Why has the market not embraced alloy anchors?

[Neeves]

Noelex,

I don't understand why you persist.

You tell us that in your observations an alloy Spade is not as good as the steel Spade.

I have to ask - how many Spade anchors do forum members see. How many alloy Spade anchors do forum members see. To ascertain a comparison between an alloy and steel Spade you would need to see a number, actually being set and be able to examine their setting ability in the same substrate - and in a variety of substrates.

The anchors would need to be set in a similar way with a similar rode and similar scope.

Now - given the numbers of Spades - how likely is its that one would be able to meet each of these criteria -

We have already heard alloy pages should not be used as a primary - o quite why have you been able to confound the evidence and even o many to be able to make a incontrovertible comment - such that is is fair and valid

You can categorically declare an alloy Spade is not as good as a steel Spade.

Yet you still missed the critical setting characteristics of your own anchor (and the specific characteristic is negative) and when it had been pointed out cannot confirm, to those you persuaded to buy that same anchor, why you omitted to mention it and why you think, in contradiction to everyone else, this very unique characteristic is good.

Trolling of Spade comes to mind, I frankly find it difficult to believe you have seen sufficient alloy Spades to make a judgement, maybe you can link to some photographs, and either your powers of observation are lacking (or you simply fabricate) or you have been spruiking the Mantus.

I'm still waiting for you to justify the concept pertinent, if not an ideal time, in the way this thread has moved to anchor size - as to why a large anchor can be safe at short scope. Maybe another of your fabricated ideas. Much of your posts lack credibility but the idea that a large anchor is safe at short scope is dangerous.

People believed you over Mantus and went off like gullible lemmings and bought one - I only hope they don't think their choice will allow them to anchor at short scope.

Not for one moment do I think you can substantiate any of your claims - so why do you persist.

Jonathan
Credibility looks very, very tarnished.

 

[Neeves]

I did assume the anchors were properly dug in. For other specialised scenarios, I have no idea really, including for the other examples you gave.

How are you going to properly dig in the big anchor - you need that tension.

The reason we downsized from a FX23 to a FX16 (for sand and set at 30 degrees) is because we never dug our FX23 in 'properly' - it was simply too big. We can bury the FX16 - and some chain.

I did some side by side comparisons (for our own benefit, same seabed, same rode, same tension - and the area (or volume) of the FX23 always exposed, including shank and chain, simply added to the idea that the FX 16 was a better option.

We have done side by side comparisons, same rode, same tension, same scope of our alloy Spade and Excel and steel Spade and Excel, deployed from our cat - and the differences are noticeable by their absence.

A comment was made that an alloy Spade is less dependable in weed than its steel equivalent - we would have to say that neither are brilliant - but our Excels are better (by design) as they have a sharper toe and sole plate in the toe which appears to allow more rapid penetration.

Yes - I spend a lot of time testing what I say before I say it.

There is no perfect anchor, anchors are a compromise - get used to it - and don't think your anchor is the ideal in every seabed.

Jonathan

 

[Neeves]

I hope the absurdity of my example makes an impression. Some posts are using “holding” or “holding ability” to refer to an anchor’s actual current holding rather than the more conventional use of the term to mean the potential holding ability.

It is true that if yacht is not dragging the actual holding force is the same if the anchor is big or small, if the substrate is good or bad, if the anchor is good or poor, etc etc.

It is going to make anchor threads even more confusing (if this is possible ) if we adopt this terminology.

The sensible use of the term an anchors “holding ability” is the point where the anchor will just start to drag if the force increases further. This value will vary depending on the type of anchor, scope, holding ground, size of anchor, etc, etc just as you would expect.

/QUOTE]

A dual Noelex you are trying to alter enabled practice to fit yourself.

Hold, Ultimate Hold, Holding ability - as you say is dependent on a number of factors - but is meaningless, in our market, unless the numerical value is compared with a known or a number of known anchors in the same seabed.

But hold, ultimate hold or any intermediate hold is defined by the tension, measured with a load cell, in the rode. A hold, or tension, less than the ultimate - is well known and used to define how an anchor is set (and being a elf proclaimed expert, having studied anchors for decades, you will be well aware). Given Classification Society certificated anchors society members may define the hold to which an anchor must be set in a specific seabed - to meet their requirements.

So using 'hold' as opposed to 'ultimate hold' meets industry conventions and is quite accepted. Somehow I do not think industry is going to take much notice of your ideas - given your current track record.

Jonathan

 

[Pete7]

We have done side by side comparisons, same rode, same tension, same scope of our alloy Spade and Excel and steel Spade and Excel, deployed from our cat - and the differences are noticeable by their absence.

How did the FX16 compare to these?

Pete

 

[Neeves]

How did the FX16 compare to these?

Pete

We would not use the Fortress in weed, nor stony anchorages, we've been through that. Both the Spade and Excel are better and the Excel better where its sharper toe is important (harder seabeds, weed and stones). In sand and firmer mud we cannot tell the difference. In thin mud the FX37 is outstanding. In thin mud the Excel and Spade are pretty average - the FX16 develops decent hold - but it can be too small. In thin mud you do need more setting room, with the Excel and Spade - possibly infinite space - we have been in mud where neither Spade or Excel would develop any hold at all. I know the recommendation is to let these anchors settle etc - but when its raining hard we would not waste time, but simply use the Fortress - and then retire, with confidence to the dry.

The Fortress is easier to store as it sits against a locker wall, the Spade we would store, shank down, and fluke on top - which means it need come out when we want to retrieve a milk crate (we store the spare rode, mooring warps, strops and short lengths of chain (for trees and rocks) in milk crates.

Most of our anchorages are well documented and/or clean water - we can see the weed, rocks/pebbles/cobbles etc - if its not clear its commonly mud.

Because we are using 'smaller' anchors - largely of a size that would fit well with Classification Society recommendations when we power set we can effectively bury the complete anchor - except the Fortress, FX16, might have the crown and a bit of the stock protruding and the Excel or Spade might have the 'top' of the shank evident. When we used the FX23 in a similar location we would see all of the stock, the crown and commonly all the shank and no buried chain. We did not like the idea of a part buried anchor, especially with protuberances that might catch the rode.

We have painted our chain with and without alternate 1m sections, whole metre lengths painted - we know exactly how much chain is buried. With modern anchors - Rocna, Supreme, Excel, Spade, Ultra - they all dive well and bury chain - the more chain you can bury the more stable should be your anchor. I don't know about Vulcan - I have seen no independent tests and it has not gained the momentum such that there are many underwater images. It might be superb, or not - I'd wait - before I spend money. I have no illusions that CMP/Peter Smith will give me one to test . Use a big beefy swivel (or shackle) and you will bury less chain.

Horses for courses.

Jonathan

 

[thinwater]

What has worked to store a Fortress (an other pivoting fluke types) on my last two boats is to dill a hole in the false floor of a locker to take the stick, and lean it on its edge in a locker. Usually ropes would fill the center area, preventing flopping.

I really only like the Fortress or Guardian in very soft mud, where it buries deeply. If used in firm sand, I can't set the whole fluke and it is unstable in shifts. On the other hand, if I can get the whole thing 1-2 feet underground, moderate shifts don't matter much. Also kedging in sand or firmer mud. I consider the Fortress to be in a separate class, with its own set of rules. They are versatile, but not for just dropping anywhere and less forgiving of errors. Love em', but not as a primary anchor, most places.

I did a bunch of anchor testing, where I would use a Fortress anchor to hold the boat, so I could pull others to failure. I always marveled that I could paddle the Fortress out in my kayak, handle it with one hand, and then drag anchors weighing 3 times as much with 200 pounds of chain attached to them. Of course, recovering the Fortress after such abuse was sometimes quite challenging. Really challenging.

As for other alloy anchors, I'm just listening.

 

[Neeves]

Thin,

Your description matches much, or all, of my thinking. But you illustrate a number of points - if the anchor (Fortress) is too big - it is difficult to set deeply (and I found the recommended size for our cat too big in sand seabeds). If you can set the Fortress deeply, such that it disappears, then any protuberance (the stock) will be buried and it will/can remain stable even in a change of tide and a change of wind (unless I guess the 'new' wind is exceptionally strong). Many of the comments about a Fortress tripping in a change of tide may be because the anchor was too big, and not set deeply (because the owner did not power set or because even with power setting the flukes were still shallow). I think Vyv made reference to this

When Fortress did their Chesapeake mud tests one of the subjective comments made was that the holding capacity and the retrieval load were very similar (logical as the fluke is at 45 degrees).

All of this is exascerbated because people often buy a Fortress as a storm anchor or because of the mantra (bigger is better) and buy one too big for any 'normal' application.

The downside to buying smaller - another of those compromises - the anchor can set deeply - and as you point out is a devil to retrieve. I have heard of a case where the Fortress was used in a genuine Storm and was irretrievable. Arguably better to lose an anchor than the yacht.

Cautious use of a tripping line is something to consider. And don't just chuck the Fortress over the side and allow it to set in a gentle breeze - of course it may trip, of course the chain may foul the stock - but you will be among many and able to add to those who condemn the Fortress, unfairly.

Jonathan

 

[thinwater]

Thin,

Your description matches much, or all, of my thinking. But you illustrate a number of points - if the anchor (Fortress) is too big - it is difficult to set deeply (and I found the recommended size for our cat too big in sand seabeds). If you can set the Fortress deeply, such that it disappears, then any protuberance (the stock) will be buried and it will/can remain stable even in a change of tide and a change of wind (unless I guess the 'new' wind is exceptionally strong). Many of the comments about a Fortress tripping in a change of tide may be because the anchor was too big, and not set deeply (because the owner did not power set or because even with power setting the flukes were still shallow). I think Vyv made reference to this

When Fortress did their Chesapeake mud tests one of the subjective comments made was that the holding capacity and the retrieval load were very similar (logical as the fluke is at 45 degrees).

All of this is exascerbated because people often buy a Fortress as a storm anchor or because of the mantra (bigger is better) and buy one too big for any 'normal' application.

The downside to buying smaller - another of those compromises - the anchor can set deeply - and as you point out is a devil to retrieve. I have heard of a case where the Fortress was used in a genuine Storm and was irretrievable. Arguably better to lose an anchor than the yacht.

Cautious use of a tripping line is something to consider. And don't just chuck the Fortress over the side and allow it to set in a gentle breeze - of course it may trip, of course the chain may foul the stock - but you will be among many and able to add to those who condemn the Fortress, unfairly.

Jonathan

I did actually test using a tripping line to recover a Fortress that was dug in deep several time. I hoped it would reduce the recovery load, but it didn't. I'm guessing the mud palms act like barbs.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I did actually test using a tripping line to recover a Fortress that was dug in deep several time. I hoped it would reduce the recovery load, but it didn't. I'm guessing the mud palms act like barbs.

I've seen a Fortress (or similar) buried in the mud at Maldon and revealed after the tide went out. I'd guess no part of the anchor was less than a foot from the sea bed though it's along time ago so the memory of sledding out across the mud and trying to get the thing out has probably been severely distorted. I can only assume the boat was giving it a fair bit of welly in reverse as it was completely invisible and had to be dug out with a shovel - all rather weird as the owner apparently claimed he threw it overboard after running aground. He then headed off home and left us (the yard I part-timed at as a teenager) to sort it out and put the boat somewhere not on the edge of what passes for a fairway in Maldon. On a sad and irrelevant note I note that RJ Prior (the yard involved and yes I know that's in Burnham, not Maldon) is closing down. They and Tucker Brown - long gone now - were a big part of my teenage years.

 

[Neeves]

Noelex is obviously struggling to support his idea that his Mantus is the beesknees. It is fortuitous that a well wisher sent me a couple of links and these might help Noelex crystalise his thoughts.

Now - fluke/seabed angle is commonly dictated by the location on the fluke of the shank (the crown) and the angle at which tension is applied. Careful selection of this geometry then results in the tension/fluke angle and the fluke seabed angle being 'similar'. Get the crown location right, get the tension angle right and you get the seabed/fluke angle right. Get the crown location wrong - as with Mantus, and all this goes out the window.

Check these links

http://www.sotra.net/products/manuals/adjust-fluke-angel

Also look at the Bruce TS (adjustable angle)

http://www.sotra.net/products/shackles/joining-shackle-type-kenter

Noelex photo, hundreds of them - they show - without exception a fluke/seabed angle of 16 degrees, check the link - any mention of 16 degrees?

This is a man who can tell subtle (or enormous, according to him) differences between an alloy and steel Spade - yet cannot identify a fundamental characteristic in his own anchor.

He seems to ignore the fundamentals, ignore the fact people have been buying anchor on his ideas - that have no basis.

Setting an anchor needs patience - it should not need patience to wait for an armchair guru to support his ideas.

The problem with internet gurus - they need take no responsibility.

Jonathan

 

[noelex]

I really only like the Fortress or Guardian in very soft mud, where it buries deeply. If used in firm sand, I can't set the whole fluke and it is unstable in shifts. On the other hand, if I can get the whole thing 1-2 feet underground, moderate shifts don't matter much. Also kedging in sand or firmer mud. I consider the Fortress to be in a separate class, with its own set of rules. They are versatile, but not for just dropping anywhere and less forgiving of errors. Love em', but not as a primary anchor, most places.

I have spent way too many hours in the water, getting cold and watching anchors rotate to new wind directions.

The response of the Danforth/Fortress anchors is interesting. As has been reported by many users, this type of anchor design does not rotate as well as most other designs. This is quite obvious underwater.

The anchor often develops a high list during the rotation. The puzzle is that it does not do this on all rotations (although it is rarely as level as most designs). It is not clear what conditions cause the problem. My theory (and it is only a theory) is that if the substrate becomes significantly firmer with depth, the long stock has a tendency to catch in the firmer ground causing the issue.

In many cases the anchor will dig in and rotates back to level once the new direction of pull is established and the owner is unaware that anything unusual has happened. However, on occasions the anchor will break out completely. All anchors struggle to reset if they are moving at any speed and the lightweight aluminium Fortress and Guardian seem to struggle more than most. The anchor also has a tendency, on rare occasions to drag in an apparently stable fashion with the anchor at close to 90° to its normal orientation. It can stay in this orientation sometimes showing no inclination to bury over long distances. See the photos below (this is in quite a firm substrate but it can also adopt a similar orientation in softer ground):

I think the Fortress/Guardian anchors are a great choice for a secondary or kedge anchor. Every cruising boat should consider buying one of these anchors. Personally, I would not use this style of anchor as a primary anchor unless I was sure the direction of pull was going to remain reasonably stable.

 

[Pete7]

What has worked to store a Fortress (an other pivoting fluke types) on my last two boats is to dill a hole in the false floor of a locker to take the stick, and lean it on its edge in a locker. Usually ropes would fill the center area, preventing flopping.

That's a good idea, our FX16 is stored in its box, but takes a couple of minutes with the spanners to assemble. We did have an FX23 but it wouldn't go under the fore peak berths so downsized. Jonathan's comments on sizing is interesting. However, we just don't use the FX, the Rocna lives in the anchor locker and at 10kgs easy to lift out with one hand and chuck overboard.

Pete

 

[Neeves]

I have spent way too many hours in the water, getting cold and watching anchors rotate to new wind directions.

The response of the Danforth/Fortress anchors is interesting. As has been reported by many users, this type of anchor design does not rotate as well as most other designs. This is quite obvious underwater.

The anchor often develops a high list during the rotation. The puzzle is that it does not do this on all rotations (although it is rarely as level as most designs). It is not clear what conditions cause the problem. My theory (and it is only a theory) is that if the substrate becomes significantly firmer with depth, the long stock has a tendency to catch in the firmer ground causing the issue.

In many cases the anchor will dig in and rotates back to level once the new direction of pull is established and the owner is unaware that anything unusual has happened. However, on occasions the anchor will break out completely. All anchors struggle to reset if they are moving at any speed and the lightweight aluminium Fortress and Guardian seem to struggle more than most. The anchor also has a tendency, on rare occasions to drag in an apparently stable fashion with the anchor at close to 90° to its normal orientation. It can stay in this orientation sometimes showing no inclination to bury over long distances. See the photos below (this is in quite a firm substrate but it can also adopt a similar orientation in softer ground):

I think the Fortress/Guardian anchors are a great choice for a secondary or kedge anchor. Every cruising boat should consider buying one of these anchors. Personally, I would not use this style of anchor as a primary anchor unless I was sure the direction of pull was going to remain reasonably stable.

The first anchor is a Guardian, not a Fortress. The shank is a giveway - it has the same section from crown to shackle point. The shackle has the clevis pin through the shank, round hole will not accept the eye of the shackle. As the Captain mentioned, unsharpened fluke edges, less sharp toes - I wonder if they make more of a difference than we think. The second anchor/picture - same anchor.

Excellent pictures

I wonder when we will get the picture of the alloy Spades and steel Spades

Identifying and naming anchors correctly is critical, especially if you are comparing an alloy Spade with a steel Spade (or Fortress and Guardian) - but maybe not if you are trolling.

I wonder what the agenda actually is.

Jonathan

edit

The image shows why setting an anchor alarm is valuable (no matter how good your anchor is - other anchors are reputed to clog and drag, or catch something in the toe and drag)

close edit

 

[noelex]

The other problem that can occur with all pivoting fluke anchors (including the aluminium Fortress/Guardian anchors) is a small rock jamming in the fluke. This can occasionally effect the fluke angle and can prevent the anchor setting if it is flipped the other way around.

This mechanism is often blamed for poor resetting performance, but my feeling is that while this jamming does occur sometimes, the fundamental rotational performance is a more important factor.

This photo is of a steel not an aluminium anchor, but it illustrates well how small stones can jam between the flukes. This was a very rocky substrates, but isolated stones such as this also occur in softer bottom types.

 

[Neeves]

Noelex,

Instead of knocking the competition about weaknesses that are known and accepted

Stop hiding behind you typewriter - stand up like a man and explain why your anchor is as good as a Rocna - and not a I suggest as good as an equally weighted Delta.

Your images are good and powerful, they illustrate exactly why you should not use a fluke anchor (Fortress/Danforth) in a rocky substrate - we know all this. But you have been spruiking your Mantus - take some responsibility. Anchors are safety item, or maybe you forget.

Jonathan

 

[vyv_cox]

The other problem that can occur with all pivoting fluke anchors (including the aluminium Fortress/Guardian anchors) is a small rock jamming in the fluke. This can occasionally effect the fluke angle and can prevent the anchor setting if it is flipped the other way around.

This mechanism is often blamed for poor resetting performance, but my feeling is that while this jamming does occur sometimes, the fundamental rotational performance is a more important factor.

This photo is of a steel not an aluminium anchor, but it illustrates well how small stones can jam between the flukes. This was a very rocky substrates, but isolated stones such as this also occur in softer bottom types.

I found exactly the same problem when testing the Knox. I even managed to haul the anchor up with the chain in the slot, not to mention tons of weed. Difficult to understand why the Knox anchor has twin points with the slot between. Definitely its Achilles heel IMHO.

 

[vyv_cox]

The other problem that can occur with all pivoting fluke anchors (including the aluminium Fortress/Guardian anchors) is a small rock jamming in the fluke. This can occasionally effect the fluke angle and can prevent the anchor setting if it is flipped the other way around.

This mechanism is often blamed for poor resetting performance, but my feeling is that while this jamming does occur sometimes, the fundamental rotational performance is a more important factor.

This photo is of a steel not an aluminium anchor, but it illustrates well how small stones can jam between the flukes. This was a very rocky substrates, but isolated stones such as this also occur in softer bottom types.

I found exactly the same problem when testing the Knox. I even managed to haul the anchor up with the chain in the slot, not to mention tons of weed. Difficult to understand why the Knox anchor has twin points with the slot between. Definitely its Achilles heel IMHO.

 

[ghostlymoron]

What does "spruiking your Mantus" mean?

 

[Neeves]

Noelex is Australian, he knows exactly

VERB

Australian
informal
1Speak in public, especially to advertise a show.
‘men who spruik outside striptease joints’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 Promote or publicize.
‘the company forked out $15 million to spruik its digital revolution’

But summarising

Noelex has no images of set aluminium alloy Spades to support his trolls

He cannot support the statement that a large anchor is safe at short scope

He cannot contradict the statement that a Mantus has the same hold as a Delta of similar weight

He does not mind trolling a Fortress that was actually a Guardian.

Credibility looks lacking - I wonder how many of hi other statements can be taken at face value

'Spruiking' seems an apt word. I think there is another 'shrill' which has American (?) origins

I really don't mind, against the rule here, of someone promoting a product in an educational manner - I do expect honesty, openness (of the product) and integrity. - especially when the information that is hidden impinges on safety

And I'm not keen on anonymous charlatans who take not an iota of responsibility.

Jonathan

 

[thinwater]

...I think there is another 'shrill' which has American (?) origins....

Actually, that is "shilling," or to be a shill, which is a lot like "spruiking," is not related to British currency, and is not a compliment.

(urban dictionary)
shill
A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.
Who are you shilling for?