Photos of Anchors Setting

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

You can see how the convex plough style of anchor nearly always takes much longer to set that the concave designs.

I think it is mainly true regarding Delta.
Some time ago I sailed together with friends on another boat, equipped with Kobra (also convex plough) and noticed that it was faster and better setting than my Delta (it was before I switched to the Rocna).

Cheers,

Tomasz

[noelex 77]

Yes the Kobra does set a bit quicker than the Delta. Its longer thinner blade penetrates slightly more rapidly, but it still takes much longer to set than the concave anchors, especially in harder substrates. I don't mean to imply that all convex plough anchors have identical performance, but as you would expect, they do share many similar characteristics.

They also travel a much greater distance when setting deeper. In strong wind all anchors dive deeper, but the convex plough anchors will often travel metres back as they they descend into the substrate. Usually this is of little consequence and goes unnoticed by the boat concerned. There are infrequent times when this causes some problems. The worst is if the distance traveled under the sand, or mud causes the anchor to run into a less good substrate like weed or rock.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it is that anchors like the Spade, Rocna, Manson Supreme and Mantus set, and continue to dig down in a remarkably short distance. The Ratio of distance traveled to depth of set is often quite amazing.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

There are two methods of setting the anchor

1. Slowly reverse, or let the wind blow you back. When you reach your desired scope the load is taken of the windless (with a snubber, or chain stopper) and the reverse thrust is slowly increased starting just at idle reverse and ending up with high revs in reverse for a reasonable length of time (I stop after 30 sec in full reverse). Monitor transits, the rode, and or the GPS to make sure you are not moving backwards.

2. Reverse, laying out the chain. Allow the boat to build up a bit a speed in reverse, but make sure you are laying out chain quick enough so at this stage no load is on the anchor. This is normally done by releasing the windlass clutch so the chain free falls out. When the desired scope is reached and the windlass clutch is tightened the boat continues backward until the chain is pulled tight. The momentum of the boat sets the anchor. A good set is indicated by the chain suddenly going tight (and staying tight). The nose of the boat swings around into the wind, dips down (it almost looks like the boat is curtsying to a well set anchor ) and the boat comes to an abrupt stop. The boat will start to move forward as the weight of the chain sinks and this can be repeated if needed.
Lots of people do this, but if I am using this technique I prefer to use a chain stopper or to attach a short snubber (you need to be very quick). This takes the sudden load of the winch.

I nearly always use the first method. The slow build up of force is the best way to set the anchor. It is controllable and repeatable. You get a feel for how long the anchor takes to dig in and importantly if the anchor is slowly slipping backwards through the substrate. The second method can also be a bit dangerous if you misjudge it. If the boat builds up too much momentum (especially if you don't use the windlass clutch) the boat can come to a sudden stop and rip cleats out of the deck etc. This is especially true of the concave roll bar anchors (like the Mantus) and the Spade. These anchors usually set in 1-2 m. It is safer with the convex plough anchors (like the Kobra) which typically take a longer distance to set (2-6 m).

Anyway, I thought I would give the second method a try with the Mantus. The sudden force is a good test on the anchor in a firmer bottom. Many anchors will not set at all in a more difficult substrate with this sudden force. It also simulates the emergency use of the anchor. In an emergency (like a rope around the prop) when the current is pushing you towards a hazard you drop the anchor when the boat has some speed, hoping it will set.

The left photo shows the result of doing this with the Mantus. The substrate has a very light covering of weed, but this so light it would have little impact. The anchor was set at 4:1 in 9.4 m of water.

We certainly came to an abrupt stop. You can see the anchor set in 0.5m or less. An excellent result for such a sudden set.
The anchor has dug in immediately, but not set quite enough to be acceptable for overnight. You can see the anchor has not yet rotated level with a 20 degree list and there is still about 1/4 of the fluke area and all of the shank exposed. The anchor has done nothing wrong. It just means that next time I should use a bit more momentum, or repeat the sudden stop a couple of times.

In the end after seeing the result I elected to finish off the set by applying steady reverse and the right photo shows the final set. You can see it has dug in better, but only moved a few inches further back. This is typical of top class anchor. These will dig in at a very steep angle, getting deeper while barely moving backwards. A very steep "glide angle" to use an aviation term. Poor quality anchors dig in at very shallow angle often moving back metres and only digging in an extra couple of inches.

The final result is still not quite as good as the excellent sets the Mantus has achieved up to now. There is still a slight list, the shank is 1/2-3/4 buried and there is still a small amount of the fluke exposed. I would judge this an OK rather than excellent set. It is likely the substrate is a bit firmer rather than the different setting technique having an effect. I would expect with a bit more force from wind the anchor will dig in deeper. Importantly the anchor has set sufficiently that it will shuffle around to a new wind direction without breaking out.

We have still been alone in all these anchorages, but hopefully soon I will be able to show you some more results for comparison.

Great minds think alike. I set our anchor exactly the same way with the same float hooked to a 1.5 meter cable for easy attachment and snorkel observation. The only difference now is the type of anchor used. I use a non-roll bar Ultra 45kg.

You are close to Turkey, home of the Ultra... soon our minds will be as one.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You are close to Turkey, home of the Ultra... soon our minds will be as one.

I would love to see more of the Ultra.

It is a very interesting design. In many ways it is like a tweaked Spade and considering the Spade is one of the very best performing anchors it has the potential (on paper) to be a great anchor. I also note it gets glowing reviews from users.

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The only difference now is the type of anchor used. I use a non-roll bar Ultra 45kg.

Hi, Ken
I think it will be useful and interesting to have Your review of Ultra posted here on CF.
It is really and interesting anchor.
Would it be available when I went Rocna way, I could reconsider the choice may be

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

You can see how the convex plough style of anchor nearly always takes much longer to set that the concave designs..

I dislike the term plough, a modern convex is no more a plough than a concave is a sugar scoop. That aside, this video of the older style Super Sarca seems to suggest that the convex sets quicker and deeper than the concave, well at least it suggests that an efficient modern convex does so quicker than a concave?

Super SarcaThere are similar videos of the Excel and boom tests against scoop anchors twice the weight.

And the Robertsons (an independent chain and lifting testing company) data seems to agree.

This data is in agreement with my experience, and of course I understand it is outside of your experience having not used an Excel or Super Sarca

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Factor

I dislike the term plough, a modern convex is no more a plough than a concave is a sugar scoop. That aside, this video of the older style Super Sarca seems to suggest that the convex sets quicker and deeper than the concave, well at least it suggests that an efficient modern convex does so quicker than a concave?

Super Sarca
There are similar videos of the Excel and boom tests against scoop anchors twice the weight.

And the Robertsons (an independent chain and lifting testing company) data seems to agree.

This data is in agreement with my experience, and of course I understand it is outside of your experience having not used an Excel or Super Sarca

I think You are right about "plough" term. Rather dated concept of CQR era.

On the other hand I would be extremely careful about disscussing the merits of convex designs against concave designs or vice - versa.
Any particular design is probably better suited to some kinds of bottoms, and kinds of bottoms are rather countless, if all factors involved would be taken into account. If so - the general disscussion would be long, heartful and pointless

Probably more sense is about disscussing particular designs in particular conditions. It is a pity Noelex does not have many possibilities to compare the performance of Mantus against some other designs...
I think about 90 % of yacht bow anchors in East Med are Deltas. Probably some next 9 % are Kobras, Bugels, CQRs and Bruce anchors (copies included). Rocnas, Spades, Ultras, Mansons are not much more popular than unicorns there. It is very possible Noelex is in possesion of only Mantus in the Med, and it is possible there is not single Excel or Sarca in the Med...
But may be... Hello, Med sailing Aussies and Kiwis! Anybody with SARCA or Excel around????

Best regards

Tomasz

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Factor

That aside, this video of the older style Super Sarca seems to suggest that the convex sets quicker and deeper than the concave, well at least it suggests that an efficient modern convex does so quicker than a concave?

Video and test data produced and paid for by manufacturers should be viewed with some skepticism. Surprisingly, the manufacturer who produced or paid for, the video or test results, has invariably the best performer.

At least I am always surprised .

My internet connection on the boat is terrible at the moment so I cannot view the video. I note it seems to come from the Seawind website, but I presume it is one of the Anchor Right promotional videos, which I have probably seen before.
"URL="https://mail.seawindcats.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?"

The Roberson test data, and presumably the video you linked, were commissioned by Anchor Right. I think the above skepticism should be applied, but even if we ignore this, they do not address the issue of set distance. Ultimate holding power and set distance are separate parameters, both of which are important, but they are not the same thing.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The Roberson test data, and presumably the video you linked, were commissioned by Anchor Right. I think the above skepticism should be applied, but even if we ignore this, they do not address the issue of set distance. Ultimate holding power and set distance are separate parameters, both of which are important, but they are not the same thing.

Seriously? You think Robertson's are catering to Anchor Right's requirements and fudging the figures. Perhaps a call to Robertson's may confirm or negate your view. I seriously doubt they sold their soul.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Factor

Seriously? You think Robertson's are catering to Anchor Right's requirements and fudging the figures. Perhaps a call to Robertson's may confirm or negate your view. I seriously doubt they sold their soul.

+1 As a NATA testing authority they could not afford to sell their sole to a small anchor manufacturer. They are a very large business,one of Australia’s largest Lifting, Rigging & Height Safety experts. They have branches in Brisbane, Gold Coast, Toowoomba, Brendale, Mackay, Gladstone, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Muswellbrook and Newcastle. I seriously doubt they could be bribed if that was being suggested.

https://www.lifting.com.au/home.aspx

We could possibly criticise that the testing was done for this data with small anchors, only with a TATS in a limited area. Why TATS because it can give perhaps more repeatable and controlled conditions than from a boat. It is simply a very costly and expensive to test anchors.

Its does however clearly indicate what we already know that New Gen anchors outperform CQR/ Delta. At least that is agreed.

It also suggests that the Sarca Excel is at least equilivant to the ROCNA and Manson Supreme in the conditions tested with some suggestion it may be better.

Without actually using an Excel I could not suggest it performs better than a Rocna however in the gravel and hard sandstone/shell in this particular location it did and equaled performance in other types. Interesting to see as many suggest from real world experience there is not a lot of difference in performance between Manson Supreme and ROCNA.

If Anchorright alone inhouse submitted the results from his own testing the results could be easily discredited. However with an Nationally Accredited Testing Authority standards involved (Robertsons) the data must be considered valid for the conditions of the test.

It does suggest that its is certainly worth considering that the Excel seems at least equal to and possible better in some conditions than the Manson Supreme and Rocna.

Until we see some tested in the Med conditions we will not know for sure.

Feed back on the Excel so far from users in Australia looks good and it is unfortunate the Sarca threads that have been closed.

We can look forward to seeing some photos of Excels at anchor to contribute to this thread.

Cheers

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Factor

Seriously? You think Robertson's are catering to Anchor Right's requirements and fudging the figures.

The Robertson's test data has been discussed at length previously in the forum. My understanding is that the test was commissioned, paid for, and conducted by Anchor Right, using Anchor Right equipment at locations selected by Anchor Right.
Anchor Right chose parameters like the pulling speed, scope etc. Robertson acted as observers.

There is nothing wrong with this. All the manufacturers produce some videos and tests that show their anchor in the best light. They would be silly to do otherwise.

However, as consumers it is important that we differentiate between data like this and the independent tests conducted by the large magazines where the manufacturer has no control over important parameters like the location and substrate.

In the Robertson's test data the Super Sarca is clearly vastly superior to the Rocna and Manson Supreme. In one substrate the Super Sarca has 12x the holding power of the Manson Supreme .

For a comparison the independent Yachting World test found the Sarca's holding power distinctly worse than the Delta's:

SARCA
1,500 lbs
1,250 lbs
750 lbs
1,250 lbs

DELTA
3,000 lbs
3,500 lbs
3,600 lbs
1,500 lbs

The Yachting World test was on the earlier Sarca rather than the slightly modified current Super Sarca, but even if we accept Anchor Rights contention that the Super Sarca has 30% more holding power than the Sarca these results suggest Delta like performance at best. It is a long way behind the the top performers (Fortress, Spade, Rocna and Manson Supreme) that held over 5000 lb in many locations.

There are many threads on anchor tests. They are an important tool in evaluating anchor performance, but I hope in this thread we can get back to looking at and judging underwater photos of anchors. I believe this also has a role to play in understanding and assessing anchor performance and this has not been well documented in the past.

[noelex 77]

To get the thread back on track here a photo of the Mantus taken yesterday evening. At first glance it looks no different, but if you examine it closely it has dug in a tiny bit deeper. The fluke is now a little more covered.

The wind was only forecast about 22 knots, swinging about 40 degrees from the initial set direction. This wind strength is not normally enough to cause the anchor to dig in any more (based on my observations of my Rocna). but this anchorage has some quite high steep hills. Like many such anchorages rather than a steady 20 knots there was very little wind followed by strong gust for a few seconds.

Often these short gusts are absorbed by the chain catenary and the stretch of the snubber, but yesterday this was just enough to start to set the anchor a little more.

[Sulaire]

Short ultra anchor review: We have lived onboard with our ultra anchor for 3 years now, we never use a marina during the summer and leave it until the last moment to go into one in the winter. Currently in greece, but have anchored everywhere between here and Scotland, also used it all over the wild north west coast of Scotland so a big sample of locations !

There is no need for long winded discriptions, the thing just works! First time ( except on hard rock!! DOH!), windshifts no problems, even violent 30kts 180 degree windshifts , we were solid as others drifted about. Sets in its own length, and the harder you pull it the more it digs in. During the above wind shift it tipped over and reset straight away, and that was a solid full 180 sudden 30kts wind shift! That took about 30 seconds to execute. To be fair it was a nice sandy bottom, but still it passed the test, MANY others did not.

I do think more than half the battle is preparation as in many things. We use the ; drop and let out 3x depth and let the wind dig us in before letting more out and giving it a slow increase upto a long blast in reverse. If there is heavy weed we leave it to jiggle its self through it for a while before applying reverse.

Used to have a delta, but, evolution is a great thing and the new generation of anchors ( most of them) are superior to my mind, but there aint no use in having the biggest fanciest newest hook if you do not set it right. This thread gives some good pointers to that end and the visualisation is great, so keep up the good work, one day we might stop by your anchorage and we can have a tractor pull!!

Anyway , I sleep well at night, which is the best result!

Charlie.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The Robertson's test data has been discussed at length previously in the forum. .

You have me concerned now, I didnt realise that Robertson's could be dodgy, I will give them a call Tuesday morning and put your comments to them. See what they say. Its only fair.

[Ozbullwinkle]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

However, as consumers it is important that we differentiate between data like this and the independent tests conducted by the large magazines where the manufacturer has no control over important parameters like the location and substrate..

You really think that the tests done by yachting magazines are totally impartial?

Funny how often the manufacturer who comes out on top of the "independent tests" then has a substantial spread of advertising in the same mag and this applies not just to anchor tests. Magazine test results, while they can be beneficial, really need to be treated with a degree of scepticism as they are far from impartial. Do you really think that they would want to risk loosing a very profitable advertising account by slamming the same company during testing?