"Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anchor

Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Bru said:
Why would I say that I hadn't watched it when I had? (Which is quite clear from my comments!)

My opinions, thank you, are as valid as anybody elses
Click to expand...

Well excuse me but you had better make your mind up - you did say:

Bru said:
I'm not going to watch the rest because AFAIC the CQR test is invalidated on two grounds......
Click to expand...

I am not reading all your other posts on this matter and have concluded my opinion based on a snapshot of the much wider discussion.��
 
Last edited:
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

GHA said:
There's a lot of anecdotal evidence of people having problems with fortresses not resetting on tide changes.... Might be something in it, maybe more of a risk than roll bars picking up a rock.
Click to expand...

I think this is a valid concern.

Underwater I see this style of anchor sometimes developing a very high list. In most cases the anchor will reset and the skipper is unaware of what has occurred, but it is disconcerting to watch. I think this is the major cause of the resetting problems that are reported with this style of anchor.

The Fortress/Danforth style anchors have very high holding power in soft substrates and the lightweight aluminium versions are ideal as stern/kedge anchors, but in my opinion they are not a good choice where there is any risk of significant change in the direction of pull.
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Neeves said:
We appear to have anchors that will hold that appropriately sized yacht - under any force of nature imaginable (or unimaginable).
Click to expand...

It would be great if anchors would listen to this advice :).
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

noelex said:
I think this is a valid concern.

Underwater I see this style of anchor sometimes developing a very high list. In most cases the anchor will reset and the skipper is unaware of what has occurred, but it is disconcerting to watch. I think this is the major cause of the resetting problems that are reported with this style of anchor.

The Fortress/Danforth style anchors have very high holding power in soft substrates and the lightweight aluminium versions are ideal as stern/kedge anchors, but in my opinion they are not a good choice where there is any risk of significant change in the direction of pull.
Click to expand...

You need to tell American this - Lots of Fortress on the bow rollers of American yachts - most people vote with their wallet and it is quite educational to see Fortress on bow rollers - they are totally absent, from bow rollers, in Europe and Australia. I cannot believe American use them, and have bought more than half a million of them, if they are unreliable - but maybe Americans are into decoration.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

I have heard the oft repeated comment that Fortress do not rest on a tide change etc.

I have wondered if many Fortress are bought oversize. They are bought as a 'storm anchor', so they are large. Because they are light, and people have a hang up about weight, I wondered if again people err on the side of large.

If you try to set an overlarge anchor it is very difficult to set deeply - and I can then imagine the anchor will pull out. I wonder if the same anchor in a smaller size would have been set more deeply and hence have been more secure.

Our Fortress has a surface area at least 30% larger than our 'other' anchors. We can set, individually, under engine power the other anchors such that they completely disappear taking around 2m of chain with them. In the same seabed we can always see the stock of the Fortress, so the flukes are buried but the back of the fluke can sometimes, just, protrude. I wonder therefore that if we had a smaller Fortress we might bury it more deeply and it would be less prone to pulling out (in a change of tide/wind).

An idle thought.

But 500,000 anchors are not sold if they are dangerous.

Jonathan



Just an idle thought
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Anchors that drag in a weedy substrate can sometimes clog.

The secret is to have anchors that do not drag.

It is also very helpful to avoid anchors that take a long distance to set. The convex plough anchors can sometimes have a problem in this regard, especially in hard or weedy substrates.

This is a Delta anchor on the seabed. You can see the weed clogging the fluke caused by the long setting distance. A nice "flower arrangement" :):


image.jpg1_zpscwfoqr2l.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Your dislike of anything convex is well known. Its just a pity you have not tried some of the modern ones yourself and you might then have a real basis for comment. You illustrate your, weak, point repetitively with an anchor that was developed in the mid 1980s and whose usage in the examples quoted might be non-typical and certainly not 'controlled'. Why not choose a more modern design, like SARCA early 1990's, Excel and Kobra developed around 2006. Noticeably Panope suggests, I think the comment might be, 'best on the table' for a convex design in comparison with modern concave anchors. Your partiality is showing and looks to be an obsession (and given you total ignorance of some modern convex designs I have to question why)

Panope seemed to have chosen the Spade over the Excel because the Spade better suited the character of his yacht.

Jonathan
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

GrahamM376

Let me know when I have underlined its not exclusively my opinion (that you then suggest is masquerading as truth) but the opinion of others as well.

I'm not in favour of testing anchors when not in a seabed, but as Rocna do it themselves in promoting their product so I feel justified in copying them (after all its about anchors - so copying is de rigour).

This is a very short video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7pFCtn3Blw&feature=youtu.be

Notice how the anchor clogs, solid, just before it rolls over.

Jonathan
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

GrahamM376


Maybe you can explain how this anchor would reset if the obstruction is not moved first?

image: http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j62/vyvcox/Yacht tech/P6090122_zps77e93266.jpg

Jonathan

edit Graham - have I posted sufficient for you to withdraw the comment that I misrepresent opinion as fact - or would you like more examples. close edit.
 
Last edited:
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Neeves said:
GrahamM376 Maybe you can explain how this anchor would reset if the obstruction is not moved first?
image: http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j62/vyvcox/Yacht tech/P6090122_zps77e93266.jpg Jonathan edit Graham - have I posted sufficient for you to withdraw the comment that I misrepresent opinion as fact - or would you like more examples. close edit.
Click to expand...

My reply to your original comment - The problem being that if the anchor clogs with weed, mud or a rock and then you enjoy a change of tide the anchor will simply not re-set until the fluke has been cleared. still stands.

The theme of your posts is that the Manson types become useless because they won't re-set if clogged by mud or weed. This of course applies to any anchor if sufficiently fouled. However, although we've often found the anchor well clogged with mud and weed on retrieval, it has never failed to hold us. The rock you quote is a bit of nonsense as most anchors wouldn't work if stones were suitably inserted.

If these anchors perform as poorly as some seem to think, it's strange that we still see a big increase in their use around European waters, the anchor of choice for many and I'm sure they're not all wrong.

edit - I like this comment on one of the links you provided above - We had good luck in almost 3 months of anchoring in Florida with our 25 lb. Manson Supreme. Love that anchor. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Modern anchors are factorially better in most if not all circumstances than those of a previous generation. In most seabeds they, all of them, are so much more effective, they set quickly, they hold tenaciously etc etc. This explains their popularity.

But they are not perfect and you suggested that my comment that a clogged anchor could lead to an anchor dragging was a figment of my imagination without any foundation. I was upset that you thought I might fabricate such information - and I have illustrated my comment of the effect from independent sources. I accept that some of the links are anecdotal and they might all be fabricated - but I do not think so.

Anyone who thinks their anchor is perfect and unable to drag - needs to take a reality check. Even modern anchors are, still, a compromise and we need to accept and live with it.

Some anchors perform better in mud, some work better in cloying seabeds, some work better in grass and weed - but no anchor is perfect in all seabeds. So if your anchor has a roll bar and on retrieval the fluke is clogged - then maybe consider that with a change of load direction that in that environment your anchor might not perform to its best - do not be complacent.

I think there are enough examples to underline - modern anchors do drag, use an anchor alarm.

But a Spade or Kobra, for example, does not have the propensity to clog - yes if they are fouled they too will drag but the chances of them fouling are less (than a roll bar concave). A Kobra will shovel aside rocks and stones and is less likely to collect them in the fluke. Both Spade and Kobra with their weighted toe (and no roll bar) will penetrate weed more easily. Sadly Spade currently has a reputation for poor galvanising, high price, see current thread, and is basically unobtainable in Oz and Kobra for a weak shank - just some of the compromises with which to contend.

We accept these compromises and if we are on a long cruise with varied, and sometimes unknown, seabeds we carry 3 (or 4) different styles of anchor and use all 3 individually and some times in a pair. But we know we will find mud, sand, clay, weed and a couple of anchorages composed of loose rocks and stones.

Interestingly the choice of anchors made by the owner of Panope in his summary video is uncannily similar to ours - with some slight differences in the decision making process.

I was pointing out a weakness, uncomfortable though it might be to some, in a design trend that is simply not acknowledged.

Jonathan
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Scotty_Tradewind said:
Note to self....

'when heading to the mangroves, get an anchor without a rollbar!'

S.
:ambivalence:
Click to expand...
:)

This sort of thing does seem to crop up when discussing certain aspects of boating, there are a tiny number of incidents of something which, despite being statistically insignificant and having far too many variables, are somehow proof that A is better than B.
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Well there no doubt in my mind every anchor thread end up in some kind of warfare .
Maybe it's time There ban all anchors and anchoring thread :)
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

GHA said:
:)

This sort of thing does seem to crop up when discussing certain aspects of boating, there are a tiny number of incidents of something which, despite being statistically insignificant and having far too many variables, are somehow proof that A is better than B.
Click to expand...

The greatest fear of people anchoring is ending up on a beach. Statistically this is a non event but if it happens to you it is of considerable significance.. Somehow minimising that risk actually seems quite prudent especially as minimisation is simple.

And again you entirely miss the point, no anchor is perfect, there is no anchor A better than anchor B - and if you think that is what it is about maybe you should take your head out of the sand :)

Jonathan
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Neeves said:
The greatest fear of people anchoring is ending up on a beach. Statistically this is a non event but if it happens to you it is of considerable significance.. Somehow minimising that risk actually seems quite prudent especially as minimisation is simple.
Click to expand...

Whilst my greatest fear was ending up on a beach, or rocks, a close second was dragging into another boat, and even just dragging without hitting anything was worrying.

On my Moody 44 I had a Harbourfast 25kg, which is a CQR copy, and which dragged until set properly, and it wouldnt set in some of the hard and weedy bottoms in the Med. I would have bought a Rocna, or a Manson Supreme at the drop of a hat, but they weren't easily available in 2007 - 2009.

I dont know how the Harbourfast compared to a true CQR but I assumed it should be a reasonable copy, given that it seemed to be OEM on Moodys in the '90's.
 
Re: "Real" anchor testing - ie underwater filmed with a Gopro attached above the anch

Interestingly enough, the old generation anchors were, and have been, used for decades and with only extremely rare stories ever being told about their failure causing some form of damage.....and how many are in existence, perhaps hundreds of thousands?

While it is a commonly accepted belief nowadays that new generation anchors perform better than old generation models in common mud and sand bottoms, is that also true in more difficult bottoms such as grass, weeds, rocks, and soft mud?

Additionally, I don't ever recall questions about the structural strength of old generation anchors as there are today about new generation models with their thinner shanks and questionable grades of steel. In fact, quite the opposite. I remember our late founder marveling about the strength of the genuine Bruce anchor and I don't believe that the quality of a genuine CQR has ever been in question as well.

Safe anchoring,
Brian
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top