Sail Training - it should not be about making money.

[Graham376]

The RYA, whilst not perfect, is forever evolving and I would say, has had a hand in training for the vast majority of UK sailors and I imagine the same would be true of may other countries and their NGB.

I think the RYA has good training schemes but the training is only as good as the instructor. When I started sailing, I did the DS shore based with a guy who ran courses at his home. There were 5 or 6 of us and one guy stood out because he was totally thick, seemed unable to understand or absorb information. When it came to test paper time, he was so slow he was allowed to complete it at home without supervision. I heard later he had passed but suspect someone did it for him.

 

[JumbleDuck]

There's no provable science in anchoring, with a vast range of anchors, bottoms, sea-states and yacht types.

On the contrary, there is a vast amount of peer-reviewed research on anchors.

 

[Refueler]

On the contrary, there is a vast amount of peer-reviewed research on anchors.

Some though needs taking with a pinch ...

Some years ago - guy did a test of anchors using a tractor on a sandy beach. He was adamant that xx anchor was better than all others put together.

Till he was educated about pull angles .. amount of and type of rode ... sea bottom etc.

The test review sort of faded into the mist ..... suitably debunked !

 

[Neeves]

On the contrary, there is a vast amount of peer-reviewed research on anchors.

I would agree with JD.

There are a number of credible anchor tests by a cross section of organisations in different seabeds providing comparisons of the current range of anchors available. The tests are in general agreement with each other, showing consistency, and the results are now backed up by users experiences which in general agree that the better anchors have the higher hold.

There is no 'best' anchor - some of the good anchors are better in some substrates than others.

But if you want to buy a new anchor looking at a few of the tests will give you a very good indication which anchors are better than others - whether the anchor is available in your location, whether you can afford it and does it fit on your bow roller - are simply other criteria impacting your choice.

RichMac might not agree but all the Classification Societies, who approve any commercial vessel that he might use, would disagree with him.

There are some poor, if not downright wrong, anchor tests, Refueler mentions one, the classic of which I know was conducted in Finland in a quarry. I am sure the results are totally valid - so if you anchor in quarries look out the test.

What is bizarre, to me, is that anchor holding capacity is one of the few pieces of data that would form the basis of my choice of a new anchor (and maybe I am wrong and in the minority and RichMac right and one of millions) but people buy anchors that have never been tested and, some, manufacturers market their anchor (apparently untested).

I might agree that anchor tests, holding capacity, are but one piece of data and it would be valuable to have more tests conducted for veering (there have been tests on veering, look them up) and on hobby horsing (the effects of chop and swell) but anchor testing is inordinately hard work and expensive. I, and others who have tested anchors (so I admit bias in support of testing), think that holding capacity is probably as good a measure as we have to indicate an ability to withstand veering and hobby horsing - until more data is available. The best 'people' to test are magazines (and they are having enough problems staying afloat) and the manufacturers themselves (with independent witnesses). Many people source their knowledge now from the internet - who on the internet is going to do any anchor testing? and how are they to recoup their investment. We had a perfect example of the dangers of the internet guru on choice of anchors recently.......I am sure that example was not unique.

The benefit of magazines publishing anchor test results is that there is some peer review. The internet guru and promoter of YouTube video - has no peer review (and often gets it wrong)

RichMac proudly claims 120,000 hits on one of his videos - I wonder how many of the hits were people watching it twice - and picking out the faults (which stay on the internet for ever). I also wonder how many of the 120,000 actually learnt anything and what they remember (did they remember the parts that are blatantly wrong) - which is one of the criteria to measure the success of training. He certainly does not know - so he has no idea if his videos are useful or not. All credit for trying and I would encourage him to redo the vids, subject them to peer review, like here, then correct the vid - and finally release them to the unsuspecting public. Releasing them without peer review smacks of arrogance or complacency to me.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

You can do all the tests that you like, but there's still an element of chance. Many many years ago, while as a schoolboy dinghy sailing in the Forth, I dropped anchor in Granton harbour. The boat dragged. On recovering the anchor, I found that it had neatly impaled a discarded tin can on its fluke. I suspect that the very same could happen nowadays, whether your anchor was one of the old faithful designs, or one of the now more fashionable "new generation".

 

[RupertW]

You can do all the tests that you like, but there's still an element of chance. Many many years ago, while as a schoolboy dinghy sailing in the Forth, I dropped anchor in Granton harbour. The boat dragged. On recovering the anchor, I found that it had neatly impaled a discarded tin can on its fluke. I suspect that the very same could happen nowadays, whether your anchor was one of the old faithful designs, or one of the now more fashionable "new generation".

But that’s exactly why you test the seabed by digging the anchor in hard.Anyone who has anchored has picked up weed, buckets, bags or just found the sand is 4 inches deep over rock.

None of that makes any difference to the choice of anchor by what will work best in a decent substrate of the type you will mostly be anchoring in.

 

[NormanS]

But that’s exactly why you test the seabed by digging the anchor in hard.Anyone who has anchored has picked up weed, buckets, bags or just found the sand is 4 inches deep over rock.

None of that makes any difference to the choice of anchor by what will work best in a decent substrate of the type you will mostly be anchoring in.

You may not have noticed, but the occasion that I mentioned was with a sailing dinghy. How do you recommend "digging the anchor in hard"?

 

[RupertW]

You may not have noticed, but the occasion that I mentioned was with a sailing dinghy. How do you recommend "digging the anchor in hard"?

The traditional way is mainsail backed but a lunchtime stop in a dinghy isn’t what all the NG testing is about.

 

[Neeves]

I have to agree, despite the contradictions, with both Norman and Rupert.

However Norman is being nostalgic - surely cans are no longer coated with tin (would it not be too expensive?) Norman might also be thinking back, as it was his childhood, of the game we played, in Scotland at least 'Kick the Can' - where cans were recycled (for children's games). But Norman comes from the south bank of the Forth - they possibly did not allow games such as 'Kick the can'.

But discarded cans (however made) lost laundry, (blown of lifelines) and I did hear of carpet and any of the natural detritus, shells, water looked wood, coral lumps (if you sail in the tropics) - the list is endless - can all be an issue. We caught a 8kg gas cylinder once, many have caught supermarket trolleys and someone recently reported catching a fluke sized rock in the fluke of a Bruce (and a friend of ours did the self same thing)

Power setting removes some of risks of impaleing something on the toe of your anchor - but some risks remain. It does not matter how you power set, if you have an auxiliary motor - the wind can create more tension in your chain than the motor. So power set and have the wind slightly stronger than you desire and the anchor can set under wind beyond what was achieved under motor - and that oyster shell might be just millimetres beyond the toe of your anchor when you finished your power set - just waiting for your anchor to inch forward (is there a metric equivalent to 'inching'?).

Don't be complacent - set the anchor alarm.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

I have to agree, despite the contradictions, with both Norman and Rupert.

However Norman is being nostalgic - surely cans are no longer coated with tin (would it not be too expensive?) Norman might also be thinking back, as it was his childhood, of the game we played, in Scotland at least 'Kick the Can' - where cans were recycled (for children's games). But Norman comes from the south bank of the Forth - they possibly did not allow games such as 'Kick the can'.

But discarded cans (however made) lost laundry, (blown of lifelines) and I did hear of carpet and any of the natural detritus, shells, water looked wood, coral lumps (if you sail in the tropics) - the list is endless - can all be an issue. We caught a 8kg gas cylinder once, many have caught supermarket trolleys and someone recently reported catching a fluke sized rock in the fluke of a Bruce (and a friend of ours did the self same thing)

Power setting removes some of risks of impaleing something on the toe of your anchor - but some risks remain. It does not matter how you power set, if you have an auxiliary motor - the wind can create more tension in your chain than the motor. So power set and have the wind slightly stronger than you desire and the anchor can set under wind beyond what was achieved under motor - and that oyster shell might be just millimetres beyond the toe of your anchor when you finished your power set - just waiting for your anchor to inch forward (is there a metric equivalent to 'inching'?).

Don't be complacent - set the anchor alarm.

Jonathan

Jonathan, that's rubbish. I don't come from the South bank of the Forth.? We used to sail across from the sunny side, open the flask of hot Bovril, and try to get some circulation back into our fingers, before sailing back across. Shades of Arthur Ransome.

 

[thinwater]

Science includes statistics and limitations of the experiment. Exceptions do not disprove a rule, they more often point to the limits of the investigation.

And intuition and expereince both involve an element of science; they are based on observation. The quality of the intuition and the value of the expereince depend a great deal on whether the person is question was an unbiased and careful observer, noting what he knew as fact vs. what he did not know. In other words... science.

 

[NormanS]

Science includes statistics and limitations of the experiment. Exceptions do not disprove a rule, they more often point to the limits of the investigation.

And intuition and expereince both involve an element of science; they are based on observation. The quality of the intuition and the value of the expereince depend a great deal on whether the person is question was an unbiased and careful observer, noting what he knew as fact vs. what he did not know. In other words... science.

I'm sure that tells us something.?