November YM anchor test - Delta

[vyv_cox]

This morning's diabolical weather gave me an opportunity to study the anchor test in a little more detail. It has already been remarked that the Kobra and Delta, despite appearing very similar, had very dissimilar results. It is worrying to find that an anchor in which I have had complete confidence for 20 years is described as a poor performer and unreliable. I even began to suspect that a French study found a French product to be the best in test. Surely that couldn't happen?

However, closer study revealed the true situation, with which I am in complete agreement. Two tests were carried out, on hard sand and sand with mud. Only two anchors, the Delta and CQR, performed better in the second bottom, the Delta's maximum load being 1.5 times better in some mud. Every other anchor tested was worse in a bit of mud. This reflects my only bedding-in failure with a Delta, on what is really a surf beach immediately outside Pwllheli marina. Despite several attempts the anchor refused to hold and could be seen dragging across the bottom. In more normal sand/mud it always held well.

So it would appear that anchors with sharper points, and maybe more tip loading, performed better than blunt ones in hard sand. Glad to have cleared that up.

 

[Chris_Robb]

This morning's diabolical weather gave me an opportunity to study the anchor test in a little more detail. It has already been remarked that the Kobra and Delta, despite appearing very similar, had very dissimilar results. It is worrying to find that an anchor in which I have had complete confidence for 20 years is described as a poor performer and unreliable. I even began to suspect that a French study found a French product to be the best in test. Surely that couldn't happen?

However, closer study revealed the true situation, with which I am in complete agreement. Two tests were carried out, on hard sand and sand with mud. Only two anchors, the Delta and CQR, performed better in the second bottom, the Delta's maximum load being 1.5 times better in some mud. Every other anchor tested was worse in a bit of mud. This reflects my only bedding-in failure with a Delta, on what is really a surf beach immediately outside Pwllheli marina. Despite several attempts the anchor refused to hold and could be seen dragging across the bottom. In more normal sand/mud it always held well.

So it would appear that anchors with sharper points, and maybe more tip loading, performed better than blunt ones in hard sand. Glad to have cleared that up.

I have only used a delta once, off Harlyn Bay in north cornwall, which is hard sand - set perfectly first time. Why were we anchoring of a surfing beach on a lee shore? - Waiting for the bride and groom to be taken out to the boat, through the surf! Mad but great fun. I had to bring the boat (a Moody 36) in as close as possible for photo opportunity, the main sail had JUST MARRIED in big letters accross it.

It was not fun anchoring off a surf beech, and even less fun coming as close as one dares with a 1.5 mtr swell. I have every confidence in the delta after this session which set very quickly. I would not have undertaken the task with a CQR.

 

[snowleopard]

However, closer study revealed the true situation, with which I am in complete agreement. Two tests were carried out, on hard sand and sand with mud. Only two anchors, the Delta and CQR, performed better in the second bottom, the Delta's maximum load being 1.5 times better in some mud. Every other anchor tested was worse in a bit of mud. This reflects my only bedding-in failure with a Delta, on what is really a surf beach immediately outside Pwllheli marina. Despite several attempts the anchor refused to hold and could be seen dragging across the bottom. In more normal sand/mud it always held well.

I anchored throughout the Caribbean on sand with my delta and the most it ever moved was about 1.5 times its length while digging in. The only times it dragged were in soft mud.

I suspect the testers tried to set it by reversing it in. You need to let it set itself before putting on full astern to check it.

 

[wotayottie]

I even began to suspect that a French study found a French product to be the best in test. Surely that couldn't happen?

.

Every French anchor test I have read has put a French anchor first. But then every American one puts Fortress first.

 

[SimonJ]

Anchor tests

Sadly, this seems to have been another flawed test procedure purporting to provide definitive results.
A few years ago a US organisation did some much more exhaustive testing of several anchors then available and reached some interesting conclusions.
These included:
a) There is a likelihood of most (if not all) anchors of whatever design and size failing to set initially at, say, a frequency of between 1 in 10 and 1 in 50 occasions. It takes a lot of testing in a variety of bottom conditions to discover this while testing, but it does seem to be what happens in practice. I have certainly found that while anchoring most nights over the last 9 years, there are times when the anchor does not set properly at first. Which anchors set more reliably and easily needs to be identified - again from much repeated testing in different conditions
b) Setting an anchor is dependent upon technique, bottom consistency and the rest of it! ( We have probably all watched at sundown the various methods used: dropping while at high speed ahead, dropping the anchor followed by a pile of chain all in one spot, dropping and immediately reversing before the anchor has had a chance to to get a grip, not using much chain at all etc - it is rare to see an anchor properly dropped and then the chain laid out, the anchor allowed to set and then a pull applied in a suitable manner)
c) Having set the anchor, tests should then be repeated for consistent results to identify the best (if there is such a thing). It looks as though in these tests only limited trials were conducted, albeit of a lot of anchors.
d) It was also noted that manufacturers comparison testing often averages out the results to effectively disguise the occasions when an anchor did not set initially.
d) which anchors respond best to changes in wind or current direction is also relevant
e) There are so many variables that it is easy to reach either an inconclusive result or unreliable result.
Without greater explanation of the testing this time by the French (which seemed to be done in a huge rush), I do not think the procedure reveals much that is useful.

 

[BelleSerene]

This morning's diabolical weather gave me an opportunity to study the anchor test in a little more detail. It has already been remarked that the Kobra and Delta, despite appearing very similar, had very dissimilar results. It is worrying to find that an anchor in which I have had complete confidence for 20 years is described as a poor performer and unreliable. I even began to suspect that a French study found a French product to be the best in test. Surely that couldn't happen?

Surely not. Which is why the Kiwi Rocna, a very similar competitor to the French Spade, was so prominent.

Hang on a sec - they omitted the Rocna but included some far less well-known brands. Strange, that...

 

[blackbeard]

I really can't put too much reliance on the results of this particular test, since the results just don't reflect real-life experience.

I anchored throughout the Caribbean on sand with my delta and the most it ever moved was about 1.5 times its length while digging in. The only times it dragged were in soft mud.

I suspect the testers tried to set it by reversing it in. You need to let it set itself before putting on full astern to check it.

I suspect this could be part of the problem. The test seems to have been conducted in rather a hurry and in bad weather, and the test vehicle was a powerful lifeboat.

I'll quote from a (much more thorough) test reported in December 2006 YM.
"Was Shana Rae too powerful a testing platform? Using a smaller, less powerful boat in a separate mini-test, the test team were able to get all the anchors to penetrate."
(That included a CQR anchor, which gave dismal results with Shana Rae. However, in that test, the Delta gave good results even with Shana Rae. Maybe the testers were more patient, as the test extended over three days in fair weather.)

 

[bitman]

Every French anchor test I have read has put a French anchor first. But then every American one puts Fortress first.

but isn't that the same for the UK tests... putting the British first?

 

[wotayottie]

you've got to be joking! even assuming we made anything these days.

 

[blackbeard]

Every French anchor test I have read has put a French anchor first. But then every American one puts Fortress first.

In fairness, this French test reported good results with Fortress. Though they did bend it - it took a pull of 3 tonnes to do this.

 

[srm]

Perhaps all anchors should come with a safety warning!

"Anchoring is a lottery".

Even when you can see the sea bed there is no knowing what is just below it - soft mud, pebbles or even flat rock, dead kelp stems, or my favourite experience - the steel hoop off a herring barrel that choked a big genuine Bruce by sitting over the centre prong.

As suggested in various threads the only valid test is long term use on a wide variety of conditions. I recently met a couple who used a biggish CQR on a 40 ft sloop, and in extreme conditions put a large Fortress on the front in tandem. Not my choice, but they used these anchors over 90000 miles of cruising and the tandem anchoring was in the Chilean channels. They gave up trying to set the CQR in Dale (Milford Haven) though and came alongside the pontoon which is how I met them.

 

[snowleopard]

There's certainly a lot of bad practice in setting anchors. I think some anchors are more prone to failure through bad technique than others. In particular I have found that the Fortress responds very badly to rushing. On a number of occasions I have tried to use my small Fortress to kedge off and found that it will just skim over the botton without biting.

I find the most successful technique is to stop, start lowering the anchor, let out 5:1 scope, then have a cup of tea while wind and/or tide lays out the chain and digs the anchor in before putting the engines in reverse to check it has set properly. Most anchors will fail to set if a load is put on them before they have a chance to dig in.

A test that doesn't take this into consideration may be valid - as a test for idiot-proofness!

 

[Siosarnoir]

crucial facts about the CQR

YM 's test also gave poor results for the CQR. However no mention was made about the weight of the CQR. I think it was Eric Hiscock who wrote an important fact about the CQR- they only become reliable when they are at least 45lbs weight - the light weight ones often fail to dig in . I have found this to be true myself. I also let them "settle in " before applying any force to dig them in.

 

[rivonia]

There's certainly a lot of bad practice in setting anchors. I think some anchors are more prone to failure through bad technique than others. In particular I have found that the Fortress responds very badly to rushing. On a number of occasions I have tried to use my small Fortress to kedge off and found that it will just skim over the botton without biting.

I find the most successful technique is to stop, start lowering the anchor, let out 5:1 scope, then have a cup of tea while wind and/or tide lays out the chain and digs the anchor in before putting the engines in reverse to check it has set properly. Most anchors will fail to set if a load is put on them before they have a chance to dig in.

A test that doesn't take this into consideration may be valid - as a test for idiot-proofness!

Afew years ago when we were in St maarten (caribean) Grt Bay we set our anchor a Fortress f37. next to us a moody 37/38 dropped an achor just like you stated above. The next day the wind picked up and we wathched as they slowly started to slide past us. I went over in my dinghy to see if I could help..stern refusal. I went over to where there anchor lay. Guess what all the chain was piled on top of it and they dragged out of the bay. So always set the anchor before you have your cuppa eh?

Peter

 

[bob234]

I find the most successful technique is to stop, start lowering the anchor, let out 5:1 scope, then have a cup of tea while wind and/or tide lays out the chain and digs the anchor in before putting the engines in reverse to check it has set properly. Most anchors will fail to set if a load is put on them before they have a chance to dig in.

A test that doesn't take this into consideration may be valid - as a test for idiot-proofness!

I couldn't agree more.

We have a Spade and the 'technique' is much the same - let the bow blow off so that the anchor and rode lie as it should and let it all settle down. It tends to dig itself in unaided and can be secured by reversing later. We usually don't bother - it sets itself and digs in progressively deeper as it gets tugged during normal movements.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[KristiferColumbus]

This morning's diabolical weather gave me an opportunity to study the anchor test in a little more detail. It has already been remarked that the Kobra and Delta, despite appearing very similar, had very dissimilar results. It is worrying to find that an anchor in which I have had complete confidence for 20 years is described as a poor performer and unreliable. I even began to suspect that a French study found a French product to be the best in test. Surely that couldn't happen?

However, closer study revealed the true situation, with which I am in complete agreement. Two tests were carried out, on hard sand and sand with mud. Only two anchors, the Delta and CQR, performed better in the second bottom, the Delta's maximum load being 1.5 times better in some mud. Every other anchor tested was worse in a bit of mud. This reflects my only bedding-in failure with a Delta, on what is really a surf beach immediately outside Pwllheli marina. Despite several attempts the anchor refused to hold and could be seen dragging across the bottom. In more normal sand/mud it always held well.

So it would appear that anchors with sharper points, and maybe more tip loading, performed better than blunt ones in hard sand. Glad to have cleared that up.

I thought the test was a load of nonsense since the CQR was obviously designed for mud & in that respect I have found it superb.If you are balmy enough to use it on another type of bottom rather than getting one that is specifically designed for that sort of bottom what do you expect!
I swear by mine & it once saved my life while anchored in Priory Bay.Admittedly it was hooked over a piece of rope

 

[Tranona]

I thought the test was a load of nonsense since the CQR was obviously designed for mud & in that respect I have found it superb.If you are balmy enough to use it on another type of bottom rather than getting one that is specifically designed for that sort of bottom what do you expect!
I swear by mine & it once saved my life while anchored in Priory Bay.Admittedly it was hooked over a piece of rope

Does that mean that you carry a wide selection of anchors and deploy the right one for the conditions? Or do you only anchor in mud if you just carry a CQR? Do you always dive to check out the nature of the bottom before you anchor in case it is of a type that your anchor does not like?

Surely your main anchor must be able to perform acceptably in a variety of bottoms with a bias towards the ones more common in your area of operation.

 

[vyv_cox]

Surely your main anchor must be able to perform acceptably in a variety of bottoms with a bias towards the ones more common in your area of operation.

Exactly so. The best attribute that the 'modern' anchor designs have given us is the increased range of bottoms that they can cope with. After 20 years as a satisfied user of a Delta I suffered drag in a very soft mud bottom, admittedly in the wildest conditions I have ever experienced. I also had a few more problems than I wanted when anchoring stern-to, mostly in the fresh cross-winds that are a feature of many Greek harbours. I bought a Rocna that has so far not been tested in the conditions that led to the dragging of the Delta but is undoubtedly better in stern-to berthing.

 

[snowleopard]

Afew years ago when we were in St maarten (caribean) Grt Bay we set our anchor a Fortress f37. next to us a moody 37/38 dropped an achor just like you stated above. The next day the wind picked up and we wathched as they slowly started to slide past us. I went over in my dinghy to see if I could help..stern refusal. I went over to where there anchor lay. Guess what all the chain was piled on top of it and they dragged out of the bay. So always set the anchor before you have your cuppa eh?

The exact opposite of what I was saying. I didn't say dump it all in a heap. The correct method as far as I'm concerned is to stop, then let the cable out as the boat drifts on wind or tide. A delay to allow the movement to stretch out the cable over the sea bed then progressively set the anchor. Once that has happened one can start to pull astern to dig it in fully and finally test it with full astern. To drop the anchor and immediately go astern to set it is likely to result in it sliding over the sea bed.

Even though my power windlass has a free-fall option, I don't use it because it is too fast and could dump the chain on top of the anchor, fouling it.

 

[sailaboutvic]

CQR

I have spent 10 years sailing west to east in the Med and the best anchor I found is the bruce the worst CQR , I ended up given up on the CQR