - but the hold would be inadequate for winds over 35 knots (not a problem really as most soupy mud is in sheltered locations, slow moving rivers with trees on the bank). Most of our anchorages are sand but Jamiesons Bay and Bramble Cove (both Tasmania) are stones (upto 20cm, Jamieson) or a thin layer of sand over (5cm stones Bramble).

Why 3:1 - we have found our anchors engage and set reliably at 3:1, why deploy more if there is any chance you might need to retreive. With a potential 30m snubber with elasticity (snatch load capacity) of 3m - precisely what advantage is catenary offering?

'How' you anchor is upto the individual, what works for your is correct. It is worth while debating the various techniques as there might be nuances missed that could be advantageous.

Muir windlass are slow compared to Maxwell.


Now a question - here is a little nuance.

Same location, different times. We are going to dry out and have deployed an anchor at 10:1, based on distance from the bow roller to sea level. We have stern anchors off each transom. The bow roller is at approx 1m above the waterline so we have 20m of 6mm chain deployed. We draw about 1m. However because of the way we arrange our snubbers (bridle) the chain is attached to the bridle with a scope of, getting close to infinity, lower picture (the bridle plate is at water level, or lower (or it would be if the tide had not receded).



So....what is our scope? We get a similar effect if the water is deeper and we deploy say at 5:1.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

Dropping the anchor is a technique one should know. If you are med mooring with an anchor and if you have a cross wind then dropping it on the clutch is probably the only way to do it. You will almost certainly not have enough time to drop the chain and get enough speed in reverse to maintain control unless you do drop it. Apart from this manoeuvre I never drop the anchor as the motor is very easy for any crew member to do, nice and peaceful, fast enough and doesn’t require any management or skill with the clutch.

Definitely not the case. We berth stern-to frequently and never free-fall the anchor. I have a windlass switch right next to the Morse engine control, which I firmly believe is one of the most useful anchoring aids I have ever seen. The vast majority of Greek berths are located so as to have cross-winds, so this the rule rather than the exception.

 

[Sandy]

If you want a little extra peace of mind while ashore, using an app such as Anchor Pro will send you an alert if the boat drags outside a preset area. You can also send a message to the app to make it report status (distance and bearing to anchor)
(Meant to post this to the "going ashore while anchored")

If the alarm goes off while you are two hours from the boat just think of the stress that that is going to generate.

 

[SimonKNZ]

If the alarm goes off while you are two hours from the boat just think of the stress that that is going to generate.

I rarely stray far when the boat is at anchor, usually just taking the dog ashore to stretch our legs. I probably wouldn't go ashore if the conditions were likely to cause dragging (eg significant wind change forecast) so a bit moot I agree.
Having read about the incident at Easter I posted above, and another occasion when I watched a boat drift out of an anchorage in the middle of the night with all aboard blissfully asleep, I firmly believe having an alarm active is a sensible precaution. It helps me sleep better anyway

 

[Poignard]

If the alarm goes off while you are two hours from the boat just think of the stress that that is going to generate.

Just settling down to a nice lunch in a smart restaurant when the alarm goes off.....

 

[geem]

By pure coincidence, this video popped up on my Utube feed this morning,
Skip Novak on anchoring. He free drops the anchor

 

[vyv_cox]

By pure coincidence, this video popped up on my Utube feed this morning,
Skip Novak on anchoring. He free drops the anchor

He doesn't have my wife doing foredeck duty

 

[Neeves]

By pure coincidence, this video popped up on my Utube feed this morning,
Skip Novak on anchoring. He free drops the anchor

He does not explain why he is anchoring in 10m depth, why so deep and not anchor a bit closer to the shore. He says he is a believer in 'big' anchors - its a 30t boat and he says a 105lb CQR. He engages the anchor at 3:1 and once it sets he drops the extra he needs for his desired scope, 6:1 (which is not excessive given its a CQR and he is expecting gusts of 55 knots). I can think of many here who would say a 105lb CQR for this yacht is grossly undersized.

He is actually copying our practice - we deploy at 3:1 and once 'set' we deploy what we deem necessary, commonly 5:1 and then apply a snubber.

I note he is free falling the anchor - hardly fast (you can see the painted marks as they pass slowly between windlass and bow roller), seems slower than our Maxwell in a controlled, powered, drop. There must be a lot of friction in the chain. His snubber hook is a conventional component from the lifting industry - simply painted. Its not a hook I know, the design is not common, but hooks from the lifting industry are good and reliable (and need not be galvanised, buy 2, a discard when they start to stain the deck.

This is an old video, I think he upgraded the tackle since and now uses a Rocna, do not know how big. I also thought this is the original 'Pelagic' and he since has a new yacht (I think also called Pelagic).

This is the same (except for the colour of the 'dog house'), old Pelagic, in the Falkland Islands. There is no anchor on the bow roller (taking a 105lb CQR off the bow must be a monumental exercise). The drums either side of the mast are his shore lines.

One thing the video seems to suggest is that 'free falling' and a powered drop can actually be similar - depends on the kit. Novak says he believes in 'oversized' anchors - I think people's ideas of 'oversized' vary. It is also possible that a 105lb genuine CQR works 'better' more reliably than a 15kg version.....??

Jonathan

 

[john_morris_uk]

He does not explain why he is anchoring in 10m depth, why so deep and not anchor a bit closer to the shore. He says he is a believer in 'big' anchors - its a 30t boat and he says a 105lb CQR. He engages the anchor at 3:1 and once it sets he drops the extra he needs for his desired scope, 6:1 (which is not excessive given its a CQR and he is expecting gusts of 55 knots). I can think of many here who would say a 105lb CQR for this yacht is grossly undersized.

He is actually copying our practice - we deploy at 3:1 and once 'set' we deploy what we deem necessary, commonly 5:1 and then apply a snubber.

I note he is free falling the anchor - hardly fast (you can see the painted marks as they pass slowly between windlass and bow roller), seems slower than our Maxwell in a controlled, powered, drop. There must be a lot of friction in the chain. His snubber hook is a conventional component from the lifting industry - simply painted. Its not a hook I know, the design is not common, but hooks from the lifting industry are good and reliable (and need not be galvanised, buy 2, a discard when they start to stain the deck.

This is an old video, I think he upgraded the tackle since and now uses a Rocna, do not know how big. I also thought this is the original 'Pelagic' and he since has a new yacht (I think also called Pelagic).

This is the same (except for the colour of the 'dog house'), old Pelagic, in the Falkland Islands. There is no anchor on the bow roller (taking a 105lb CQR off the bow must be a monumental exercise). The drums either side of the mast are his shore lines.

One thing the video seems to suggest is that 'free falling' and a powered drop can actually be similar - depends on the kit. Novak says he believes in 'oversized' anchors - I think people's ideas of 'oversized' vary. It is also possible that a 105lb genuine CQR works 'better' more reliably than a 15kg version.....??

Jonathan

View attachment 157790

I think “Each to their own” sums up my feelings over that video etc.

It’s a bit like hearing ‘received wisdom’ from some old salt. They may have some pearls of wisdom but there again they may just be passing on old habits and unjustified prejudices.

Once upon a time I believed that CQR anchors were wonderful. I’ve learned better since then and changed my mind.

Once upon a time cruising cats were death traps of crossing an ocean.

Once upon a time, the only safe possible way to go blue water cruising was in a long keeled boat and you’d die if you had a spade rudder.

Cotton sails and hemp ropes. If it was good enough for our great grandparents it should be good enough for us.

Etc etc

 

[geem]

I think “Each to their own” sums up my feelings over that video etc.

It’s a bit like hearing ‘received wisdom’ from some old salt. They may have some pearls of wisdom but there again they may just be passing on old habits and unjustified prejudices.

Once upon a time I believed that CQR anchors were wonderful. I’ve learned better since then and changed my mind.

Once upon a time cruising cats were death traps of crossing an ocean.

Once upon a time, the only safe possible way to go blue water cruising was in a long keeled boat and you’d die if you had a spade rudder.

Cotton sails and hemp ropes. If it was good enough for our great grandparents it should be good enough for us.

Etc etc

Yep, but he is cruising high latitudes not the Tropics. He has some credibility.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Yep, but he is cruising high latitudes not the Tropics. He has some credibility.

That’s the very point I’m making. He might be cruising high latitudes but his anchor and technique still need questioning. A few brownie points for high latitudes but it’s not a trump card for knowledge etc.

 

[geem]

That’s the very point I’m making. He might be cruising high latitudes but his anchor and technique still need questioning. A few brownie points for high latitudes but it’s not a trump card for knowledge etc.

It's an old video. He now uses NG anchors. I have seen the later video of his new boat.

 

[geem]

It's an old video. He now uses NG anchors. I have seen the later video of his new boat.

You can't knock his independence and self reliance in a tough environment. Even if he was using a CQR until recently, he did it with no drama and lived to tell the tale.

 

[Neeves]

That’s the very point I’m making. He might be cruising high latitudes but his anchor and technique still need questioning. A few brownie points for high latitudes but it’s not a trump card for knowledge etc.

He definitely has some credibility.

But I question the depth at which he chose to anchor - and so far from shore. Actually - I find it inexplicable - considering the forecast.

As I mentioned I think he has upgraded the anchor since the video was made (but I was surprised, and question, at the speed with which the video shows the CQR engaging and holding the yacht at 3:1, before he deploys to 6:1). Maybe one might question some judicious editing (which might have been done by 'someone else' sitting at a desk in the UK). However I freely admit I don't have his credibility but my experience, with a much smaller, CQR is that I, frankly, would not rely it - under any circumstances. Maybe he uses an anchor alarm.

I have heard, read, he has upgraded to a Rocna - and that would be interesting decision making process as I think it was after the Morgans Cloud review (in fact quite recent - when a whole batch of better designs were available, including Rocna, Supreme, Spade, Excel).

It is difficult to believe that the paths of Smith and Novak do not cross and Smith would certainly encourage Novak to choose a Rocna (which happens to be the only NG anchor I have seen in the Falklands - a devil of a placed to source a new anchor ).

Given his statement in the video that he believes in larger anchors, forget his precise wording, but that 105lb CQR to me is not 'large' for the then Pelagic (30 ton) - I wonder what size of Rocna he is using on the new Pelagic and whether it is 'oversized'.

Jonathan

Edit

The big problem with the video is that it raises, for me, more questions than answers - but my questions remain unanswered.

Free fall of rode?

Why so far from shore?

What does he mean by oversized?

Why has he chosen a Rocna and what size is he using?

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Adding a bit more:

Up until the late '70s or early '80s and for a couple of generations after (and still used by advocates) the anchor of choice (actually the only anchor - excepting Danforth and what seem to be derivatives viz Brittany) unless you want to count Admiralty Pattern) was the CQR. Bruce and then Delta came next and I don't know but I think my money is safe on the idea that it took a long time for either to be accepted.

So if you 'sailed' it was a CQR and in the UK I'd guess (not putting any money on it) - they were genuine models.

The CQR thus resulted in the idea of the horizontal pull, the long, heavy, rode - there was no other anchor sufficiently well known from which skills and techniques could have been developed.

I'm not knocking the idea (especially as its the same idea we use ) but Novak's engaging and setting procedure is 3:1 - a questionable difference from horizontal. I know our anchor Excel and Spade will both set at 3:1, which is why we use a 3:1 scope - I assume Novak knowns his CQR will engage and set, and demonstrably does engage and set, at 3:1. I wonder where the idea of the horizontal tension comes from.....? I note he does not power engage but is using the wind to drive the yacht back, the anchor appears to engage and set without hesitation - and the bow swings back into the wind (which will only happen if the hold is sufficiently large). I note he has beefy chain - but then its a 30t yacht.

Jonathan

 

[geem]

He definitely has some credibility.

But I question the depth at which he chose to anchor - and so far from shore. Actually - I find it inexplicable - considering the forecast.

As I mentioned I think he has upgraded the anchor since the video was made (but I was surprised, and question, at the speed with which the video shows the CQR engaging and holding the yacht at 3:1, before he deploys to 6:1). Maybe one might question some judicious editing (which might have been done by 'someone else' sitting at a desk in the UK). However I freely admit I don't have his credibility but my experience, with a much smaller, CQR is that I, frankly, would not rely it - under any circumstances. Maybe he uses an anchor alarm.

I have heard, read, he has upgraded to a Rocna - and that would be interesting decision making process as I think it was after the Morgans Cloud review (in fact quite recent - when a whole batch of better designs were available, including Rocna, Supreme, Spade, Excel).

It is difficult to believe that the paths of Smith and Novak do not cross and Smith would certainly encourage Novak to choose a Rocna (which happens to be the only NG anchor I have seen in the Falklands - a devil of a placed to source a new anchor ).

Given his statement in the video that he believes in larger anchors, forget his precise wording, but that 105lb CQR to me is not 'large' for the then Pelagic (30 ton) - I wonder what size of Rocna he is using on the new Pelagic and whether it is 'oversized'.

Jonathan

Edit

The big problem with the video is that it raises, for me, more questions than answers - but my questions remain unanswered.

Free fall of rode?

Why so far from shore?

What does he mean by oversized?

Why has he chosen a Rocna and what size is he using?

Jonathan

Tidal range is up to about 3.0m
We make a habit these days of anchoring in deeper water than we used to. Boats that anchor closer to the land seem to have more issues.
If a weather system comes through and gives a wind reversal (we have been in a few) it buys you more time. We were in Le Marin a few years back when the forecast was for a wind reversal. Just light 7kts from the West. It combined with an electric storm that gave 45kts from the West. The boats anchored near the beach ended up on the beach. Friends anchored way out dragged several hundred meteres with their Rocna but it eventually set. They were taking waves over the bow.
We had anchored well away from everybody and had no issues. We had a 12m long snubber but we're still taking waves over the bow. It was all over in an hour.
It was a good lesson.

 

[doug748]

I'm stoked, I have a snubber somewhere just the same length, I was starting to think I was underendowed:




Hugely oversized anchor. Must not have heard that smaller anchors work best . Guy's a philistine, uneducated, needs to read the real experts on here.
: -)

.