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

[LittleSister]

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

As always I remind boat owners......... the rounded bar on certain anchors is there primarily for the wife to be able to lift it successfully!

Yes, you can't beat a proper man's anchor like a Danforth or CQR for trapped fingers and bruises!

 

[Neeves]

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

If you are wishing an anchor to do most things, most of the time, whatever the outlay, then it seems that the Spade has what it takes.
Otherwise imho it seems to me that a modern generation anchor with a concave fluke is most acceptable.
Convex fluked anchors will plough and will not bury well under serious loads although many will provide adequate secure anchor in reasonably benign conditions

I have never had problems with rocks jamming in my Rocna causing it to fail to reset overnight with a tide change, but I can see that it is a possibility.
However, I have seen it come from off the sea bed holding masses of seabed and weed.







S.

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. If that is a risk, however remote, you are willing to take then a roll bar concave anchor will be more than adequate.

I think you might need to broaden your horizons - I can assure you that modern convex anchors will dive (not plough) and will developing a hold at least the equal of a modern concave anchor.

If hold is the priority then buy a Fortress - on a weight or area basis it cannot be beaten in sand or mud (which is one reason we carry one).

Jonathan

 

[sailaboutvic]

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

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. If that is a risk, however remote, you are willing to take then a roll bar concave anchor will be more than adequate.

I think you might need to broaden your horizons - I can assure you that modern convex anchors will dive (not plough) and will developing a hold at least the equal of a modern concave anchor.

If hold is the priority then buy a Fortress - on a weight or area basis it cannot be beaten in sand or mud (which is one reason we carry one).

Jonathan

+1
I laid out our second anchor an fortress 23 some years back to help heel a yacht over that ended up on a bank , there was a lot of heeling done before we got it over enough to pull it off the bank , the problem came after we got the boat afloat , we couldn't get the anchor back up , it took a great amount of winching before we got it to break free , mud / fortress , there prob more chance of the chain breaking then the anchor breaking free .

 

[GHA]

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

+1
I laid out our second anchor an fortress 23 some years back to help heel a yacht over that ended up on a bank , there was a lot of heeling done before we got it over enough to pull it off the bank , the problem came after we got the boat afloat , we couldn't get the anchor back up , it took a great amount of winching before we got it to break free , mud / fortress , there prob more chance of the chain breaking then the anchor breaking free .

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.

 

[CAPTAIN FANTASTIC]

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

Technology never stands still; we are in a position where we have the new convex (Excel, Kobra atc) and concave (Spade, Rocna etc) anchor designs that are far superior to the old designs the likes of Bruce and CQR.

My genuine CQR, which I still have on the boat as a spare, does not compare in terms of efficiency to my Kobra. The CQR would take after a few attempts and many times, at critical situations, would let me down badly. The Kobra, and I am sure many other modern designs, are far more reliable, unquestionably.

In 20 ~ 30 years time, we will have other new designs (dynamic designs able to change shape to suit real time requirements) that will make the Rocnas, Spades, Excels and other designs that are used today, very inefficient. But, I bet, we will still be having apocalyptic scripts from people who refuse to let go of the past and will be holding on to their Rocnas and Mansons.

 

[doug748]

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

Technology never stands still; we are in a position where we have the new convex (Excel, Kobra atc) and concave (Spade, Rocna etc) anchor designs that are far superior to the old designs the likes of Bruce and CQR. .....


In 20 ~ 30 years time, we... .

The stress lies in the fact that Bullshyte never stands still either. Nor does marketing hyperbole and the hard pitch. The trick lies in deciding which is which

 

[NormanB]

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

I'm not going to watch the rest because AFAIC the CQR test is invalidated on two grounds

One, as others have already said, it's a copy not a genuine CQR and the copies are notoriously poor

But more critically, two, he's using a scope of just 2.5:1 which is hopelessly inadequate for a CQR

3:1 would be the absolute minimum and from personal experience 5:1 or more, at least initially, is preferable to be sure of the anchor setting straight away

In three years of using a CQR, it never once failed to set instantly when deployed with a 5:1 scope. It never dragged when the tide turned either (we never anchored in severe conditions so I can't say what would have happened). The anchor in question was a genuine CQR and one size above the minimum recommendation for the size of boat (never a bad thing IMO)

CQRs won't set on a very short scope and that is all that his video proves!

In contrast, by the way, the genuine Bruce on our second boat has never earned my trust or approbation. I've had trouble getting it to set at all on several occasions and it has dragged when the tide turned on several occasions

I theorise, from what I've seen and heard, that many of the problems people have with CQRs is due to using too short a scope

Oh and another thing, unless I missed it he doesn't mention the bottom type either. Kinda critical info, that

Why don't you just say you have not watched it and your opinions are invalidated on that count.?

 

[NormanB]

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

I'm glad I bought a Spade....

I wonder why he didn't test the Rocna?

In the comments beneath the video he has been asked why he did not test a Rocna. His answer is no one would supply with him (re Rocna) he was not complaining and observed that he understood why manufacturers may be reluctant to loan to an unknown tester.

 

[Neeves]

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

Of Fortress - when you have sold more than 500,000 anchors over 25 years you can expect more negative comment than that for anchors that have sold a few tens of thousands - the penalty of success.


An interesting, or I find it interesting, factor is that some time ago we all discussed (I hate to use the word 'argued') holding power and it still figures as a characteristic of importance. But if you look at the data available most, all, modern anchors have been shown, for a 15kg/20kg anchor, to be around 1,500 - 2,500kg in seabeds of the sort found in most anchorages. Loads or capacities well beyond the realms of possibility for the yachts for which that size of anchor might be appropriate. We appear to have anchors that will hold that appropriately sized yacht - under any force of nature imaginable (or unimaginable). (Yet people still buy bigger anchors).

We still need holding power tests to be conducted - to ensure new entrants meet the new benchmark - but we can now look beyond 'hold' and Panope has made an, honest, attempt at defining some of those characteristics that he thinks important. It is interesting the number of people who rejected his work at short scope as being unrealistic as the 'big anchor' camp use short scope as part of their justification for the need to go large, or very large.

Now that we have an attractive range of designs its the other characteristics that are now more critical, does it fit on the bow roller, will it change with the tide, will it collect debris, is it strong enough, will it set quickly, does it cost too much, do you trust the manufacturer, do you trust the shills and the hype from those spruiking their favourite - and listening to Panope's commentary - does it match the personality of the yacht (though I must confess I could not care less what it looks like - its the other characteristics that are much higher on my specification).

But after 10 years since West Marine did their testing (the Sail/Yachting Monthly article) - its not holding power but something else - and I agree with Captain Fantastic its a constantly changing field.

Contrarily - Panope's choice is a Fortress introduced in the very late 80s and Spade introduced in the early 90's that got his vote

Jonathan

 

[Bru]

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

Why don't you just say you have not watched it and your opinions are invalidated on that count.?

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

 

[Richard10002]

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

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

I think it is because you said that he didnt mention the bottom type/s... whereas he mentioned the various bottoms he tested on, several times.

I didnt watch all 40 minutes of it... once I'd got the gist of it after about 20 mins, I skipped to the end, but in what I watched, it was clear what type of bottom he was testing in at various times.

 

[jbweston]

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

I haven't watched any of these videos, so my judgement on choice of anchors is totally unbiased.

Instead of endless new anchor threads, why doesn't someone start a thread about the merits and demerits of different types of air for inflating the Avon?

Modern designer air is so much safer and more effective, even if it is a little expensive. But, hey, who wants to economise when it's my crew's life at stake - wouldn't want the dinghy deflating on a dark night because I economised on the brand of air.

Of course modern air is bound to be more expensive, what with the advertsing budget and the cost of setting up the robotic manufacturing process.

After extensive research, I've decided to choose British Standard YBW forum hot air for inflating mine. But genuine stuff, not a Chinese knock-off . . .

 

[onesea]

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

After extensive research, I've decided to choose British Standard YBW forum hot air for inflating mine. But genuine stuff, not a Chinese knock-off . . .

Just watch out with that hot air, it tends to go cold leaving you with soft flaccid tubes getting seats wet unnecessarily and an unhappy misses (or mistress)....

 

[dom]

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

Personally, I found the OP's vid interesting, scientific and generally well balanced.

Moreover, I totally disagree with those who say that nobody in real life anchors travelling backwards at 3.5 kts. Even I can get a so-called Brittany anchor (in back garden now!) to catch if I carefully place it and gingerly dig it in.

But if it either breaks out following a tide change, drag etc, one can easily find oneself moving backwards at 4kts (2kts wind + 2kts tide). If an anchor can't reengage in such circumstances, that is something surely worth knowing?

 

[Bru]

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

I think it is because you said that he didnt mention the bottom type/s... whereas he mentioned the various bottoms he tested on, several times.

I didnt watch all 40 minutes of it... once I'd got the gist of it after about 20 mins, I skipped to the end, but in what I watched, it was clear what type of bottom he was testing in at various times.

I did make it clear I'd only watched the one video (life is too short and anchor discussions way too tedious!) and then I watched the second on the greater scope after it was pointed out. In neither case did I catch him saying anything about the bottom type but I gather it was in the video info text. Fair enough but it wasn't obvious to the casual observer

And rather like the limited range of scopes used (see my earlier comments) testing on just one bottom type only tells you how good that anchor is on that bottom type! (Obviously )

I'm far more inclined to listen to practical experience from other yachtsmen than put much store by, inevitably and invariably, limited anchor tests

Which means I need to scrape the pennies together to replace the CQR on (hopefully) bigger boat with a Spade

No, seriously, Bigger Boat will get a next gen anchor. The genuine CQR works well enough in the sort of conditions we anchor in around the East Coast and in East Coast mud but when we set off on our adventures we'll likely be anchoring in far flung places like Scotland and potentially in far worse conditions (not by choice but we may not always have the option of a sheltered marina within easy reach, nor for that matter will we be certain of being able to afford to hole up in a marina for extended periods)

That takes me right back to the "horses for courses" principle. Any anchor is a good anchor if it does the job it's being asked to do.

 

[Scotty_Tradewind]

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

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. If that is a risk, however remote, you are willing to take then a roll bar concave anchor will be more than adequate.

Agreed adequate, and with a scope + that usually recommended and with an alarm set overnight on my plotter, I rest easy and after hundreds of overnight stops in tidal waters, + once off Carteret, France with a 12m tide, I've not been woken.... Yet!

S.

 

[GrahamM376]

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

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.

Jonathan, this is another of your posts where you misrepresent your opinion as a fact. Suggest you speak to those who use Bugel, Rocna and Manson type anchors. Our Manson, in common with other similar types often comes up with a load of mud attached. However, this has never caused it to drag or stopped it resetting in 8 years or so of use, often anchored for extended periods, not just the odd night.

 

[KevinT1]

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

I did make it clear I'd only watched the one video (life is too short and anchor discussions way too tedious!) and then I watched the second on the greater scope after it was pointed out. In neither case did I catch him saying anything about the bottom type but I gather it was in the video info text. Fair enough but it wasn't obvious to the casual observer

Bru,

I have read your analysis of the upcoming and past Rugby games and found them very informative, but in this case - as they say - when you've dug yourself into a hole then stop digging

In the 40 minute video he clearly stated the bottom type and did 2 sets of tests, 1 mud / sand and another sand / gravel with larger rocks.

He might be an infuriating American, but I found the watching the entire 40 minute video very informative. I'm not sure I have the will to watch any more of the 56 videos though

Kevin

 

[Bru]

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

How clear can I make it?

I did not watch the forty minute video (and have no intention of doing so). I watched the excerpts of two CQR tests and my comments are specific to those two clips and the CQR anchor (and copies thereof)

I make no content nor do I have an opinion about the rest of the tests

 

[Neeves]

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

There have been reports of people who use roll bar anchors dragging and this, they attribute, to the flukes clogging. There were reports on Morgan's Cloud about 2-3 years ago, for one. I have never heard of this occurring with a Mantus, nor Bugel, but there are few of them being used by the members here. I have used a Supreme and Mantus extensively, I can attest with first hand experience to them clogging.