Chesapeake Bay Anchor Holding Power Test

[onestepcsy37]

Whats that saying, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee".

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[botanybay]

Originally Posted by markpierce

With a strong 180-degree tidal change assuming heavy/dense mud, does the anchor break free and hopefully reset itself or does it rotate within the bottom/mud, continually holding?

With a known 180 degree shift why are you not putting out two hooks?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by botanybay

With a known 180 degree shift why are you not putting out two hooks?

This was quite a common practice, but many of the modern anchors reorient themselves so well it is usually unnecessary. It may be counterproductive if two lighter weight anchors are used instead of one heavier model.

With a large expected wind, or current shift two anchors are still sometimes used to limit the swinging circle, but this is a different purpose.

[estarzinger]

I hear the results of the testing were "interesting", in particular for fortress's first set .

My personal opinion/take away on the value of most anchor testing is reflected in the fact that I have chosen to have on my bow one of the designs (manson Ray) that consistently does worst in most test, after having tried on my bow one of the designs that does best in most tests.

[Jim Cate]

Evans, that is just too tantalizing! Could you pass on what you heard, please? By PM if you don't want to go public...

And FWIW, I share your doubts about these tests. Not that I really believe that they are bogus, but that the difficulties of accumulating realistic data are too complicated to be economically feasible.

Cheers,

Jim

[Kenomac]

There's a lot more to anchoring than just dumping various anchors in mud and running a test. Like last week, we dropped our anchor here in Sardinia into a small cove with a mud bottom... Excellent holding. Came back to the same spot today, no holding... Took two tries. The first time, the Ultra wouldn't hold because we hit rock. If you can't see the bottom... How can a fair comparison be made? Even when they're dropped near the same spot.

Ken

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I hear the results of the testing were "interesting", in particular for fortress's first set .

The Fortress did not set at the 45° angle on its first setting attempt. We can speculate all day as to why, but we will never know the reason for certain.

Originally Posted by Kenomac

There's a lot more to anchoring than just dumping various anchors in mud and running a test. Like last week, we dropped our anchor here in Sardinia into a small cove with a mud bottom... Excellent holding. Came back to the same spot today, no holding... Took two tries. The first time, the Ultra wouldn't hold because we hit rock. If you can't see the bottom... How can a fair comparison be made? Even when they're dropped near the same spot.

Ken

So true! We are running the tests in a relatively close area while making sure that each anchor is getting a fresh seabed every time, and after day two the results so far have been inconsistent for nearly all of the anchors.

There were pulls were the anchors spiked loads initially, but then tapered off as the pulling continued, then other pulls where it took a long time for the anchor to engage the bottom, but it finished strongly.

More to follow.

Brian

[estarzinger]

^^ and hmmmm . . . there might have been some shells stuck in the flukes on the second fortress set The third set was very good.

As I mentioned by pm to a couple people, I think you can learn more about anchoring (and it's challenges and inconsistencies) from these tests than you can learn about anchor designs. There is simply too much "experimental inconsistency" to draw much conclusion about design. And a soft mud surface may be the most inconsistent bottom of all.

Ps . . . I am a fortress fan. Just in one example . . . We had four different anchors out in hurricane Lenny and the fortress seemed the most secure when I went to pick them all up at the end.

[sailorboy1]

so the sponsoring anchor manufacturer had a problem setting their anchor and they admitted to it

kind of tosses out the naysayers posts that suggest the tests are worthless

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ and hmmmm . . . there might have been some shells stuck in the flukes on the second fortress set The third set was very good.

As I mentioned by pm to a couple people, I think you can learn more about anchoring (and it's challenges and inconsistencies) from these tests than you can learn about anchor designs. There is simply too much "experimental inconsistency" to draw much conclusion about design. And a soft mud surface may be the most inconsistent bottom of all.

Ps . . . I am a fortress fan. Just in one example . . . We had four different anchors out in hurricane Lenny and the fortress seemed the most secure when I went to pick them all up at the end.

So am I, but this underlines for me two things: a) a company willing to make public its failures as well as its successes might have a touch more integrity than most; and b) "one anchor to rule them all and to the bottom bind them" may be illusory. There are too many Bruces and CQRs happily hooking out there to completely rubbish them as decent anchors, and there are plenty of newer designs that encounter problematic holding conditions to fully endorse their efficacy in all bottoms.

So we should prepare for this by keeping a Plan B at the ready. If there's one ground I would've thought the Fortress would do well it, it's mud at 45 degrees. When I use that around here, I can barely get the thing out with a 90 degree straight pull: it wants to stay buried. But clearly this is not a universal attribute, but equally clearly this doesn't make "Fortress in mud" a bad match. It means "watch even your favourite anchor, because all anchors will eventually meet a bottom in which they can't set, for whatever reason". I look forward to the full test results.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

So am I, but this underlines for me two things: a) a company willing to make public its failures as well as its successes might have a touch more integrity than most; and b) "one anchor to rule them all and to the bottom bind them" may be illusory. There are too many Bruces and CQRs happily hooking out there to completely rubbish them as decent anchors, and there are plenty of newer designs that encounter problematic holding conditions to fully endorse their efficacy in all bottoms.

Absolutely. I have to take a hard look at all of the test results (we have 50+ tests now) to comment with specifics, but for the most part, the "new generation" anchors did not set themselves apart from the "old generation" models with better performance in these soft mud bottoms.

In fact, I think a serious question was raised that if a new generation anchor landed on its roll bar in soft mud whether it is still able to orient the anchor and turn the fluke into the bottom, or will the roll bar just sink into the bottom and the anchor will be pulled along upside down?

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

So we should prepare for this by keeping a Plan B at the ready. If there's one ground I would've thought the Fortress would do well it, it's mud at 45 degrees. When I use that around here, I can barely get the thing out with a 90 degree straight pull: it wants to stay buried. But clearly this is not a universal attribute, but equally clearly this doesn't make "Fortress in mud" a bad match. It means "watch even your favourite anchor, because all anchors will eventually meet a bottom in which they can't set, for whatever reason". I look forward to the full test results.

I think every anchor was humbled in this bottom, including ours.

Interestingly enough, we ignored our own advice during this testing, which is to set the Fortress at a short scope in soft mud to prevent the possibility of the weight of the chain sinking the shank below the flukes (image below), leaving the flukes pointing up instead of down and into the bottom, and it did happen for everyone to see. The anchor basically just surfed the bottom.

When the flukes did engage the bottom properly at the long starting scope we were using (about 8.3:1), the loads achieved at the 45° angle were certainly the highest in the test, as they went well past 2,000 lbs.

After we completed our testing of every anchor 4x (including the Fortress at the 32° and 45° angles) over almost 3 days of pulling, we changed our protocol to see if all anchors would benefit in this soft mud bottom from a shorter initial scope. We starting letting out just over 2:1, then we gave each anchor a "bump" before paying out the balance of the wire rope.

Maybe we can learn something that we can pass on to owners of these other anchors.

Our testing by this method was delayed after the 21 lb FX-37 held to about 2,200 lbs, and then after we terminated the test at 600 seconds (10 minutes), the wire rope broke at 3,500 lbs when we were trying to bring the anchor back aboard (image below). Although the wire rope had a much higher breaking strength, we had a sharp angle pull on it as the anchor was under the boat and off to starboard when it snapped.

Hearts definitely stopped when this happened, but I think that the running line tensiometer, which was mounted on the aft deck near the winch, kept the rope from coming back towards us bystanders.

More to follow.

Brian

[thataway41]

How about some test results? It has been several weeks since the "Testing" was done.

Thanks!

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, Thataway.

[S/V Alchemy]

Been away for a bit and just spotted this.

Originally Posted by Fortress

In fact, I think a serious question was raised that if a new generation anchor landed on its roll bar in soft mud whether it is still able to orient the anchor and turn the fluke into the bottom, or will the roll bar just sink into the bottom and the anchor will be pulled along upside down?

A valid question. The concentration of weight in the anchor tip of some of the Rocna/Manson lines is supposed to address this, but it does remain a possibiliy. Of course, an entrenched upside down plow is likely to hold until it literally pops out under a fairly mild tug. Badness follows.



I think every anchor was humbled in this bottom, including ours.

Interestingly enough, we ignored our own advice during this testing, which is to set the Fortress at a short scope in soft mud to prevent the possibility of the weight of the chain sinking the shank below the flukes (image below), leaving the flukes pointing up instead of down and into the bottom, and it did happen for everyone to see. The anchor basically just surfed the bottom.

What was the length of your chain leader vis-a-vis the depth and the total rode length? In just playing around with the one Fortress I have, I have found that more than about 12 feet of chain seems to be a touch counter-productive...I started with 20 and it seemed to bury in some grounds faster than the anchor could "fluke in". So I shortened the chain and went with a 5/8" rode and all is well, but I don't have particularly challenging holding ground around here. I only see loose mud in a few estuaries. Of course, I have only been able to see the chain bury before the anchor in a couple of very calm settings...usually everything is by "feel" or if I find a lot of material on the chain when I haul in.

When the flukes did engage the bottom properly at the long starting scope we were using (about 8.3:1), the loads achieved at the 45° angle were certainly the highest in the test, as they went well past 2,000 lbs.

Matches my results, but I favour longer scopes. I only drop to 5:1 for "calm lunches".

After we completed our testing of every anchor 4x (including the Fortress at the 32° and 45° angles) over almost 3 days of pulling, we changed our protocol to see if all anchors would benefit in this soft mud bottom from a shorter initial scope. We starting letting out just over 2:1, then we gave each anchor a "bump" before paying out the balance of the wire rope.

Maybe we can learn something that we can pass on to owners of these other anchors.

That's all to the good, I think. Technique is a sometimes overlooked part of the product story.

I look forward to more results. Next week, I'll be generating a few myself down the lake.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by thataway41

How about some test results? It has been several weeks since the "Testing" was done.

Thanks!

I think we will post the charts this week and possibly the videos from all 4 days on YouTube.

Regards,
Brian