Viking's Odin anchor vs Ultra and the original Viking anchor

[Dockhead]

So what is the disadvantage of a bigger anchor? If you anchor in mild conditions will it hold less well than a small anchor? I don’t beloeve it will. It may not fully bury, but so what. It can hold with just the tip buried. Clearly in extreme conditions or in an inferior soft substrate it will hold better, no-one surely disputes that? If there is no disadvantage and only a potential advantage then why not choose the bigger one? Is it one might be worried about an extra 25kg or 30kg on the bow? If so, don’t worry. It’s nothing compared to the 300kg of anchor and chain already there.

Bigger anchors of the same type are easier to set, not harder. There is probably some size beyond which you can't power set a modern anchor in a hard bottom, but I've never experienced anything near that limit. I've used anchors as large as 75kg on my boat and I could set them in all kinds of bottoms with a bit over idle with the main in reverse. The larger they are, of the same type, the sharper and faster they dig in. Fluke area goes up more slowly than weight as anchor of the same type get bigger, so bigger anchors are more dense, exerting more pressure per unit of fluke area. You can really feel that.

The only disadvantage of a bigger anchor is when it doesn't fit in your bow roller anymore, or becomes hard to handle. Your observation about the relationship between anchor weight and chain weight is exactly the point which Dashew makes. I have 330kg of chain on my boat, plus or minus 30kg or 40kg in the anchor is a rounding error.

 

[Zing]

Bigger anchors of the same type are easier to set, not harder. There is probably some size beyond which you can't power set a modern anchor in a hard bottom, but I've never experienced anything near that limit. I've used anchors as large as 75kg on my boat and I could set them in all kinds of bottoms with a bit over idle with the main in reverse. The larger they are, of the same type, the sharper and faster they dig in. Fluke area goes up more slowly than weight as anchor of the same type get bigger, so bigger anchors are more dense, exerting more pressure per unit of fluke area. You can really feel that.

The only disadvantage of a bigger anchor is when it doesn't fit in your bow roller anymore, or becomes hard to handle. Your observation about the relationship between anchor weight and chain weight is exactly the point which Dashew makes. I have 330kg of chain on my boat, plus or minus 30kg or 40kg in the anchor is a rounding error.

I agree.

 

[geem]

I think the science says that holding power is closely related to fluke area. Weight affects other aspects of anchoring, but not so much holding power.

And "achieving the set", as you say, is the key thing, and that's the "other aspect". Weight of the anchor, and density of it, plays a role there. I have not experienced a situation, ever, where a larger anchor was a hindrance in getting a set. On the contrary, larger anchors exert greater pressure per unit of fluke area, so bite in more easily. ESPECIALLY in hard seabeds. Also, in weed.

Anchors with sharp flukes and clever geometry may be extremely good in that respect. I've used first Danforths, then Fortresses, as kedges for 40 years. In the right conditions the Fortress is amazing, biting in instantly. The Fortress, thrown off the stern, is God's gift to Baltic mooring. I have no experience of the Viking, but Steve's testing seems to indicate it also works like that. The problem with the Fortress, and the reason why no one uses it as a bower, is that it can skip across the bottom, and can pop out in a change of wind direction, and fail to reset. These situations are where a heavier, denser anchor -- imparting a downward vector of force which can engage the flukes in the seabed to get them started going in -- can be a great advantage.

Let us know how you get on with the Viking if you end up trying one.

A ketch rig as you have is a great advantage in anchoring -- raise the mizzen to keep you head to the wind as you settle to the anchor. Do you do that? I have always envied ketch sailors for this. A sloop or cutter will tend to fall off the wind after the anchor is down, which is really annoying.

I don't have an issue with the boat falling off. We very rarely power our chain down. Its always free dropped by releasing the clutch. The only time we would power the chain down was after a particularly boisterous sail when the chain pile in the locker may have fallen over, such that the chain won't easily free drop on its own accord. I don't put the engine in reverse as we drop the anchor as i think it increases the risk of dragging the anchor across the seabed and fouling the fluke, especially in the very often weedy bottoms we see in the Caribbean.
I often throw the wheel over to one side as the chain is free dropping to expose the full windage of the hull so the chain deploys faster.

The mizzen mast alone will keep the boat lying directly into the wind once anchored up. Its far more stable at anchor than a modern high sided monohull. These very noticeably sail around their anchor, particularly when the wind picks up. By comparison, we don't move at all.
I have compared the tip of the fluke on a Rocna with our Spade and the sharpness of the Spade is quite noticeable by comparison.

We were anchored on a hard packed bottom anchored up next to friends with a 40kg Spade on a 47ft sloop, their Rocna was only engaging the tip. There wasn't a full set. We were snorkeling and observed the difference in set between the two anchors. I mentioned this to our friends and suggested they back down on the anchor harder. They gave the engine full revs in reverse, lifting the chain clear of the bottom but the anchor refused to dig in and set any deeper. They simply couldn't achieve sufficient thrust to set the anchor in a hard bottom. They had a 75hp engine.
By comparison, we could fully set the 30kg Spade with our 86hp engine just a few metres away. I know this isn't a scientific study but it's not an unexpected outcome. You need more power to set the blunt instrument than the sharp one. The weight over the tip can only position the anchor for the set, it's the engine than actually sets the anchor as it provides the trust to drive the nail into sea bed much like a hammer.

 

[Neeves]

Bigger anchors of the same type are easier to set, not harder.

This is nonsense. A larger anchor of the same design, in theory, should be a perfect scale model of each other. The bigger anchor will have a greater area resisting burial.

If you take a bigger square cross section pole and a smaller one - I know which is the easier to hammer into the ground.

Maybe its semantics - you mention SET - what do you mean by set. To me a well set anchor is buried, just a length of chain disappearing into the sand. But this is the ideal, some might not power set, at all (just use the windage to set) some will use low revs others high revs to set. Some will power set for longer, same revs, than others. The longer you hold at given revs the deeper the anchor will bury.


Most modern 15kg anchors will bury to a depth of 1m in clean sand (the fluke will be at 1m deep) - but you would need a tension of 2,000kg (holding capacity) to achieve this. At 100kg of tension per 10hp - your opportunity to 'fully set' an anchor is - impossible. So given a 15kg anchor will never be be fully set, to 2,000kg hold, quite why you want an anchor even bigger lacks any sense at all. At 2,000kg tension the yacht for which a 15kg anchor might be specified will typically carry 8m chain with a 750kg WLL and at 2t tension the chain links we be starting to deform.


However if we take 2 yachts, one smaller than the other, and compare the setting of the same design of anchor then the bigger anchor MAY set more easily but that's simply because the engine, on the larger yacht, is larger or the prop on the larger yacht is better designed to suit the engine and when used in reverse.

I suspect that a folding/feathering prop offers less effinceny than a fixed prop to power setting. Power setting is not only a function of revs - its a function of the prop as well and if the 2 yachts have different props then the results will be different.


I'd like to see the clear reasoning from Dockhead behind his statement - to me its a phurphy.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

I don't have an issue with the boat falling off. We very rarely power our chain down. Its always free dropped by releasing the clutch. The only time we would power the chain down was after a particularly boisterous sail when the chain pile in the locker may have fallen over, such that the chain won't easily free drop on its own accord. I don't put the engine in reverse as we drop the anchor as i think it increases the risk of dragging the anchor across the seabed and fouling the fluke, especially in the very often weedy bottoms we see in the Caribbean.
I often throw the wheel over to one side as the chain is free dropping to expose the full windage of the hull so the chain deploys faster.

The mizzen mast alone will keep the boat lying directly into the wind once anchored up. Its far more stable at anchor than a modern high sided monohull. These very noticeably sail around their anchor, particularly when the wind picks up. By comparison, we don't move at all.
I have compared the tip of the fluke on a Rocna with our Spade and the sharpness of the Spade is quite noticeable by comparison.

We were anchored on a hard packed bottom anchored up next to friends with a 40kg Spade on a 47ft sloop, their Rocna was only engaging the tip. There wasn't a full set. We were snorkeling and observed the difference in set between the two anchors. I mentioned this to our friends and suggested they back down on the anchor harder. They gave the engine full revs in reverse, lifting the chain clear of the bottom but the anchor refused to dig in and set any deeper. They simply couldn't achieve sufficient thrust to set the anchor in a hard bottom. They had a 75hp engine.
By comparison, we could fully set the 30kg Spade with our 86hp engine just a few metres away. I know this isn't a scientific study but it's not an unexpected outcome. You need more power to set the blunt instrument than the sharp one. The weight over the tip can only position the anchor for the set, it's the engine than actually sets the anchor as it provides the trust to drive the nail into sea bed much like a hammer.

It may be of most relevance

In the Bigger is Better threads it is oft pointed out - if the anchor is too big you will be unable to set it deeply.

Here we have a classic example. Sadly the owner has listened to the hype, believed it, invested in the bigger anchor - with the predicted result.

QED



You can compare the setting characteristics of anchors of different designs using 2 different yachts to set the anchors - but it is impossible to come to any conclusions.

The yacht engines sizes might be different and the idea that 10hp is about 100kg of tension is crude - useful only inasmuch if you are comparing 2 different anchors using the same engine. 10mm chain will be much more resistant to burial than 8mm chain, a swivel on one rode will increase rode resistance etc etc.

To compare using 2 yachts you would need 2 identical engine, 2 identical props, 2 identical rodes

But comparing, for example, a 20hp Yanmar with a 20 hp Volvo with possible totally different props, fixed props, too large/too small fixed props, folding props, feathering props, different chain, different shackles/swivels - simply too many variables.

The only way to compare - test each of the 2 anchors with one yacht, test each anchor in turn, repeat 3 times - so ABABAB.. Same scope, same chain. Move 2m sideways each time, so fresh but similar sand. If the trio of results for each anchor is inconsistent then the variable is the sea bed - repeat until you are comfortable with the consistency.

The fact your neighbour could not set his Rocna as well as you could set your Spade is possibly because his engine + prop in reverse is less efficient in reverse than yours. What was his chain size - the chain starts bury as soon as the toe of the anchors starts to bury - chain size is critical (why we used 6mm chain . Commonly engine/prop is specified for engine in forward gear - reverse is what you get with the most efficient arrangement for motoring (forwards)

Your friend now thinks his anchor is not as good as yours - basd on an incorrect comparison. He might now b negotiating a purchase of Spade, based on an invalid comparison. Anchor testers have responsibilities.



Hard work? - now you know why anchor testing is expensive. .


This also illustrates why testing is seldom conducted using a yacht - you cannot generate a tension for the extremes (and possible don't want to overstress everything.). For a, say, 15kg anchor the extreme is 2,000kg (typical holding capacity) - that demands a 200hp engine (or a winch on a workboat or shore based testing). On a 35' yacht the extreme in real life might be a 500/700kg tension (the yacht and anchor will accept it - the crew will be panicking - so with a 2,000kg holding capacity you are looking at about 3:1 safety factor - tell me again why you need a bigger anchor. Testing, deep - 5m, under water means you cannot get up close and personal with the anchor tested, who wants to sit up close underwater with a chain under 2,000kg tension (just one of the problems with the Panope work)

But welcome to the world of anchor testing.

Jonathan

I was invited to spectate a Classification Society test for SHHP. The test was shore based in shallow water, big drum winch. The shackle failed (never got to the bottom of what had been fitted). We were lucky - it whizzed through the air like shrapnel, never found - but could have caused serious injury (or worse). It was either the wrong or a flawed shackle.

 

[NormanS]

This is nonsense. A larger anchor of the same design, in theory, should be a perfect scale model of each other. The bigger anchor will have a greater area resisting burial.

If you take a bigger square cross section pole and a smaller one - I know which is the easier to hammer into the ground.

Maybe its semantics - you mention SET - what do you mean by set. To me a well set anchor is buried, just a length of chain disappearing into the sand. But this is the ideal, some might not power set, at all (just use the windage to set) some will use low revs others high revs to set. Some will power set for longer, same revs, than others. The longer you hold at given revs the deeper the anchor will bury.


Most modern 15kg anchors will bury to a depth of 1m in clean sand (the fluke will be at 1m deep) - but you would need a tension of 2,000kg (holding capacity) to achieve this. At 100kg of tension per 10hp - your opportunity to 'fully set' an anchor is - impossible. So given a 15kg anchor will never be be fully set, to 2,000kg hold, quite why you want an anchor even bigger lacks any sense at all. At 2,000kg tension the yacht for which a 15kg anchor might be specified will typically carry 8m chain with a 750kg WLL and at 2t tension the chain links we be starting to deform.


However if we take 2 yachts, one smaller than the other, and compare the setting of the same design of anchor then the bigger anchor MAY set more easily but that's simply because the engine, on the larger yacht, is larger or the prop on the larger yacht is better designed to suit the engine and when used in reverse.

I suspect that a folding/feathering prop offers less effinceny than a fixed prop to power setting. Power setting is not only a function of revs - its a function of the prop as well and if the 2 yachts have different props then the results will be different.


I'd like to see the clear reasoning from Dockhead behind his statement - to me its a phurphy.

Jonathan

You make it sound as if it's impossible to anchor without using an engine. Really?
I'll whisper this quietly: my anchor is so ignorant that it doesn't know if it's being pulled by the wind, or by the engine. Sssh! Don't tell it.

 

[Neeves]

You make it sound as if it's impossible to anchor without using an engine. Really?
I'll whisper this quietly: my anchor is so ignorant that it doesn't know if it's being pulled by the wind, or by the engine. Sssh! Don't tell it.

In terms of the posts - the comparison was done with engines. Talk to them as to why they use engines, not me.

But if you were to arrive in your chosen anchorage and it was a gorgeous still Hebridean evening just how do you get into the anchorage without any wind and subsequently deploy an anchor. Or do you wait for hours for the weather to change (to your advantage.

You must be seriously bored.

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

In terms of the posts - the comparison was done with engines. Talk to them as to why they use engines, not me.

But if you were to arrive in your chosen anchorage and it was a gorgeous still Hebridean evening just how do you get into the anchorage without any wind and subsequently deploy an anchor. Or do you wait for hours for the weather to change (to your advantage.

You must be seriously bored.

Jonathan

Nah, If I was bored, I would spend my time writing screeds and screeds on a forum, telling people how complicated and difficult it is to anchor a boat.
I'm not, it's not, so I don't.

 

[geem]

Nah, If I was bored, I would spend my time writing screeds and screeds on a forum, telling people how complicated and difficult it is to anchor a boat.
I'm not, it's not, so I don't.

When the water temperature is 28degC, and you fancy a swim, is no hardship to go and have a look at the anchor.
We weren't performing an anchor test. Just casual observation that in hardbacks sand and coral, setting an oversized anchor (even just one size up) can be problematic.
I doubt they would have any problems setting it in soft sand or mud

 

[noelex]

If you want to see what happens in the real world. Take a look at this thread:

Photos of Anchors Setting - Page 58 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

It shows hundreds of photos of anchors that have been deployed by cruisers. My oversized Mantus M1 is invariably the best set of any of the other anchors in the nearby area.

After almost 19 years of full-time cruising in many countries with substrates and almost 5,000 nights using an oversized Rocna and Mantus M1, I can vouch for the advantages. If you are anchoring frequently, ground tackle is one of the most important safety items. It is not an area to try and save money especially if you are anchoring in front of us .

 

[geem]

If you want to see what happens in the real world. Take a look at this thread:

Photos of Anchors Setting - Page 58 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

It shows hundreds of photos of anchors that have been deployed by cruisers. My oversized Mantus M1 is invariably the best set of any of the other anchors in the nearby area.

After almost 19 years of full-time cruising in many countries with substrates and almost 5,000 nights using an oversized Rocna and Mantus M1, I can vouch for the advantages. If you are anchoring frequently, ground tackle is one of the most important safety items. It is not an area to try and save money especially if you are anchoring in front of us .

Don't worry, you will be safe if I anchor in front of you with my correctly sized anchor

 

[noelex]

Don't worry, you will be safe if I anchor in front of you with my correctly sized anchor

I have heard these claims before. They do not always work out.

However, as you have a 30kg (66 lbs) Spade (and have even added extra added ballast ). On a 44-foot boat with a 14.5 tonne displacement I would not be concerned in most conditions.

According to Spade, the standard 30kg (66 lbs) model is OK for boats up to 65 feet and a displacement of 20 tonnes.

I don’t think you really belong in the "small is adequate cult".

Spade tables suggest this is oversized for a 44-foot boat of your displacment. But it is much better than Lewmar, which recommend a 14 kg Delta or Kobra,for your sized vessel.

Those that recommend blindly following the anchor sizing table seem to ignore the many, often stupid, optimistic suggestions made by many manufacturers.

Is the recomended 14Kg Delta optimum when they have elected to use a 30kg Spade? The reality is the anchor manufacturers sizing tables are often driven by marketing department rather than based on sensible principles.

Sadly, many consumers assume that a manufacturer that recommends a smaller model has a superior design .

 

[Neeves]

If you want to see what happens in the real world. Take a look at this thread:

Photos of Anchors Setting - Page 58 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

It shows hundreds of photos of anchors that have been deployed by cruisers. My oversized Mantus M1 is invariably the best set of any of the other anchors in the nearby area.

After almost 19 years of full-time cruising in many countries with substrates and almost 5,000 nights using an oversized Rocna and Mantus M1, I can vouch for the advantages. If you are anchoring frequently, ground tackle is one of the most important safety items. It is not an area to try and save money especially if you are anchoring in front of us .

This provides an alternative view of the unconditional recommendation to use a Mantus M1 anchor

An Inquiry into Anchor Angles - Practical Sailor

Jonathan

 

[NormanS]

I have heard these claims before. They do not always work out.

However, as you have a 30kg (66 lbs) Spade (and have even added extra added ballast ). On a 44-foot boat with a 14.5 tonne displacement I would not be concerned in most conditions.

According to Spade, the standard 30kg (66 lbs) model is OK for boats up to 65 feet and a displacement of 20 tonnes.

I don’t think you really belong in the "small is adequate cult".

Spade tables suggest this is oversized for a 44-foot boat of your displacment. But it is much better than Lewmar, which recommend a 14 kg Delta or Kobra,for your sized vessel.

Those that recommend blindly following the anchor sizing table seem to ignore the many, often stupid, optimistic suggestions made by many manufacturers.

Is the recomended 14Kg Delta optimum when they have elected to use a 30kg Spade? The reality is the anchor manufacturers sizing tables are often driven by marketing department rather than based on sensible principles.

Sadly, many consumers assume that a manufacturer that recommends a smaller model has a superior design .

What wind strength are these recommendations based on, and what do you do if the wind strengths experienced are sometimes substantially greater?

 

[doug748]

If you want to see what happens in the real world. Take a look at this thread:

Photos of Anchors Setting - Page 58 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

It shows hundreds of photos of anchors that have been deployed by cruisers. My oversized Mantus M1 is invariably the best set of any of the other anchors in the nearby area.

After almost 19 years of full-time cruising in many countries with substrates and almost 5,000 nights using an oversized Rocna and Mantus M1, I can vouch for the advantages. If you are anchoring frequently, ground tackle is one of the most important safety items. It is not an area to try and save money especially if you are anchoring in front of us .

In the comment section of YouTube, I once asked Steeve Goodwin if he would look at the theory that smaller anchors can set better and be more efficient.
He dismissed it in a few short words.

.

 

[geem]

I have heard these claims before. They do not always work out.

However, as you have a 30kg (66 lbs) Spade (and have even added extra added ballast ). On a 44-foot boat with a 14.5 tonne displacement I would not be concerned in most conditions.

According to Spade, the standard 30kg (66 lbs) model is OK for boats up to 65 feet and a displacement of 20 tonnes.

I don’t think you really belong in the "small is adequate cult".

Spade tables suggest this is oversized for a 44-foot boat of your displacment. But it is much better than Lewmar, which recommend a 14 kg Delta or Kobra,for your sized vessel.

Those that recommend blindly following the anchor sizing table seem to ignore the many, often stupid, optimistic suggestions made by many manufacturers.

Is the recomended 14Kg Delta optimum when they have elected to use a 30kg Spade? The reality is the anchor manufacturers sizing tables are often driven by marketing department rather than based on sensible principles.

Sadly, many consumers assume that a manufacturer that recommends a smaller model has a superior design .

Everytime we hwve lifted out we have been between 18 and 19.3 tonnes so pretty close to the upper limit of the 20 tonnes you mentioned.
The sailboat data for our Trintella has it at 14.5t. We have two original marketing brochures for the boat. The older one says 14.5t which I suspect is the empty weight. The later brochure says 17 tonnes. This may be cruising trim but the brochure doesn't make that clear. Either way, the 18 to 19t seem to make sense for our fully loaded liveaboard boat.
With this correct weight, the Spade selection chart is spot on
Edit:
To be on the smaller 25kg anchor, we would have to weigh less than 16t. So the 30kg is the smallest anchor we can safely select from the Spade selection chart. There is no way it's over sized as you suggest

 

[Trident]

I have heard these claims before. They do not always work out.

However, as you have a 30kg (66 lbs) Spade (and have even added extra added ballast ). On a 44-foot boat with a 14.5 tonne displacement I would not be concerned in most conditions.

According to Spade, the standard 30kg (66 lbs) model is OK for boats up to 65 feet and a displacement of 20 tonnes.

I don’t think you really belong in the "small is adequate cult".

Spade tables suggest this is oversized for a 44-foot boat of your displacment. But it is much better than Lewmar, which recommend a 14 kg Delta or Kobra,for your sized vessel.

Those that recommend blindly following the anchor sizing table seem to ignore the many, often stupid, optimistic suggestions made by many manufacturers.

Is the recomended 14Kg Delta optimum when they have elected to use a 30kg Spade? The reality is the anchor manufacturers sizing tables are often driven by marketing department rather than based on sensible principles.

Sadly, many consumers assume that a manufacturer that recommends a smaller model has a superior design .

I note Viking have recently updated their recommendations - my boat has gone from being a 15kg anchor in their table to a 20kg (50 foot cat - under 9000Kg ) My current anchor is a 32kg Rocna but I am planning to change to the Viking and 8mm G70 chain as cat's do definitely like lighter weight and regardless of anchor size I can save 50kg in chain weight and make drop easier in my shallow locker. (Just as soon as my windlass manufacturer send me the new 8mm parts)

Anyway, the point was that Viking, which previously went very light - but I will say with holding power data to back it up - have slightly upped their recommendations on size. I can't say if that is data backed with further tests or simply marketing - the other way as it were - by going bigger to offset some of the negative views that appear on the forums saying a 15kg anchor cannot possibly blah blah..

 

[geem]

In the comment section of YouTube, I once asked Steeve Goodwin if he would look at the theory that smaller anchors can set better and be more efficient.
He dismissed it in a few short words.

.

He also heavily backed Mantus anchors for a while after he had a 'mystery donor' that allowed him to have a large powerful boat for testing. Don't rely on everything you watch on Tube.
He didn't reveal the donor so you can't rule out bias

 

[noelex]

What wind strength are these recommendations based on, and what do you do if the wind strengths experienced are sometimes substantially greater?

Most anchor manufacturers recommend sizing tables that assume the boat is never going to experience anything more than moderately strong winds or poor substrates. This helps sell anchors.

If a manufacturer recommends a smaller anchor, it must be better .

This strategy of recommending small anchors particularly helps anchor manufacturers sell to boatbuilders. For a boatbuilder fitting a small anchor as standard equipment means a smaller anchor winch, bowsprit, etc., affording considerable savings. If the customer complains, the boatbuilder can correctly claim they are fitting the anchor manufacturers recommended size.

Some anchor manufacturers are honest and state the maximum windspeed their sizing is based on. This can be as low as 30 knots . Many others don’t state the criteria (which suggests to me it is low).

I cannot understand why some members of this forum recommend blindly following these recommendations. Or even worse council against installing anchors with more holding ability.

Rocna uses a slightly more realistic 50 knots as a "soft moderate holding bottom" and assumes you have the room to provide reasonable scope. If you anchor frequently, it is not uncommon to exceed these requirements, but it is at least a better starting point if you cannot comfortably manage something with more capability.

 

[doug748]

He also heavily backed Mantus anchors for a while after he had a 'mystery donor' that allowed him to have a large powerful boat for testing. Don't rely on everything you watch on Tube.
He didn't reveal the donor so you can't rule out bias

I would not trust any of his conclusions which can seem dodgy,

I do generally trust his testing and the results he publishes. His work presents as the best we have, as is his practical experience of anchoring.

.