My choice of anchor is . . .

thrown him in the drink

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • and tied an anchor to his feet

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Yacht Marine . . . erm . . .

[ QUOTE ]
My conclusion? If you prefer to put more reliance on anchoring experiences (rather than tests) to assess anchors, you must only poll people with a very wide range of anchoring experiences - which includes some use of modern anchors.

Not many of those, are there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right there yet shooting yourself in the foot at the same time.

Come here, they are all over the show and increasing fast. I know we are lucky and maybe one day the rest of the world will finally catch up so they can see what we do /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif It's quite obvious it will surprise you, in a good way.
 
Re: Yacht Marine . . . erm . . .

Took me a while to understand your post, GMac, until I saw your email address. I didn't realise you were a Kiwi. I'm sorry I left your country out of the list of places where people use anchors a lot. Never thought of it, never having been there . . . next year? I have some rellies who run a B&B there . . .

Shooting myself in the foot? I hope you weren't categorising me with those who don't believe in tests. I guess I've done more anchoring with more different types of anchors and boats and places than you can shake a rode at, but I still prefer to analyse tests to learn bit more - rather than accept the recommendations of a one anchor/one place/one boat person.
 
Re: Yacht Marine . . . erm . . .

All of these anchor threads are quite amazing, and very educational - in my ignorance I have been happily chucking anchors (usually Danforth and CQR types) over the side (usually attached to something... but not always!) for the past 30 odd years, and they usually (but not always) worked OK. Perhaps it was something to do with the anchors being heavier than the 'recommended' size, and throwing out more cable than the generally accepted minimum
I am now cottoning on that it is all a much more complex subject than what I have always thought.

And what a fascinating range of anchors to choose from these days! There should really be a gallery in the Science Museum (or maybe the Tate Modern?) devoted to anchor development over the centuries, and especially over the past few years, now that it has become such an exact science.

I did some research once..... this was with my 2 lb (thats a wee bit less than 1 kg for you metric boffins) Viking aluminium dinghy anchor (I think they were the predecessors of the Fortress anchors - it is 30 years old now, still going strong).
This wee 2 lb. anchor held a 10 tonne boat in soft sand in 15 knots of wind on a 7:1 scope rope cable (no chain) quite happily, and did not want to budge at all.
 
Re: Yacht Marine . . . erm . . .

[ QUOTE ]
Marmaris, however, has a large number of Mediterranean potterers in addition to it's (presumably) relatively few ocean cruisers. So a straw poll in Marmaris favours Mediterranean potterers.

[/ QUOTE ] Well Jim, I don't know what your definition of "Med potterers" are. I think we must talk about the same population of cruisers who spend most of their life cruising around the Med, of which a very large proportion winter somewhere in Turkey and then they "potter" around the Med the rest of the year; hanging at anchor more often than not.

I did not really want to shoot down 'webcraft' but I also have been to the Canaries and what you do meet there is indeed a good selection of circumnavigators. Most are just beginning their voyage. All of the rest of the boats you see in the Canaries are holiday boats for the local population and Europeans who have placed their boats there for their vacation. Extremely few people go cruising around the Canaries, and the ones that do never anchor as there are very few (if any?) safe anchorages. So an anchor survey in the Canaries does not really tell me very much.

The difference you have in Turkey is that you have both the long distance cruisers staying over on their journey AND the very large population of Med cruisers (or potterers if you wish) that spend the winter there. I don't think anybody knows how many boats there are that really do that, but it must be thousands. As I mentioned, only last winter Marmaris had 350 of those and that is just one centre. Those are boats that will minimize their stays in marinas to the absolute minimum; it just do not go with their lifestyle and/or budget. They will be at anchor more times than not. I cannot think of a better check for what people with anchoring experience really use in daily life. The great majority of the cruisers/potterers I have met use a CQR, simply because that is what they have a very good experience with. I am just one of those. If we did not have a good experience with the CQR, we would very quickly get something else. But we don't feel that we need to.

You will just not find that sort of volume anchoring experience in the Canaries or for that matter, many other places in the world.

That to me is worth a lot more than some yachting magazine going out for a "test". I don't value that very highly. Have you ever read a negative boat test in a yachting magazine, although we all know that there are some questionable boat designs out there? I value real life experience much more highly from cruisers having done this thousands of times.
 
Re: Yacht Marine . . . erm . . .

[ QUOTE ]
Took me a while to understand your post, GMac, until I saw your email address. I didn't realise you were a Kiwi. I'm sorry I left your country out of the list of places where people use anchors a lot. Never thought of it, never having been there . . . next year? I have some rellies who run a B&B there . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell me if you come down. I'll take you for a yacht in my waters with a cold beer or 2. On a nice day it is bloody glorious. Get to play chicken with the Rivieras as well. Riviera = big tupperware fizz nasties, which put out massive very nasty wakes, usually driven by short bald blokes with penis sizing issues. I'm trying to start 'National Sink A Riviera Day'. Getting surprisingly good traction actually /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

We can even, dare I say it /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif anchor.

[ QUOTE ]
Shooting myself in the foot? I hope you weren't categorising me with those who don't believe in tests. I guess I've done more anchoring with more different types of anchors and boats and places than you can shake a rode at, but I still prefer to analyse tests to learn bit more - rather than accept the recommendations of a one anchor/one place/one boat person.

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument with that approach at all, damn sound I'd say. I look at and do tests with exactly that in mind, they only give you a set of numbers/ performance/ whatever for that one situation. Listen to many points with an open mind and make a choice. Sometimes it can mean taking a slight 'gamble', so to speak. Sometimes they pay off sometimes they don't.

Oh yeah.... my comments are always meant in a good way. If they are not you will be able to tell /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

[ QUOTE ]
I value real life experience

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.svintothelight.com/Feb0706.html

SAILING BLOG

The other thing of note that happened during this time period was that we experienced our first "anchor dragging" incident. On Saturday (Feb 4) we had a strong frontal passage with winds 25 knots, gusting to 35 knots. That combined with pretty rough water conditions in the bay made things 'a bit dodgy', as our British/South African friends would say. We were out in the cockpit as the storm really got going and noticed a neighboring boat moving at a rapid pace to the rear toward another boat.

The owners of the boat that was dragging anchor had gone ashore earlier in the day, and the boat that was getting ready to get hit only had the teenage son of the family that cruises on the boat aboard. I was getting ready to go help the boy 'defend' his boat and try to stop the other boat from dragging when I noticed that we were closer to our neighbor to the stern than we had been earlier......

We had dragged and were dragging.

We were dragging slowly vs. the other boat, which looked like someone was driving the boat swiftly in reverse. Dahleen and I started our motor and motored into the wind of the storm for about an hour and a half, until is subsided a little and we could re-anchor.

AS I PULLED THE ROCNA UP TO RE-ANCHOR, IT WAS COVERED WITH A HUGE CLUMP OF MUD/SAND/GRASS, SO RATHER THAN DIGGING IN, IT WAS PLOWING ALONG THE GRASSY BOTTOM. A grassy bottom is not the ideal holding ground to anchor in, but you play the cards you are dealt.

During the course of the storm, 5 boats around us all dragged and had to either put out a second anchor or redeploy their primary anchor. We found a patch of sand to drop the primary anchor in and also put out our secondary, a 33 lb. Bruce. I also increased our scope to 9 to 1. I think this will work for all but the worst of storms.
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

That's a good post, Alain, thank you.

<span style="color:red">"AS I PULLED THE ROCNA UP TO RE-ANCHOR, IT WAS COVERED WITH A HUGE CLUMP OF MUD/SAND/GRASS, SO RATHER THAN DIGGING IN, IT WAS PLOWING ALONG THE GRASSY BOTTOM."</span>

Exactly the same happened to us with our Bruce on two occasions last year. The Bruce was well-set under power and had held for several days in winds up to 4s and 5s then suddenly failed. Exactly the same failure mode in the same type of bottom as this case, in which three vessels all started dragging at the same time.

We should conclude, therefore, that some of the bad press about anchors (especially the Bruce) is unfair and that neither the claw nor plough (ancient and modern) will work on such bottoms. The ones that seem to do best in these conditions are the Danforth and Britany.
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

Well.. The Bruce has been around for about 30 years now.. and we know what are its advantages .. and its limitations.. mostly its relatively weak holding.. If the wind is not too strong, or if the anchor is oversized.. the Bruce works quite well..

Some others anchors have just been launched about 2 years ago.. and have been strongly ( and falsely) advertised as being #1 on one SINGLE test ( and gave just overall results in a second one )

In the last weeks, already two different reports of dragging have been published in the Net ( and I don’t know all of them..) (the last one only with 25 knots of wind, gusting 35)

Salesman advertising is one thing, test ( without “s” ) one other thing, but let’s see if the experience in real life situation will confirm the two preceding affirmations
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

Had I bought a Rocna- and I very nearly did - I would be feeling pretty worried right now /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

To be fair, it is quite possible that pretty much any anchor would have dragged if it encountered the circumstances described above, ie where it was 'clogged up' with a ball of mud and grass.
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair, it is quite possible that pretty much any anchor would have dragged if it encountered the circumstances described above, ie where it was 'clogged up' with a ball of mud and grass.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, to be fairer still /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif it has been said or strongly implied by Craig of Rocna that the Rocna is pretty near undraggable. The winds were not very high in this case and the writer says that he had been preparing to assist another yacht, presumably by tender. You wouldn't do that in extreme conditions, surely, unless it was a life-safety issue?

If it can't cope with weed on mud then it belongs in the same category of other anchors that also struggle in weed and mud - notably the Bruce and to a lesser extent the CQR.

I'd love to know if any of those present in that anchorage were using an appropriately-sized Danforth, Spade or Delta. I suppose someone ought to tell the chap that we are discussing his report - maybe he could join us here. Hylas?
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair, it is quite possible that pretty much any anchor would have dragged if it encountered the circumstances described above, ie where it was 'clogged up' with a ball of mud and grass.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Bajansailor, /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Yes, I agree, every anchor could drag.. but 25 knots of wind gusting 35, is, up to my own idea, just a “ normal " situation.. LadyJessi, will tell you that it is the lowest wind you will experience every day in the Greek Cyclade islands in summer with the Meltem wind..

We are not talking here of storm or even of hurricane…

If the anchor was “clogged up” this is a question of design.. When I was developing the Sword anchor, a British professor did contact me suggesting that I should use the “Bügel” type roll bar.. But from experience I know that a good anchor should allow all sea material to run freely out of the anchor..

If, a few weed (or any other sea material) will close the opening between the roll bar and the fluke, you will have exactly the same problem that the one described here.. and this true with any ‘Roll bar” anchor.

You should understand that, as a designer of a different model, it is very difficult for me to give a negative opinion about a different design.. as everybody will think that it is a biased comment.. and that’s why I was waiting for the first negative reports..

Already two in a couple of weeks..
/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

[ QUOTE ]
To be fair, it is quite possible that pretty much any anchor would have dragged if it encountered the circumstances described above, ie where it was 'clogged up' with a ball of mud and grass.

[/ QUOTE ] Exactly. So, with any anchor you should check its compatibility with the bottom as soon as you drop it. Is it on a flat rock patch? Thin sand over rock? On a sheet of plastic? Sliding through masses of slippery kelp?

Run in full astern for a period. Depending on your power, that can be the equivalent to snatching from side to side in some 40 kts of wind or more. I'll bet he hadn't tested his holding . . .

Which is a criticism of anchoring technique, rather than the anchor, though Alain's comment puts forward a theory as to why roll bars may be more prone to clog . . .
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

Quote

- If, a few weed (or any other sea material) will close the opening between the roll bar and the fluke, you will have exactly the same problem that the one described here.. and this true with any ‘Roll bar” anchor. -

You also wrote that you are using at the moment a Manson Supreme Anchor and are very satisfied with it. This anchor does have a roll-bar. There seems to be some contradiction. Could you explain this?
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

[ QUOTE ]

There seems to be some contradiction. Could you explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

The day I wrote this.. I should have been completely drunk!!!.. /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

On my own boat I only had a stainless steel Spade as the main and a Spad'Alu as the stern anchor.. (guess why?? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif)

But look at the back part of these two "roll bar" anchors..

- The Manson back is straight (in longitudinal direction) and the opening is bigger..

- the back part of the Rocna is bent-up.. and the opening is smaller..
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

Oh come on Alain. If you are trying to say the Rocna is bad due to the small kick in the back and the Supreme is good because it does not have one, that is just silly, flawed and looks like someone grasping for ammunition.

An anchor, any anchor, has the ability to pick up something be it a rock, ball of grass or even a toilet. It's called a Sh*t Happens event. Do whatever you like, take as many precautions as you like and sh*t will still happen.

Nor should we be judging anything on one report with no supporting information. I know for a fact Alain is 100% in agreement with me on this.

It's just like me telling you I dragged a Spade (S60) in less than 10knots of wind. That is a fact and can easily prove it, I have it on video. There is a very good reason why it dragged but I'll omit that bit to make the story look better and even the thread up a bit /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

To any Supreme owners, I've also dragged a 25lber in less than 10 knots as well. Again on video.

So we have a Supreme, Spade and Rocna all with reports of dragging in 25kts of wind or less, at least 2 of which are on video. Does that make them all good, bad or could it be we don't know the situation they dragged in so can't make an informed comment?

Having read the page above I'm more convinced than ever you appear to be on an anti-Craig campaign than anything else. Yes I know Craig annoys you and some others but scaremongering with poor information is not good for anyone.

Lemain, stop stirring you know how it upsets the kids /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif (it can be fun though, can't it) /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

I don't know if you were drunk or if I am not capable of interpreting your writing properly. Rereading your statement about the Manosn Supreme it seems that you are quoting from another website (Catalina....) without properly indicating that you are quoting. Anyhow it is interesting to note that a Manson Supreme is a good anchor.
 
Re: The new Rocna was covered with a huge clump of mud/sand/grass

[ QUOTE ]
Lemain, stop stirring you know how it upsets the kids /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif (it can be fun though, can't it) /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]No, I don't do that - at least, not for pleasure. When I 'stir', it is to put or keep an important issue to the forefront of a discussion. Be that as it may, re-reading what I wrote, I don't think anyone would think that I was intending to stir anything if they read carefully what I wrote. Not everyone does, perhaps, read posts as carefully as the posts deserve which is unfortunate when they then go on to make some point based on their cursory reading /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif Not that you, of course, would do such a thing /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

My point was - and still is - that the failure mode of this Rocna is identical to the failure mode that I have experienced with the Bruce. I have been told unequivocally, in this forum, that the new generation anchors don't do that, but clearly they do - or, at least, they can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top