Dragging of anchors

[Dockhead]

. . .
The best defence is an anchor that sets and digs deeper very quickly. This is also true for man made debris like the propane cylinder that Jonathan mentioned. An anchor that routinely takes 5-7m to set like many of the convex plough anchors, is more likely to pick up this sort of debris. Designs that typically set in metre or less have a big advantage in reducing the risk of these problems.. . .

This is relevant not only to choice of anchor, but to technique, and probably more so.

We have a lot of slimy, low-density mud in the Solent, and no anchor (except maybe a Fortress) sets well in that. I find that it is very bad to let the anchor plow through the seabed trying to set -- you inevitably pick up some debris of some kind or another and foul the anchor.

Same problem in the Baltic archipelagos, except that what you foul is usually going to be a rock or, most horrible of all, a cable.

Lately I have been concentrating on trying to get the anchor to set without moving around first.

 

[Delfin]

I bent a wire snubber hook, the upper one shown here, but in exceptional conditions. We were stern-to in the Sporades at a port renowned for poor shelter in NE winds. The snubber was fitted to take load off the windlass but not particularly to provide snubbing, so was quite short. In early morning the wind began to blow in, creating waves, in which we were surging quite violently, enough to tear two fairleads out. After a time of enduring this the wire of the snubber hook bent, the boat surged backwards and the aft platform was punched through the transom when we hit the wall.

I replaced the old hook with a forged one, shown below.

On soft shackles, I can get a 2 ton one through a link of an 8 mm chain but not a 5 ton one. Even with the 2 ton one, possibly marginal on strength, it is a real fiddle to do, using two hands that is extremely uncomfortable on my foredeck, whereas the hook is quick and easy with one hand. When retrieving I only need to wind in half a metre of chain to get the hook to fall off, when the snubber can be coiled and stowed. For me there is absolutely no way that a soft shackle is better.

I was too general in my commendation of soft shackles, as different setups would change the equation. I should have said that for us, a soft shackle is far superior. We have 1/2" chain, so attaching a Plasma shackle that is stronger than the chain is no issue, plus the chain is 2.5 feet off the deck when we do so there is no fiddling on your knees. We deploy the snubber over a secondary roller atop the main roller so the snub line doesn't chafe on the chain if run over the same roller. A chain hook, besides being significantly weaker than the shackle nevermind the chain is a big piece of metal that won't go over the roller without banging around and frequently falling off. On retrieval, the soft shackle can't do any damage to the paint a chain hook can and has when it swings free of the chain. Once the anchor is weighed, the shackle is the fail safe attachment of the chain to a strong point taking the load off the windlass. So for us, superior.

 

[noelex]

I had thought you did not like anchors that scooped sand in front of the fluke? I note some contradiction, perhaps.

Simply scraping up substrate in front of the fluke is a sign that the anchor is struggling to penetrate deeper.

The poorer the substrate and the more the anchor is struggling, the less the fluke will dive down and more piling up will be visible, although there will often be a little bit even with a good anchor in a good substrate.

This is a recent example from a Delta anchor. It illustrates an anchor that is achieved much of its holding simply from heaping, or scraping up sand I front of the fluke. Despite a typical (for this type of anchor) long setting mark if you look from the seabed level you can see the fluke is barely below the general level of the seabed. There is very little real penetration of the fluke.

This Delta should have done better in my view, but in some cases such as a thin layer of sand over smooth rock all anchors will show a lot of heaping up. The holding power will only be low. The grip will be heavily dependent on the surface area and shape of the fluke. The ability of the anchor to dive and bury is nullified by the rock layer.

In contrast, in the easiest substrates (moderately soft) all anchors will be able to dig their flukes under the surface and will display minimal heaping up.

A lot of the anchorages in this area are somewhat in between with a hard sand layer below the softer surface sand. The better anchors can penetrate this hard layer. Those anchors with less ability simply scrape the surface layer of sand in front of the fluke.

 

[Neeves]

Noelex,

A plea from the heart.

This is going to come to you as a great disappointment but as the person who started the thread I specifically asked, requested, that contributors did not mention specific brands, and you not only mention specific brands but post images as well. The thread is about modern anchors and have they met expectations, specifically do they drag. The sheer longevity of Danforth, Delta, CQR and Bruce is testament to their success as are the numbers of these anchors we see on bow rollers - consequently any negativity, say by yourself, simply contradicts what is common practice - and has been for decades. We know that pre-modern anchors might not be as good, might be difficult to set - but this is not a thread to damn 85 years of success - you can do that somewhere else.

Anyone can take a pitctures to prove a point and you have made your point, counter to the request in the opening post.

Your recommendations that one should buy a concave anchor and one that is oversize is simply contradicted by your own posts - and you wonder why I suggest there is bias. Oversize anchors simply catch bigger rocks and by your own post you suggest convex anchors shovel rocks aside.

Attempts to focus the thread on specific brands and or generic types is simply not requested and usually degenerates into 'my anchor is better than yours and you should listen to what I say'. I do not find that very useful, nor edifying, again you can do that elsewhere.

I had hoped this thread could be kept on the straight and narrow, which has been the case for 300 posts until you decided it was time to provide your vision of where we are all going wrong - you have chosen to try to alter the focus. I would be most grateful if you would stick to the origins of the thread. Thread drift is perfectly acceptable - as long as it does not lead to 'my anchor is better, listen to me!'

I specifically asked about rocks in flukes because you had made a post on same, as had Vyv, and this was one of the very first times I had seen it mentioned. Rocks in flukes will cause an anchor to drag - so it did seem a topic of merit. It had an interesting result that I had not anticpated, of you preaching your gospel, which was a sad and unfortunate development and not one that I see as being beneficial.

Interestingly there have been many useful and interesting posts but one thing that has come through, unstated but nevertheless there - no-one has suggested they wished they had bought a bigger anchor, than the one they have. In fact one person who bought a replacement anchor, for one he lost, bought exactly the same size. Many have bought one or two sizes bigger, some have bought the same size and some smaller versions - but no-one has said they wished they had had a bigger anchor - and by and large expectations have been met - modern anchors do not drag.

Another aspect to surface is the acceptance (and public comment) that modern anchors are not universally successful, weed is still an issue, as is thin mud. There are anchors that address these seabeds.

The only characteristics I can find of bigger anchors is that - bigger anchors simply collect bigger stones in the fluke, and maybe encourage their owners to shout louder.

I would be most grateful, if you wish to contribute, if you can restrict your comment to the topic, do modern anchors dag - no more, no less. I'd prefer use of your skills of penmanship as pictures , as I mention show brands. I also prefer personal comment of known usage, not a guess at how someone else might have set the anchor on their first cruise as skipper etc.

I obviously cannot stop you sermonising, and contradicting yourself, but fear if you continue the thread will die quickly.

Thanking you in advance.

Jonathan

 

[JumbleDuck]

This is going to come to you as a great disappointment but as the person who started the thread I specifically asked, requested, that contributors did not mention specific brands, and you not only mention specific brands but post images as well. The thread is about modern anchors and have they met expectations, specifically do they drag.

I don't think it is realistic to lump all "modern anchors" together in this way. Doing the same for previous generations of anchors would mean treating the CQR, Danforth, Fortress and Bruce as one. Sure, you will probably get some "my anchor is better than your anchor" discussion, but that's a lot more useful than the "all modern anchors are better than all older anchors" alternative.

 

[Neeves]

JD,

People bought a bruce in preference to a CQR because it was cheaper, fitted their boat, was available and it was 'better' People buy modern anchors today for the same sorts of reasons. I assume if the choice of anchor was wrong people changed. But modern anchors are shown to be better in many tests (we can debate on another thread if you wish to start one on the merits of tests) but anchor makers promote these modern anchors as being better (than CQRs and Bruces etc). Whatever you choice

Have you found these modern anchors met expectation, do they drag (or really do they drag with the frequency of the anchor they replaced).

Most anchor makers, today, seem to suggest their anchors are good for all seabeds - I'm a bit like you, sceptical (I think they are better - but not necessarily good in all seabeds) and I think there are strengths and weaknesses to each design. But assuming you optimised your historic anchor choice and have optimised your choice of modern anchor - has it met expectation? - and if not why not.

But I do not know of a modern anchor maker that suggests their anchors do not work in some seabeds - they seem to claim they work everywhere, so we can lump them together - so what is, or are, the verdicts.

If JD you think you have grounds to differentiate - I'd welcome that comment

Jonathan

edit

The concensus is that modern anchors are better, they have met expectation, and in general do not drag (at all). They also set much more quickly However there are comment made that the only anchor to perform in thin mud is a Fortress (and as thin mud in not uncommon - this is a significant omission). It merits mention that maybe pre modern anchors do not work in thin mud either - I have insufficient experience with these anchors in that seabed type). It also appears that some anchors catch stones or rocks - which can clog the fluke, so there is another weakness (though this same weakness is apparent in some pre-modern models). Most anchors struggle in heavy weed, except a fishermans - this latter is not unexpected.

So many of the weaknesses of the pre-modern models is still apparent - but in other seabeds members of this forum seem pleased with their choice of modern anchor.

close edit

 

[RupertW]

JD,
...the consusus is that most are pleased with their choice of modern anchor.

The consensus is that most people are pleased with their choice of anchor, whether modern or old design. That's human nature. If you asked the question to old-generation owners, "Are you happy with your choice" it's clear from the replies above that most would say yes.

I'm not sure that popular opinion says a lot about the efficacy of either generation, though I'm personally fairly convinced by the objective evidence that modern designs are better.

 

[Neeves]

The consensus is that most people are pleased with their choice of anchor, whether modern or old design. That's human nature. If you asked the question to old-generation owners, "Are you happy with your choice" it's clear from the replies above that most would say yes.

I'm not sure that popular opinion says a lot about the efficacy of either generation, though I'm personally fairly convinced by the objective evidence that modern designs are better.

Accepted,

Except that most people who have 'modern' anchors took a conscious decision to change (and buy a modern anchor) - though some will have inherited them when they changed their yacht. They changed because they believed the tests, the marketing information or a recommendation of a neighbour - hopefully they did not change because they thought it was fashionable or had money to burn. But they actively went and bought based on however they conducted their purchase decision

So having made that decision ....?

Jonathan

 

[JumbleDuck]

Except that most people who have 'modern' anchors took a conscious decision to change (and buy a modern anchor) - though some will have inherited them when they changed their yacht. They changed because they believed the tests, the marketing information or a recommendation of a neighbour - hopefully they did not change because they thought it was fashionable or had money to burn.

These are not mutually exclusive possibilities.

But they actively went and bought based on however they conducted their purchase decision

So having made that decision ....?

They will naturally tend to defend it.

I still don't see the point in lumping all modern anchors together. Does it come from a need to band together in defence against the infidels?

 

[NormanS]

Sorry, but I'm cynical enough to believe that quite a number of people have bought new anchors because they are dedicated followers of fashion. Having spent megabucks on their latest bit of shiny gear, they then tell all their friends how wonderful it is, partly at least to justify their purchase. Some of the new designs may well be better than some of the old designs, but I wouldn't want to trust anchor manufacturer's tests and hype, any more than I would believe VW's emission tests

Having suffered 74 knots of wind, and a surprising amount of sea for such an apparently sheltered location, I have great faith in my previous (old) anchor, but I would never claim that it was the best, or that it couldn't be improved on. I had good results with it, while other people (here) report that they cannot get that particular design to work at all. I reckon that there are too many variables in anchoring to make categorical statements that anchor "x" will always outperform anchor "y".

 

[vyv_cox]

It's well worth reading Evans Starzinger's report of anchor testing in Chile, on rocky and difficult bottoms. He looked at Rocna, Manson Ray, which is a Bruce copy, and Delta. All were big anchors. He found thatbthe Rocna was better in mud and sand but was outperformed by the Ray in rocky and coral bottoms. See his website, Bethandevans, FAQs, number 8.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Sorry, but I'm cynical enough to believe that quite a number of people have bought new anchors because they are dedicated followers of fashion. Having spent megabucks on their latest bit of shiny gear, they then tell all their friends how wonderful it is, partly at least to justify their purchase. Some of the new designs may well be better than some of the old designs, but I wouldn't want to trust anchor manufacturer's tests and hype, any more than I would believe VW's emission tests

Having suffered 74 knots of wind, and a surprising amount of sea for such an apparently sheltered location, I have great faith in my previous (old) anchor, but I would never claim that it was the best, or that it couldn't be improved on. I had good results with it, while other people (here) report that they cannot get that particular design to work at all. I reckon that there are too many variables in anchoring to make categorical statements that anchor "x" will always outperform anchor "y".

You are me and I claim my five pounds (four and a half pounds if cast).

 

[Neeves]

Very perspicacious. I had hoped that keeping some degree of anonymity of the design/manufacturer then members might feel the opportunity to be more honest and less defensive. There have been many insightful posts, many have not worried about the wrath of the zealots and have mentioned where failures, or weaknesses, are apparent and named the specific anchor. I hope the thread has been of value to others - I for one find it interesting.

I'm hoping the respondents are not those who bought as followers of fashion but who made a reasoned judgement (so I had hoped, see above, they were mutually exclusive). Many of the respondents cruise in some hostile area, NW Scotland for example - and I simply do not believe they bought on the whim of fashion. Am I being too respectful of those who sail up north and insuficiently respectful of those who chose warmer climes? (with wind chill it was 6 degrees in Sydney today)

But I still suggest that the manufacturers sell their 'modern' anchors as if they have an equal performance whatever the seabed - so if they all perform equally - why not consider them equally.

Despite my attempts to offer protection from the Star Chamber some members have accepted the risks and pointed out where they think specific modern designs are lacking.

And the thread has not degenerated entirely.

And for Norman, I have stated somewhere in the past - we used a genuine CQR (we graduated on a bigger yacht to a bigger anchor, a CQR clone,) and it worked a treat in some questionable weather, but other times and under benign conditions it dragged. But it, they, did drag quite frequently. Initially we had little choice (which was true of most upto about 2005) but when there was a choice - we jumped ship, arguably we should have been more persistant, but life is too short and we are pleased to have moved into the 21st Century. But I do not think you can belittle 85 years of usage - without losing credibility.

Very thin mud is a real issue - but a Fortress offers a very successful option. Weed is another issue - you can get the toe, which on most modern anchors is sharp, to penetrate - but but not much more - so we avoid it (weed that is). I'm not over impressed with the propensity of some designs to pick up mud which demands serious attempts in order to clean with deck wash and broom handle - not something I would look forward to on a dark night (as it needs to be clean to be useful again). But this latter has not be raised by anyone - so maybe Australian mud is more tenacious (after all - we have been told our sand is uniquely soft, so why not unique and tenacious mud).

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

I'm not sure that thin mud is a big problem. Generally the density of mud increases with depth, so any half-decent anchor, under load, should be able to bury down into more compacted denser mud. Unless you are referring to a thin layer of mud over rock, in which case it's doubtful if any anchor will hold.

Having a deck-wash pump, I don't mind too much if the anchor comes up loaded with mud. At least it gives me a good idea of the type of bottom for future reference.

I find a fish finder to be an excellent tool for avoiding weedy bottoms.

 

[RobbieW]

...I find a fish finder to be an excellent tool for avoiding weedy bottoms.

There you go following fashion and spending money on fripperies, whats wrong with a lead line

 

[30boat]

I usually motor for 5 minutes with the anchor in the water.That's enough to clean it.

 

[Sybarite]

Here are some observations from very experienced yacht's people:

STEVE DASHEW

http://www.setsail.com/anchoring-system-logic/

http://www.setsail.com/anchoring-system-logic-2/

http://www.setsail.com/anchoring-techniques-for-worst-case-scenarios/

MORGAN’S CLOUD (Attainable Adventure Cruising)

https://www.morganscloud.com/2009/01/01/spade-anchor/

https://www.morganscloud.com/2015/03/18/anchoring-made-easy-vol-1-gear-the-right-anchor/


MICHEL JOUBERT (architect who explains the importance of a heavy anchoring system at 07:00)

http://www.voilesetvoiliers.com/cha...marthe-46-voilier-exploration-joubert-nivelt/

They all advocate using a heavier and single anchor.

 

[Neeves]

It's well worth reading Evans Starzinger's report of anchor testing in Chile, on rocky and difficult bottoms. He looked at Rocna, Manson Ray, which is a Bruce copy, and Delta. All were big anchors. He found thatbthe Rocna was better in mud and sand but was outperformed by the Ray in rocky and coral bottoms. See his website, Bethandevans, FAQs, number 8.

Interestingly Evans is the only yachtsmen I know who replaced his Rocna, or any modern anchor, with Bruce (or pre-modern), or Bruce copy. I think he carries 2 - but my memory might be wrong (on the numbers).

 

[Neeves]

I'm not sure that thin mud is a big problem. Generally the density of mud increases with depth, so any half-decent anchor, under load, should be able to bury down into more compacted denser mud. Unless you are referring to a thin layer of mud over rock, in which case it's doubtful if any anchor will hold.

Having a deck-wash pump, I don't mind too much if the anchor comes up loaded with mud. At least it gives me a good idea of the type of bottom for future reference.

I find a fish finder to be an excellent tool for avoiding weedy bottoms.

Maybe read the various reports, and check the videos, on the Fortress site on their 2014 testing of anchors in mud in Chesapeake Bay. Most anchors did not develop any hold, at all. Some developed sufficient hold for a lunch stop - but for serious anchoring you needed a Danforth or, as they sponsored the tests, - a Fortress, which was superb. For the cynics amongst as, and I'm as cynical as the next, strip out the Fortress and Danforth results (as possibly, though I do not think so, having some favourable treatment) and the other anchors (most of which were 'modern') were simply an embarassment. It would be quite in order for many of the designs to carry a warning

Do Not Use In Thin Mud'

it seems some anchors simply do not bury through thin mud, but simply swim through the soup - and maybe do so upside down (as there is nothing solid for the roll bar or shank to sit on).

The other factor I derived from the tests, and one that JD (correctly) alluded to - ostensibly similar designs, Ultra and Spade and separately Rocna and Supreme performed very (factorially) differently to each other suggesting that small differences in design (that do not look important) must have significant impact on performance - but these differences, in seabeds other than mud, do not seem to manifest themselves. I have certainly tested 15kg versions of most of these anchors, thicker mud, sand, clay, thin weed - and I would not be able to differentiate. One might be 10% better, but insignificant and not something that an owner would see - but none were twice as bad as the other. Whether these differences might manifest themselves in other seabeds -very soft sand (now where do we find that?) - simply do not know.

From personal experience I can confirm that in thin mud, Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania, amongst others, a Fortress simply works - where other anchors pre-modern and modern do not develop any hold at all. We tried to anchor with 2 modern anchors, without success, and we watched a delightful 46' Swan make 5 attempts to set a pre-modern anchor, again without success. We were both preparing for a forecast Force 9. Moreover being light the Fortress is easy to deploy instead of whatever is the primary anchor, usually on a single bow roller.

Edit - underlining there is no one anchor that will perform sufficiently well in all seabeds - carry more than one design and make sure the 'other' design(s) are of a size to be a primary - you might need them! The results of the modern designs in thin mud were so poor that even having an anchor twice the size, crude extraploation, would not give sufficient security for an overnight stay in say 30 knots. close edit

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

On bigger anchors - I reiterate, no-one who has posted has made any mention that they wished they had bought a bigger anchor, though some did upsize when they bought.

I see the reasoning and logic behind a bigger anchor (and it is so convincing) but other than 'gut feel' I have seen no objective evidence that it is necessary. I also appreciate the comment 'no-one complains of having too big an anchor when it is blowing 50 knots' - but this is subjective - though it, importantly, might allow you to relax (how anyone relaxes when its blowing 50 knots - I'm not sure, maybe buy a bigger anchor??!!)

Even those members with a modern anchor of the size recommended for their yacht and those few who have gone 'undersize' have not declared that their anchor has dragged (as a result of being undersized). I would value any refinemment of member's experiences - ie a recommended or undersized modern anchor dragged and you wished to had bought a bigger model).

Currently I am of the harsh view that buying oversize, some buy 2 x the size, simply increases the pension fund of anchor makers (or more likely the pension fund of distributors) and might make you feel better.

Jonathan