JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Maybe your snubber is stopping the jerks which you yourself say help things dig in?
How should I anchor?
- Thread starter Fascadale
- Start date
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Sorry, but it's a terribly analogy. The two situations are, dynamically speaking, almost completely different.
Stemar
Well-known member
Briefly...
NormanS
Well-known member
I was just ignoring it.
noelex
Well-known member
Heading into a marina or back to your home berth/mooring when strong wind is forecast is a valid solution. I would try and dissuade anyone from this option, but there are alternatives.
In our current location the number of named storms varies considerably from year to year but around 5-10 seems typical from what we have seen. Avoiding strong wind at anchor by escaping to a marina is inconvenient at best. As our “home berth” is over 9,000 miles away this is not an option and finding a suitable, well sheltered marina in a new location complicates the process.
The crux of the matter is if you feel strong wind events such as named storms can be safely handled at anchor. I think everyone should make up their own mind. The answer will depend on the equipment and experience, as well as the cruising location etc. Anchoring equipment has improved enormously in recent years especially if we factor in developments such as powerful electric windlasses that enable even small crew to handle large anchors with ease.
We have safely handled a number of named storms at anchor. There have been two already this season (although one was relatively mild in our location). We very rarely visit marinas or use mooring balls, but the few times I have been in these locations in very strong wind events I have felt less safe than at anchor. Its is hard to know if these perceptions are correct, but in countries with cyclones and hurricanes boat owners often do not choose these options.
At least at anchor the equipment I am relying on is my own.
As an unintentional side benefit, the full time cruising lifestyle with most of this time anchor is a great test of anchoring equipment. I try to share these experiences. It is unfortunate that anchor discussions on this forum do not seem to able to proceed without name calling and personal attacks, which rather obscures what in my view should be a technical discussion about lumps of metal sitting on the seabed.
Anyway season’s greetings and happy new year, whether you are at anchor or tucked away at home. Let’s hope 2021 is a good year.
In our current location the number of named storms varies considerably from year to year but around 5-10 seems typical from what we have seen. Avoiding strong wind at anchor by escaping to a marina is inconvenient at best. As our “home berth” is over 9,000 miles away this is not an option and finding a suitable, well sheltered marina in a new location complicates the process.
The crux of the matter is if you feel strong wind events such as named storms can be safely handled at anchor. I think everyone should make up their own mind. The answer will depend on the equipment and experience, as well as the cruising location etc. Anchoring equipment has improved enormously in recent years especially if we factor in developments such as powerful electric windlasses that enable even small crew to handle large anchors with ease.
We have safely handled a number of named storms at anchor. There have been two already this season (although one was relatively mild in our location). We very rarely visit marinas or use mooring balls, but the few times I have been in these locations in very strong wind events I have felt less safe than at anchor. Its is hard to know if these perceptions are correct, but in countries with cyclones and hurricanes boat owners often do not choose these options.
At least at anchor the equipment I am relying on is my own.
As an unintentional side benefit, the full time cruising lifestyle with most of this time anchor is a great test of anchoring equipment. I try to share these experiences. It is unfortunate that anchor discussions on this forum do not seem to able to proceed without name calling and personal attacks, which rather obscures what in my view should be a technical discussion about lumps of metal sitting on the seabed.
Anyway season’s greetings and happy new year, whether you are at anchor or tucked away at home. Let’s hope 2021 is a good year.
Neeves
Well-known member
Interesting comment Noelex full of valuable detail.
I picked up on the comment that 'your anchor equipment was your own" - you mean people rent equipment? I know that the original anchor you used was given to you, but you then paid for it - is this common? or is rental common??
The link I offered on the couple in the Med storm was not focussed at anyone except that - they had sailed round the world but still found a 'storm' in the Med, un-named but - taxing. Long term cruising does not seem to be a panacea.
You mention 'name calling' and 'personal attacks' - interesting - to what do you refer? I think this is a disgrace and should be stopped immediately. Name names, call them out. The next thing will be someone starting a thread and their being accused of having some financial connection with the anchor in their thread, maybe even that the anchor in question breaches copyright....
As I say - A disgrace - it should be stomped on - without quarter - and named. People should be banned, for life, for such insulting behaviour. it is beyond the Pale.
And good luck to you, maybe we would be at anchor but sadly we are under lockdown and have a cruising ground sadly limited to about 10nm circumference (and half of that circumference is land).
But no worries - the answer is - be flexible, be grateful for what you have, we will not change the world, but slowly.
Jonathan
I picked up on the comment that 'your anchor equipment was your own" - you mean people rent equipment? I know that the original anchor you used was given to you, but you then paid for it - is this common? or is rental common??
The link I offered on the couple in the Med storm was not focussed at anyone except that - they had sailed round the world but still found a 'storm' in the Med, un-named but - taxing. Long term cruising does not seem to be a panacea.
You mention 'name calling' and 'personal attacks' - interesting - to what do you refer? I think this is a disgrace and should be stopped immediately. Name names, call them out. The next thing will be someone starting a thread and their being accused of having some financial connection with the anchor in their thread, maybe even that the anchor in question breaches copyright....
As I say - A disgrace - it should be stomped on - without quarter - and named. People should be banned, for life, for such insulting behaviour. it is beyond the Pale.
And good luck to you, maybe we would be at anchor but sadly we are under lockdown and have a cruising ground sadly limited to about 10nm circumference (and half of that circumference is land).
But no worries - the answer is - be flexible, be grateful for what you have, we will not change the world, but slowly.
Jonathan
Last edited:
Neeves
Well-known member
My analogiess are renowned for being awful. Of course they are - but do illustrate a, terrible, point. They are very (if not dynamically) different - almost. its the, admitted 'almost' similarity that is important.
So define the ADMITTED 'almost' (which is what I think people might relate to) and then demolish the 'almost' with some robust academic background.
Jonathan
NormanS
Well-known member
You make a very good point about not necessarily heading for marinas if bad weather is forecast. An increasing number of the towns and villages in the Western Isles have installed pontoons, which they then refer to as marinas. They are not, and indeed in some wind directions, some of them are positively dangerous.
A few years ago, a named storm was forecast well in advance. We chose to anchor in one of the perfectly sheltered (from the sea) hidden corners of Loch Maddy, a sea loch with many branches and islands. We were fine, comfortable, and perfectly safe at anchor. Several yachts chose to tie up at the pontoons at the village of Lochmaddy. Judging by the ensuing radio traffic, they had a terrible time of it. At one time both the police and coastguard were called out, as it was feared that both boats and the pontoons themselves, were in danger.
For reference, this storm was the one that caused the wreck of a large drilling rig on the west coast of Lewis.
RupertW
Well-known member
No they are not at all. It’s a great analogy of the difference between an almost straight chain responding to a massive gust and a snubber.
NormanS
Well-known member
It's a rubbish analogy. If we bring it back to reality, and your "almost straight chain" which is verging on the impossible, you can only compare that scenario with one where the snubber has stretched as much as it can, and is at the point of breaking. When the snubber breaks, you're back to being anchored with chain.
I'm not against people using snubbers, but I am against people suggesting that they are the absolute answer to all anchoring. By all means use a snubber, but remember that it does not have an infinite ability to keep stretching.
geem
Well-known member
Well I guess it depends on the conditions. If you are in super gusty conditions due to the terrain in front of you then the analogy is correct
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Anyone who thinks its bad now should see what it was like when young Craig Smith was throwing venom around.
Neeves
Well-known member
look at the graphs - a snubber has the the ability to counter snatches' well beyond the ability of a chain rode.
If in doubt - ask JD to produce, independently (as he is a sceptic) the data. I'm sufficiently confident in my assertions.
A snubber has a finite ability, so does your anchor, your shackles, bow roller, and seabed. In previous posts I have said our snubbers have failed and that we carry spares. Nothing offers guarantees. If you are unsure of your snubber, have a second snubber (with a bit more grunt) for when you are unsure, they can be easy to apply. You carry storm sails, or LJ or Raft for the uptimate disaster. You carry a spare anchor, flares and emergency water - just in case, you carry a spare rode, just in case - what is so strange about a storm, and/or spare snubber.
I don't swear by our snubber - its is not perfect (nor I hope have I suggested it is perfect - apologies if this is the impression - everything can be improved) - our current snubber is our 'state of the art'. Take of it what you want, but don't condemn it if you have not tried it or tried your interpretation of what might suit your situation. Every yacht and application varies, slightly or largely, just because it does not suit YOU does not mean it does not suit many. In one article, if not both, I have said the description is multi-centric - but it has been modified and applied to a monohull (for a passage to Alaska).
Just because my analogies do not meet the ideas of the purists does not mean they are not 'almost' relevant.
Before my time - It was suggested Saildrives would never work. In my time - It was suggested by Bridon (who made the rope) that we should not remove the covers of their dyneema ropes as dyneema was not UV resistant. It was always taught that catenary was the panacea (ignoring the people who had sailed round the world with all rope or mixed rodes). There are many truths - that are simply the lore of old salts - and take no account of the 20th, let alone 21st century.
Open your minds to at least the 20th century - even its difficult to stomach the 21st Century (with foils and no paper charts)
Acquiring a bit of climbing rope will cost nothing, search around you will source 15m of 12mm dynamic for free. try it. having tried it come back, say in 6 - 12 months time - and then condemn it - with your back ground for the condemnation. I for one am more than happy to be found wanting - together we can learn. Burning books never works. Offer strong argument supported by data is a good basis from which to build. Tell me those graphs are rubbish - and offer counter data - I will be happy to extend a debate, I want to learn.
It is so easy, especially on a forum, to say 'rubbish' - I have no problem with the comment - but unless its backed by data, its well..... rubbish.
Sadly 'rubbish' is constantly repeated and becomes truth - by the repetition - like the lack of UV resistance of dyneema (to be clear - dyneema is acceptably UV resistant - it had not been sufficiently tested)
Jonathan.
Neeves
Well-known member
What Craig Smith did was put Rocna on the map - which was, I assume, his intention - though he had support from the bendy shank saga. What is interesting is that, with no disrespect, Rocna is not THAT outstanding but it is successful beyond anyone's expectations and no other product is so recognisable. I. may exaggerate, slightly?, but as a successful long term investment CMP (who now have the licence) must be pleased.
Everyone knows 'Rocna' and what it means, few, or less, know CMP and what it means and represents.
Jonathan
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Sure. There are basically three problem: the beginning, the middle and the end (of the physical connection).
Beginning: The bungee/wire is attached to a rigid support which will either survive or break. The cable is attached to an anchor which can move, so the possible force is reduced - though of course still high in the case of a new generation one.
Middle: The bungee/wire is light and barely affects the fall of the customer/weights. Chain is heavy, and stores both potential and kinetic energy as it lifts up. It also dissipates energy as it moves through the water. Many years ago I did some modelling of glider winch launches and it became evident that the behaviour of the cable (typically 6mm galvanised steel) in the air was (a) absolutely crucial and (b) fiendishly hard to model.
End: There is practically no resilience in the connection between customer/weights and bungee/cable. This is not in general true for boats, though it might apply if the anchor cable is almost horizontal. When it's not, the vertical force/displacement effect at the bow will provide springing and the movement of the hull through the water will provide damping.
OK, it's not a really terrible analogy, just a limited one. If a boat has a tendency to move back and come to a halt with a jerk, it's reasonable, and in that case some springing is clearly a good idea. That's why I tow my rigid dinghy at the end of 10m of nylon. If a boat is already behaving in a civilised manner then elasticity in the anchor cable may be unnecessary or even harmful, particularly if it isn't well damped. However if the combination of anchor, chain, weather, location and boat is not producing snatching, I would be wary about introducing significant springiness, because that can actually increase the maximum tension in the cable. Still comfortably, though, because the jerk (rate of change of acceleration) stays low.
zoidberg
Well-known member
I follow these more-or-less civilised discussions with interest - there being little else on offer at present - and I try to relate each scenario to boats and anchorages I've known. I have visited Vathi, but St Helens Pool in the Isles of Scilly rather more often, and more likely in the future.....( perhaps, also Loch Maddy. 
)
When the wind increases very considerably in the Northern hemisphere, it usually veers ( clockwise ). This is often associated with the movement of cyclonic systems and frontal/trough passage. Naval and commercial ships would lay out their Number Two anchor ( port side ) and, if it was anticipated that a strong clockwise veer of wind with big gusts would occur, lay out the Number One or Best anchor on a rather longer rode, but some 30-40 degrees further to the right . This was standard practice in the busy Schelde estuary. Reversing tides streams elsewhere sometimes required a different approach.
Thus, the most powerful anchor was laid out in the direction of the anticipated stronger 'blow', on a longer rode.
The problems caused by a boat 'sailing' about and weakening an anchor's hold, due to strong gusts, are not new. Furled foresails, of course, exacerbate the problem. A modest 'riding sail' set on the backstay is of proven assistance. So also is dangling an old car tyre a couple of metres down, from the stern, to dampen a too vigorous movement. Not everyone will make space for such an aid, but I carry a pair of go-cart or farm 'mule' tyres, which have several uses.
Certainly, having the engine already running in a storm is prudent, to take load off the anchor/rode by active use of throttle - and it is instanty available should one need to 'cut and run'.
I notice in these posts some ambiguous use of some words, which doesn't help comprehension. Do boats 'veer' or 'shear' about? When mentioning wind shear, it's helpful to remember that 'Windshear may be vertical or horizontal, or a mixture of both...' The wind direction does veer and back. And do we 'veer' more anchor cable...?
....It is devoutly to be hoped that someone will invent and market a 'Beam Me Up, Scottie' badge.
)
When the wind increases very considerably in the Northern hemisphere, it usually veers ( clockwise ). This is often associated with the movement of cyclonic systems and frontal/trough passage. Naval and commercial ships would lay out their Number Two anchor ( port side ) and, if it was anticipated that a strong clockwise veer of wind with big gusts would occur, lay out the Number One or Best anchor on a rather longer rode, but some 30-40 degrees further to the right . This was standard practice in the busy Schelde estuary. Reversing tides streams elsewhere sometimes required a different approach.
Thus, the most powerful anchor was laid out in the direction of the anticipated stronger 'blow', on a longer rode.
The problems caused by a boat 'sailing' about and weakening an anchor's hold, due to strong gusts, are not new. Furled foresails, of course, exacerbate the problem. A modest 'riding sail' set on the backstay is of proven assistance. So also is dangling an old car tyre a couple of metres down, from the stern, to dampen a too vigorous movement. Not everyone will make space for such an aid, but I carry a pair of go-cart or farm 'mule' tyres, which have several uses.
Certainly, having the engine already running in a storm is prudent, to take load off the anchor/rode by active use of throttle - and it is instanty available should one need to 'cut and run'.
I notice in these posts some ambiguous use of some words, which doesn't help comprehension. Do boats 'veer' or 'shear' about? When mentioning wind shear, it's helpful to remember that 'Windshear may be vertical or horizontal, or a mixture of both...' The wind direction does veer and back. And do we 'veer' more anchor cable...?
....It is devoutly to be hoped that someone will invent and market a 'Beam Me Up, Scottie' badge.
Neeves
Well-known member
I was mulling over Noelex comment 'that he owned and had bought his ground tackle' - or words to that effect.
The individual with a rather grand collection of anchors would be Steve Godwin of Panope ( of the anchor video fame). I think all of his anchors have been given to him, though some might have been on loan - is Noelex seriously suggesting that because he did not buy them there is something suspect in his comments?
Noelex possibly is sensitive to my negative attitude to Mantus, their products and company.
I was given a Mantus anchor, 15kg - sent to me (I guess at some expense). I implored of the maker (at least designer) to beef up the shank. He ignored me it bent, he replaced all the shanks of the anchors he had sold (including mine). My conclusion at the time was anyone selling an anchor with a mild steel shank must live under a stone - surely we learnt something from the bendy shank saga.
He sent me his chain hook. It did not meet his own specification. He said I was wrong with my testing, but then changed the specification when he realised how wrong his test protocol was. I pointed out that the hook would point load the chain, he again said I was wrong (and has now withdrawn the chain hook except for the 6mm version). The withdrawal of the hook may be simple coincidence). Having unexpectedly bent the first hook I bought a second to test the idea that is would damage the chain. Lifting hooks are supplied with a note that the hook can be used and does not detract from chain strength. The Mantus hook demonstrably reduced chain strength and the chain link broke in the 'jaw' of the hook - exactly as I said it would. Note the 6mm and 1/4" version (same model suits both) are still on sale (or were last time I looked).
He sent me a swivel - its a marvellous and imaginative piece of engineering but it is far to big and detracts from anchor performance. It relies on being held together with mousing wire, and despite being multiple pieces it, the wire, is reported to fail. A boomerang is better, its simple, safe, it works and from the article you can make your own (cheap as chips). The swivel he sent me, via his distributor in Australia, was for 5/16th" chain. The swivel does not fit 8mm chain, so all the swivels sent to the distributor could not be sold. This appeared to be, another, lack of attention to detail. I was sent a 8mm version (I still have both versions, free of charge)
The anchor is touted, by its supporters, as being 'equivalent' to a Rocna yet it has half the hold. The manufacturer has never tested it for hold, of if he has there is no data provided.
I wrote an article on anchor design illustrating the issues with the anchor.
An Inquiry into Anchor Angles - Practical Sailor
I note that members of Cruisers Forum think I have a grudge against Mantus, the company, its owner and products. My defence, which I articulate here - are you surprised? They have provided a number of subjects that merit airing. If this is indicative of a grudge - yes then that is correct, I have a grudge. I expect a degree of excellence from manufacturers not a list of poorly researched and tested products released to the gullible public. I am most grateful to Mantus - it has spawned a number of articles - on poor design. I look at their new products with anticipation.
I was sent a Viking anchor, 10kgs, subsequently I was sent another, an improved version. The reason I was sent the anchors is that the owner of the business read my article, above, on 'angles' modified his original design in line with what I had said - and found I was correct. I have so far found it, the Viking anchor, an excellent and interesting product. I cannot use it, as such, it does not fit on our bow roller.
So..... I don't own some of the products I test, manufacturers send them to be for evaluation. One comment I did like was from a manufacturer who complained I viewed the product negatively saying - 'but I sent it to him free of charge'!
So if you think I have a grudge against Mantus, the company, the anchor etc - this is the background.
If I examine a product and I don't like it - I say so. If after a short look I like a product but later after a more detailed investigation I find a serious, or minor, flaw - I'll say so (I don't mind contradicting an initial conclusion). As with the mild steel anchor shank, the chain hook - the manufacturer is given notice of my conclusions - if they rectify the issue (it is omitted from anything I say) if it is ignored - it remains in anything I write. If my background offers 'help' to a manufacturer, like Mantus - I try to help, I like to see new entrants to the field, its healthy.
Jonathan.
The individual with a rather grand collection of anchors would be Steve Godwin of Panope ( of the anchor video fame). I think all of his anchors have been given to him, though some might have been on loan - is Noelex seriously suggesting that because he did not buy them there is something suspect in his comments?
Noelex possibly is sensitive to my negative attitude to Mantus, their products and company.
I was given a Mantus anchor, 15kg - sent to me (I guess at some expense). I implored of the maker (at least designer) to beef up the shank. He ignored me it bent, he replaced all the shanks of the anchors he had sold (including mine). My conclusion at the time was anyone selling an anchor with a mild steel shank must live under a stone - surely we learnt something from the bendy shank saga.
He sent me his chain hook. It did not meet his own specification. He said I was wrong with my testing, but then changed the specification when he realised how wrong his test protocol was. I pointed out that the hook would point load the chain, he again said I was wrong (and has now withdrawn the chain hook except for the 6mm version). The withdrawal of the hook may be simple coincidence). Having unexpectedly bent the first hook I bought a second to test the idea that is would damage the chain. Lifting hooks are supplied with a note that the hook can be used and does not detract from chain strength. The Mantus hook demonstrably reduced chain strength and the chain link broke in the 'jaw' of the hook - exactly as I said it would. Note the 6mm and 1/4" version (same model suits both) are still on sale (or were last time I looked).
He sent me a swivel - its a marvellous and imaginative piece of engineering but it is far to big and detracts from anchor performance. It relies on being held together with mousing wire, and despite being multiple pieces it, the wire, is reported to fail. A boomerang is better, its simple, safe, it works and from the article you can make your own (cheap as chips). The swivel he sent me, via his distributor in Australia, was for 5/16th" chain. The swivel does not fit 8mm chain, so all the swivels sent to the distributor could not be sold. This appeared to be, another, lack of attention to detail. I was sent a 8mm version (I still have both versions, free of charge)
The anchor is touted, by its supporters, as being 'equivalent' to a Rocna yet it has half the hold. The manufacturer has never tested it for hold, of if he has there is no data provided.
I wrote an article on anchor design illustrating the issues with the anchor.
An Inquiry into Anchor Angles - Practical Sailor
I note that members of Cruisers Forum think I have a grudge against Mantus, the company, its owner and products. My defence, which I articulate here - are you surprised? They have provided a number of subjects that merit airing. If this is indicative of a grudge - yes then that is correct, I have a grudge. I expect a degree of excellence from manufacturers not a list of poorly researched and tested products released to the gullible public. I am most grateful to Mantus - it has spawned a number of articles - on poor design. I look at their new products with anticipation
.I was sent a Viking anchor, 10kgs, subsequently I was sent another, an improved version. The reason I was sent the anchors is that the owner of the business read my article, above, on 'angles' modified his original design in line with what I had said - and found I was correct. I have so far found it, the Viking anchor, an excellent and interesting product. I cannot use it, as such, it does not fit on our bow roller.
So..... I don't own some of the products I test, manufacturers send them to be for evaluation. One comment I did like was from a manufacturer who complained I viewed the product negatively saying - 'but I sent it to him free of charge'!
So if you think I have a grudge against Mantus, the company, the anchor etc - this is the background.
If I examine a product and I don't like it - I say so. If after a short look I like a product but later after a more detailed investigation I find a serious, or minor, flaw - I'll say so (I don't mind contradicting an initial conclusion). As with the mild steel anchor shank, the chain hook - the manufacturer is given notice of my conclusions - if they rectify the issue (it is omitted from anything I say) if it is ignored - it remains in anything I write. If my background offers 'help' to a manufacturer, like Mantus - I try to help, I like to see new entrants to the field, its healthy.
Jonathan.
Neeves
Well-known member
JD - I do subscribe to the idea that under many conditions a twitching anchor, under tension, should actually bury more deeply. I'm not so sure if the rode is only under light tension, all off the seabed and the yacht hobby horsing in chop.
I'm trying to visualise or is it conceptualise why an anchor drags or why some anchors have a higher propensity to drag than others. Acknowledgeing operator error might be a (or the) big factor.
All anchors twitch, or the ones I have checked twitch but I have not checked a CQR nor a Fortress and both of these have a hinged shank.
Jonathan
I'm trying to visualise or is it conceptualise why an anchor drags or why some anchors have a higher propensity to drag than others. Acknowledgeing operator error might be a (or the) big factor.
All anchors twitch, or the ones I have checked twitch but I have not checked a CQR nor a Fortress and both of these have a hinged shank.
Jonathan
NormanS
Well-known member
I should probably leave it to JD to respond, but I expect that, like me, he will wonder how a rode under light tension, would be all off the seabed.
Neeves
Well-known member
A 45' AWB with no added windage over the standard yacht, say a Bav 45 with 30m of 8mm chain deployed at a 5:1 scope and enjoying around 17 knots of wind has a tension of about 68kgs in the rode and the very last link, at the anchor shackle will be 'just' lifted of the seabed - this is the sort of tension a reasonable fit individual mightl hold - at least temporarily. This is a simple all chain rode, no snubber. I have measured the tension of such a rode, no snubber, at 17 knots and I have measured the tension. necessary to lift the last link off the seabed. You tell me that you experience many 10s of knots of wind in anchorages in the Western Isles - I suspect you might agree that 68kgs of tension is 'light' - but maybe you will want to indicate that this is heavy - if so please define 300kgs of tension, the maximum I measured was 650kg (at 35 knots) - and I chickened out at that point.
I do accept that it is all relative., heavy, light etc etc - Zoidberg, Post 76 did make the observation that terminology might lead to some confusion, maybe a case in point.
Jonathan
Last edited: