Malo anchor setup query

[Tranona]

I doubt he would claim to. He does represent an authenticated well of experience though and where it accords with empirical seamanship you have to listen.

Got to beat some bloke rambling on a boating forum and presenting outlandish ideas as fact.

.

You offered him up as support for the proposal to increase the size of chain to make a poor anchor work better - and he says nothing of the sort. All he says is that you should have gear appropriate to your intended use. The gear that he has on his boat is not oversized - 10mm chain is correct for his boat but arguably his anchor is one size up on the recommended - although as he has a known poor performing anchor so maybe not such a bad idea. He is wrong in suggesting that anchors fitted to new boats are "toothpicks attached by lavatory chain". What he has fitted to his boat with the possible exception of the length of chain would be normal for production boats of that length and displacement - and usually a better performing anchor overall than the one he has. The Malo 43 for example has exactly the same anchor as he has. Just as a way of comparison with the OPs Malo, a Bavaria 38 of around 10 years ago which is roughly the same size but a bit lighter at 7.6 tonnes came with a 20kg Delta and 50m of 10mm chain. Of course he does not say things like that or admit it as it spoils his image. "Empirical seamanship" is not a substitute for facts.

"Authenticated" experience seems to be just saying the same thing over and over again without making any effort to consider alternatives - or even checking what you are saying is factually correct.

Great that many other similarly experienced people have made it their job to challenge such thinking and design and make better products rather than waffling away about the past to anybody who will listen.

 

[NormanS]

No. It is based on various pieces of scientific and empirical work on the subject, much of which I have directed to you in the past. From what I have seen there is nobody in the testing and designing anchors scene (including the well known Scottish anchor guru the late Professor Knox) that has ever suggested that using heavier chain aids anchor performance never mind carrying out any analysis or work to determine if it does have any effect.

You would think that if the solution to a poor performing anchor is increasing the chain size and weight chain manufacturers would be promoting that fact - but they don't.

If that were the case, nobody would use chain at all. We would all be using a thin wire rode, wound on to a magazine drum.
I remember Prof Knox's anchor tests. They were carried out on a damp beach, using a tackle giving a constant load. Hardly typical anchoring procedure, unless you're in the habit of anchoring up on a beach. My own experience is of much more value to me. I'm one of those realists, who when anchored in a gale of wind, have never wished that I had a lighter anchor or smaller chain. All your so called scientific and empirical work is useless in a gale.

 

[Tranona]

If that were the case, nobody would use chain at all. We would all be using a thin wire rode, wound on to a magazine drum.
I remember Prof Knox's anchor tests. They were carried out on a damp beach, using a tackle giving a constant load. Hardly typical anchoring procedure, unless you're in the habit of anchoring up on a beach. My own experience is of much more value to me. I'm one of those realists, who when anchored in a gale of wind, have never wished that I had a lighter anchor or smaller chain. All your so called scientific and empirical work is useless in a gale.

How do you come to that conclusion (although many people do use rope only rodes)? The issue is not about using chain itself as there are many very sound reasons for using chain that have nothing to do with its size or weight. Chain is preferred by many because of its strength, reliability, abrasion resistance and easy of lowering and retrieving using a powered windlass. There is also a small benefit of catenary which is useful in reducing swinging room while still maintaining a decent scope. However this disappears above about 25-30 knots of wind and then the sole use of chain is to connect the anchor to the boat. This however does produce problems because of the lack of stretch to dampen boat movements so often it is valuable to introduce rope into the rode to absorb shocks. I use an all chain rode and have always done so, but with the addition of extra rope which was sometimes needed in anchorages in the Med. The issue which you choose to avoid is whether size and therefore weight has any impact on anchoring performance (which is essentially the question being asked here).

You have not presented any evidence other than a platitude to show that a 10mm chain for example will perform better than an 8mm if the 8mm is appropriate to the size of boat. There is absolutely no doubt that for the forces that your boat can generate on the anchor will not break or even stretch an 8mm chain. That is fact and the figures have been posted here many times. So you are no more secure with your 10mm than 8mm. The theoretical and empirical work is directly related to performance in a gale. The physics are well established and documented and are exactly the same in Scotland as they are here in Poole.

Prof Knox used his method because he was testing how anchors set, not the strength or indeed any other characteristic of chain because chain has no measurable effect on setting and holding power - it is the force that determines that, not the medium. Other tests that sought to replicate more closely setting anchors from a boat also discounted the use of chain - some use chain and others mixed chain/rope. Tests and real world experience show that the key to secure anchoring lies with the anchor not the rode. That is why the objective tests (and designs) are focussed on improving setting and holding power for a given size of anchor. Whichever set of data you look at shows that a smaller better designed anchor holds better than a larger poorly designed anchor.

As in post#41 individual experience of doing the same thing over and over again without considering alternatives has little value, particularly to others who are asking for advice.

If you are happy with what you do, fine, but don't criticise others for challenging what you say when it is not their experience nor is there any evidence that you are uniquely correct.

It is just your opinion.

 

[noelex]

Weight in the rode helps the initial setting of the anchor by reducing the angle of pull in the early stages where the anchor is trying to penetrate the substrate. It also helps in deep anchorages when using short scopes.

Modern anchors in a reasonable substrate set very reliably even with a significant upward pull of the rode, but weight in the rode is of help in difficult substrates. A poor substrate is one of the most common reasons to drag so an improvement in performance in this area should not be dismissed. Increased versatility where the anchor works in wider range of substrates is valuable.

Unfortunately, increasing the size of chain has a very significant weight penalty. The extra weight is not justified given the magnitude of improvement, but it wrong to dismiss chain weIght as having no effect.

 

[Neeves]

Weight in the rode helps the initial setting of the anchor by reducing the angle of pull in the early stages where the anchor is trying to penetrate the substrate. It also helps in deep anchorages when using short scopes.

Modern anchors in a reasonable substrate set very reliably even with a significant upward pull of the rode, but weight in the rode is of help in difficult substrates. A poor substrate is one of the most common reasons to drag so an improvement in performance in this area should not be dismissed. Increased versatility where the anchor works in wider range of substrates is valuable.

Unfortunately, increasing the size of chain has a very significant weight penalty. The extra weight is not justified given the magnitude of improvement, but it wrong to dismiss chain weIght as having no effect.

Actually I have not read of recent posts where owners admit to dragging - at all. My assessment is that dragging of anchors is restricted to older designs, Bruce, CQR, Delta (and/or copies of same). Since the introduction of the newer designs, Spade, Rocna, Supreme, Knox, Excel (steel and Aluminium), Vulcan - users have no need to post - their anchors are secure. This is not to say Bruce, CQR and Delta are - useless ... the decades of use underlines they worked. But the modern anchors are much more forgiving.

The talk of 'difficult seabeds' resurrects its head again - maybe now is the time when these seabeds will be defined.

Jonathan

 

[[2574]]

Robih

Thankyou for the pictures. Really useful. When fully retracted have you needed to add a stem tube with slot to stow the anchor away or are you able to simply tension up the chain on the windlass with existing roller both at the bow stem and then inboard at the windlass? With it all tensioned up does the anchor just protrude as shown in your very first photograph And then does it sit securely when underway?
At the moment I intend to stay with the original Bruce 15kg ss anchor and see how the upgraded heavier chain improves matters. -

I don’t have a tube fitting to stow the anchor but, as you might have guessed the shank point downwards in the locker when stowed. I have fitted a block low in the locker (using the stem plate bolt heads to fit a ring nut) through which I pass a line with a chain hook on the end. The hook is attached to the first link after the connector and downward line tension applied using the rope drum on the windlass, this pulls the anchor down securely. I then fabricated a hardwood chock fitting which traps the shank hard in the stem slot to eliminate sideways movement. The result is a firmly secured anchor. I can alter the degree to which the shank is pulled back in to the slot by using another chock immediately below the roller.

The truth is that the Malo arrangement is a bit of a faff as has been discussed above. Our previous boat, a Nauticat, had a stemhead roller and windlass on deck. Doesn’t look as tidy as the Malo arrangement but if I could choose I’d have the Nauticat stemhead/above deck arrangement, it’s easier to use for sure. That said, the Malo faff is a very small price to pay.

 

[NormanS]

Actually I have not read of recent posts where owners admit to dragging - at all. My assessment is that dragging of anchors is restricted to older designs, Bruce, CQR, Delta (and/or copies of same). Since the introduction of the newer designs, Spade, Rocna, Supreme, Knox, Excel (steel and Aluminium), Vulcan - users have no need to post - their anchors are secure. This is not to say Bruce, CQR and Delta are - useless ... the decades of use underlines they worked. But the modern anchors are much more forgiving.

The talk of 'difficult seabeds' resurrects its head again - maybe now is the time when these seabeds will be defined.

Jonathan

Do you actually need a definition of a "difficult" seabed? And if there was a definition, how would you make use of it? Everyone who has ever anchored will know that clean sand and clear mud are pretty forgiving, and in the absence of a particular object, like a tin can, or a piece of material, sand and mud normally provide successful anchoring.
Weed, rock, stones, steep gradients, fast currents, or a combination of these will give uncertain results.
In the places where I normally anchor, a sandy bottom often coincides with clear water, so that the bottom, or possible obstructions on the bottom can be seen. On muddy bottoms, except in very shallow water, the bottom is generally hidden, and I rely on my Fishfinder to give a picture of the bottom. In every anchoring situation, I rely heavily on good old common sense.

 

[Neeves]

The thread has branched from the original Malo focussed enquiry. However it is a worry that some of the posts seem condemnatious of massive fluke anchor in heavy weather.

Maybe people need to read this section of Vyv Cox' website.

Oversize anchors – necessary?

Anchor chain, weight of.

On scope, and the positive effect of heavy chain making the scope 'better'. Its not the scope that determines the angle of the tension of the rode. The determinant is the shackle angle.

It has been known, and influenced design, that any component, primarily the shank and rode that inhibits fluke burial is a deterrent to the development of hold. The CQR had a drop forged beefy shank - because that was the only way then to cheaply fabricate a strong shank. Both Bruce (who had a chamfered leading edge) and Delta introduced a thin shank - underlined by the furore of the Rocna bendy shank saga.

The belief seems to be, by some, that the rode does not matter.....

When modern anchors set the toe and shackle end bury almost simultaneously. The shackle and shank bury with the toe. In the same way a beefy shank retards penetration - so does a beefy shackle, beefy swivel and beefy chain.

To make is easy, and its a bit extreme, why is this swivel, attached close to the anchor shank, going to improve setting - especially against the Boomerang. The Boomerang is 8mm wide - imagine trying to pull that swivel into sand

- prize for better penetration - the Boomerang. And you believe that beefy chain is different.





Ah - but the old furphy - the heavy chain ensures the rode is on the seabed and the tension angle is 0 degrees (to the seabed).

Rubbish - people who are taught to anchor or those of us who learnt by our mistakes (and actually watched an anchor setting) soon found out - drift back slowly, the rode will stay on the seabed and the toe of the anchor will engage - but the process needs to be gentle - if the wind is blowing 50 knots - then run the engine in forward - give the anchor a chance. Reverse at speed - you are on a hiding to nothing - big or small chain.

As in all things its not black and white

But let your yacht drift back slowly once you have deployed say 3:1 and a modern anchor will engage and set. Ramp up the engine and the rode might be on the seabed but the anchor will be bouncing along the bottom - and you really think that is the best way...

 

[Neeves]

Do you actually need a definition of a "difficult" seabed? And if there was a definition, how would you make use of it? Everyone who has ever anchored will know that clean sand and clear mud are pretty forgiving, and in the absence of a particular object, like a tin can, or a piece of material, sand and mud normally provide successful anchoring.
Weed, rock, stones, steep gradients, fast currents, or a combination of these will give uncertain results.
In the places where I normally anchor, a sandy bottom often coincides with clear water, so that the bottom, or possible obstructions on the bottom can be seen. On muddy bottoms, except in very shallow water, the bottom is generally hidden, and I rely on my Fishfinder to give a picture of the bottom. In every anchoring situation, I rely heavily on good old common sense.

Yes, I meed a definition - you and I both.

Like you we do our homework - the locations we use to anchor are recognised anchorages. They have been documented for decades in Admiralty Pilots from times when original surveys were in vessels not much different in size to those we sail (check our HMS Rattlesnake and her consorts). These surveys and subsequent additions, by the Admiralty and then private individuals, detail the bottom - and one reason they were described as anchorages was because their seabeds gave secure holding.

So...why this mention of 'difficult seabeds' where are they, what are they like. Are they so widespread (and historically unknown) that there is no fall back, somewhere better. Given that difficult seabeds covers a host of sins - how many different anchor do you need to be secure.

Its all a bit of a puzzle. You and I - we need to get out more and find those difficult seabeds - because if they were difficult Bass and Flinders would not have called them 'an anchorage'.

Now it might be midday and you see a suitable cove - and go to explore - to see if Mssrs Bass and Flinder missed this ideal location - but surely you do not do this at 8pm as dusk is rolling in - you go to the anchorage defined (maybe by Cook - though he did miss Pittwater, completely).


But it comes repetitively 'difficult seabeds'. Defnitions are never given, locations - not a chance - its just quoted to increase the fear factor. There is no substance behind it.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

Yes, I meed a definition - you and I both.

Like you we do our homework - the locations we use to anchor are recognised anchorages. They have been documented for decades in Admiralty Pilots from times when original surveys were in vessels not much different in size to those we sail (check our HMS Rattlesnake and her consorts). These surveys and subsequent additions, by the Admiralty and then private individuals, detail the bottom - and one reason they were described as anchorages was because their seabeds gave secure holding.

So...why this mention of 'difficult seabeds' where are they, what are they like. Are they so widespread (and historically unknown) that there is no fall back, somewhere better. Given that difficult seabeds covers a host of sins - how many different anchor do you need to be secure.

Its all a bit of a puzzle. You and I - we need to get out more and find those difficult seabeds - because if they were difficult Bass and Flinders would not have called them 'an anchorage'.

Now it might be midday and you see a suitable cove - and go to explore - to see if Mssrs Bass and Flinder missed this ideal location - but surely you do not do this at 8pm as dusk is rolling in - you go to the anchorage defined (maybe by Cook - though he did miss Pittwater, completely).


But it comes repetitively 'difficult seabeds'. Defnitions are never given, locations - not a chance - its just quoted to increase the fear factor. There is no substance behind it.

Jonathan

Actually, some of the places where we anchor are definitely not "recognised anchorages". I well remember an occasion when walking along a particularly dramatic and remote part of the coast line of West Lewis, when we met someone with a local connection. They asked where we had come from, and I told them where we were anchored. "Oh!, they said, "boats don't anchor there". We have always been attracted to the places marked on the Chart as, "Here be dragons".

 

[Neeves]

Actually, some of the places where we anchor are definitely not "recognised anchorages". I well remember an occasion when walking along a particularly dramatic and remote part of the coast line of West Lewis, when we met someone with a local connection. They asked where we had come from, and I told them where we were anchored. "Oh!, they said, "boats don't anchor there". We have always been attracted to the places marked on the Chart as, "Here be dragons".

I support you adventurist spirit.

As I mentioned Cook missed Pittwater. When they handed in their charts there was no-one who could correct them.

The East coast of Australia, from Cape York to SW Cape (Tasmania) is huge, or long (1,750nm) - there is a safe anchorage every 10nm - there is no time to visit every nook and cranny. We don't have dragons - mores the pity - maybe they could herd the whales, and cull the sharks.

I have always fancied entering the Pieman River but every time we have passed the conditions have not been ripe. The bar is only 1m and we draw 1m - its got to be 'right'

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Summarising discussion on chain.

Arguably we all need the abrasion resistance of chain. Chain can be as strong as required, either small HT chain or larger mild steel chain. Weight in the bow reduces vessel sailing performance. Chain is accepted' as normal and windlass are commonly supplied as standard and windlass development has all been focussed at chain and sometimes chain and rope. Drum winches for rope or wire are commonplace but it is difficult to measure the reliability of swages and galvanised wire has a short lifespan.

Heavy chain has always been championed because it offers catenary to dampen snatch load but this ability disappears (under normal deployment) at about 30 knots. A decent snubber can completely replace catenary (so could be used as the rode - except it is not abrasion resistant) - but if used as a snubber will offer elasticity (which 'manages' snatch loads in the same way as centenary) but a good snubber will offer elasticity well beyond the 30 knot limit of chain.

An ideal is to use smaller, light HT chain, in parallel with a decent snubber. The chain and snubber work together to manage the snatch loads, the chain is light, less weight in the bow, being HT it is chosen to be the same strength as the bigger heavier chain.

An option sometimes discussed is dyneema. Sadly it floats and in light wind would be a hazard in an anchorage, to both the anchored yacht and any neighbours. I'm aware that ballasted dyneema has been tried, lead in the construction, but has been one off trials - and the absence of reports suggest - not successful.

This all works well for the current range of available yacht, which tend to be of lightweight fibreglass construction with quite large windage, high topsides, large real estate (Bimini, davits. dinghy) on transom. Heavier less flighty, especially long keel yachts, may not notice the lighter weight in the bow.

Changing from 10mm to 8mm or 8mm to 6mm chain is like the difference between sailing with a crew member on the bow (or sitting in the cockpit) when beating. I know which offers better performance - but you do need a new gypsy. To many people better performance is not of interest - they derive enough pleasure from just being 'on the water'. Equally many cannot accept that a snubber can replace chain - but the reasoning is usually emotive rather than quantitative.

It would not do if we were all the same, forum would become repetitively tedious

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

Returning to the original query - there was a comment that matching the chain could jamb in the bow roller. Their are options other than shackles, to join chain to anchor including hammerlocks and Omega links and the latter, especially, can offer a less bulky connection.

Jonathan

 

[Tranona]

Unfortunately, increasing the size of chain has a very significant weight penalty. The extra weight is not justified given the magnitude of improvement, but it wrong to dismiss chain weIght as having no effect.

That is correct. The difference between 8 and 10mm chain in terms of weight producing a lower angle of pull is also negligible. Therefore my first response to the question said exactly that

This discussion, responding to a specific question is NOT about the merits of a chain rode which are well known and demonstrable but about whether changing from 8 to 10mm chain will solve the poster's problem of a poor setting anchor.

As ever though some want to use this thread as an opportunity to mount their hobby horse that says greater weight of chain improves anchoring performance when there is zero evidence to support this.

It is not helpful to the poster to just repeat this mantra (even with the supposed support of a superannuated video seller). Better to point him in the direction of the wealth of published material on how to improve anchoring performance so that he can make his own choice and see how he can apply it to his specific circumstances. He is lucky that there is an owner of a similar boat faced with the same issue who has shown his solution which did not involve increasing the size of chain and allowed the use of a known superior anchor.

 

[doug748]

Now. Talking about hobby horses, out of the blue, this was from post 15:

"................but there is no advantage in using heavier chain. weight on its own doe not improve either setting or holding."


No advantage is using heavier chain, is he quite sure? This must be backed up with some pretty extensive literature. No advantage, well, well.

.

 

[Caladh]

A couple of pics of how Malo owners retain their anchors in the locket

 

[Tranona]

Now. Talking about hobby horses, out of the blue, this was from post 15:

"................but there is no advantage in using heavier chain. weight on its own doe not improve either setting or holding."


No advantage is using heavier chain, is he quite sure? This must be backed up with some pretty extensive literature. No advantage, well, well.

.

There is no need for you to be so rude by referring to me in the third person

I stand by that statement in the context of the question. The poster's difficulty by his own account is with the anchor. Increasing the chain size and weight will not change the shortcomings of the anchor. There is a suggestion that the (unmeasured) additional amount of catenary MAY result in the angle of pull being lower which MAY in certain circumstances improve initial setting. See post#44 for informed observations on the subject. However nobody seems to be able to quantify this, or demonstrate how it works in practice and those who design and test anchors for a living do not seem to consider it of any consequence. Certainly nothing there to justify spending an extra £250 plus the cost of a new windlass gypsy on replacement 10mm chain. The saving of staying with the recommended 8mm will pay for the very best of the new generation anchors which will solve the problem.

Might I suggest that instead of trying to nit pick you spend some time reading the extensive literature on the subject so that you become informed of both the principles involved and what seems to happen in practice. A good start is the link in post#28 but there are many other sources that I and others have directed you towards in the past.

It really is quite difficult to have any serious debate on a topic with those who are not prepared to engage fully but instead resort to personal attacks on those they choose to disagree with. Even worse when such people resort to claiming it is just "personal opinion" when the statements be made are either directly supported by others who might be classed as "experts" or by simple facts.

 

[stranded]

There is no need for you to be so rude by referring to me in the third person

I stand by that statement in the context of the question. The poster's difficulty by his own account is with the anchor. Increasing the chain size and weight will not change the shortcomings of the anchor. There is a suggestion that the (unmeasured) additional amount of catenary MAY result in the angle of pull being lower which MAY in certain circumstances improve initial setting. See post#44 for informed observations on the subject. However nobody seems to be able to quantify this, or demonstrate how it works in practice and those who design and test anchors for a living do not seem to consider it of any consequence. Certainly nothing there to justify spending an extra £250 plus the cost of a new windlass gypsy on replacement 10mm chain. The saving of staying with the recommended 8mm will pay for the very best of the new generation anchors which will solve the problem.

Might I suggest that instead of trying to nit pick you spend some time reading the extensive literature on the subject so that you become informed of both the principles involved and what seems to happen in practice. A good start is the link in post#28 but there are many other sources that I and others have directed you towards in the past.

It really is quite difficult to have any serious debate on a topic with those who are not prepared to engage fully but instead resort to personal attacks on those they choose to disagree with. Even worse when such people resort to claiming it is just "personal opinion" when the statements be made are either directly supported by others who might be classed as "experts" or by simple facts.

I believe in you Tranona, even though you can be a touch dogmatic at times. Better that than the idiocracy represented by Doug and his alter ego Norm.

 

[doug748]

I believe in you Tranona, even though you can be a touch dogmatic at times. Better that than the idiocracy represented by Doug and his alter ego Norm.

Idiocracy. good word.

Touch dogmatic. Like saying there is No holding or setting advantage in using heavier chain. There clearly are advantages, there is no logical dispute:

We know that heavier chain will decrease the angle at the shackle
We know that increasing the angle at the shackle can lead to dragging
We know that heavier chain will increase catenary.
We know it is catenary that, to some extent, reduces snubbing. We know that snubbing can lead to dragging

Further:

We know that scismicsid has said he wants to keep his chosen anchor
We know that the all anchors are tough to set without weight in the rode, and that his style of anchor is not one of the better ones in this respect:

What Tranona needs to learn is that he is not God's representative on earth. He could say:

" In my view the setting and holding advantage of heavier chain would be trivial and not worth considering."

People might disagree, people might point out that all advantages are worth having, people might agree, people might ask what information he has based his opinion on, people might bring forward points of their own. However nobody could say he was wrong; to say their is no advantage to the heavier chain is just that; wrong.

.

 

[NormanS]

Idiocracy. good word.

Touch dogmatic. Like saying there is No holding or setting advantage in using heavier chain. There clearly are advantages, there is no logical dispute:

We know that heavier chain will decrease the angle at the shackle
We know that increasing the angle at the shackle can lead to dragging
We know that heavier chain will increase catenary.
We know it is catenary that, to some extent, reduces snubbing. We know that snubbing can lead to dragging

Further:

We know that scismicsid has said he wants to keep his chosen anchor
We know that the all anchors are tough to set without weight in the rode, and that his style of anchor is not one of the better ones in this respect:

What Tranona needs to learn is that he is not God's representative on earth. He could say:

" In my view the setting and holding advantage of heavier chain would be trivial and not worth considering."

People might disagree, people might point out that all advantages are worth having, people might agree, people might ask what information he has based his opinion on, people might bring forward points of their own. However nobody could say he was wrong; to say their is no advantage to the heavier chain is just that; wrong.

.

Yes, but you've got to agree that it's quite funny when someone goes all bubbly when people don't agree with their beliefs.