Photos of Anchors Setting

[gspeak]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Is it possible to go to the bother to take tons of pictures (however much fun the locales may be) and not develop well intentioned opinions? Probably not.

If someone takes a lot of data are they then forever barred from giving their opinion? I should hope not.

For years man worked to perfect the plow. Then some damn fool went and make an anchor out of it. (Not original to me but it sails through my head a lot when reading these threads.)

Here we go again! In fact in the past people have been barred forever for giving their opinions in this forum. Coincidentally, (or maybe not) in reference to the exact same direction that this thread is going right now.

Ah well, I guess the wheel turns around again.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Exactly .

I hope by seeing anchors performing underwater in the real world people can make up their own mind about anchor performance. The difference between a top performing anchor and a middle of the road model is generally very obvious. You do not have to look at many examples to see the better models shine.

I hope the objective evidence of posting photos is helpful. Please bear in mind I have been cruising for a long time and have only been taking photos reasonably recently. So my personal opinion of anchor performance is based on observing many more anchors, and of course other sources of information.

You can choose to disregard my opinion and just evaluate the photos yourself, which is fine. In fact it is something I would encourage.

And I did that when you started commenting on anchors you had never photographed, or indeed seen photographed and leaped to conclusions based on what you thought they looked like. The ongoing its a plow and ploughs plowed fields dribble is unhelpful to anyone.

Your photo series and Steve's Videos are wonderful and amazingly good resources, but your movement from evidence to opinion when considering one particular anchor was not helpful to anyone. Thankfully steves videos filled a gap in that evidence for us.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I have seen Excel anchors. My hometown is actually where Excel anchors are made so there is a reasonable concentration of boats with Anchor Right products.

Every time I see an anchor I re-evaluate my assessment so I would like to see more of the Excel, but that is true of all designs. Except Deltas. I have probably seen enough Deltas to last a lifetime .

The Excel is a good anchor, but in my view it does not match the excellent all-round performance of the best anchors.

And this is my point. You have seen an excel, never seen it being used, never used it yourself and never photographed it, and there is a world of objective evidence including Panopes videos and other independent tests - not too mention the large amount of user anecdotal evidence, all of which is strongly supportive of it. Why do you criticise an anchor you haven't used in face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Did Rex's dog bite you when you were a kid or something?

[thinwater]

There are important caveats to photo and video documentation that most of you know:

Very Soft Mud:

1. Setting takes hours. Although you can pull an anchor right in, that is not the best way. The holding capacity of an anchor that is properly set over a long period may be 2-5 times that obtained in a few minutes. It isn't just time either. It is about successive pulls, as the soil consolidates. This has been noticed by every brown water sailor, and documented by major oil companies. Only time lapse video would be relevant. A quick reversal and reset means nothing.
2. The important stuff happens far underground. You can't photograph it. I've done tests where 20-30 feet of chain are pulled under and the anchor is more than 3 feet down.
3. The best fluke angle depends on the bottom. What is best in sand is not best in all materials. What is best in soft mud, may not set at all on firm sand.

Rocks and Shingle

1. The best anchor may be 2 anchors, often holding more than a single anchor of twice the weight (it's more about hooking than mass).
2. The best 2 anchor rig depends on how the anchors move in veers at full load. Very hard to photograph.

In General

1. A photograph does not tell us the holding capacity of the anchor. It does not tell use the effect of scope.
2. The anchor has generally not been set to full storm load (not enough power), so we don't know if it can go deeper... or not. Few of the anchors photographed have seen more than 30% load.

The photos really help, don't get me wrong. I really. deeply appreciate the work. Really. But we must remember that you can only tell so much from surface appearance. There are many valuable clues, but I know from instrumented testing that visual appearance and actual holding can be quite different.


That said, a bad set doesn't get better! Looking is ALWAYS a good idea.

[eheffa]

This thread, along with Steve's SV Panope videos provide us all invaluable data and insights into how different anchors perform in a variety of substrates.

Is the data complete? No.

Are all variables tightly controlled? No.

Are some anchors better represented or tested than others? Yes.

Are some anchors better at setting quickly & reliably? Yes, indeed.

Do some break out and reset better than others when subjected to 180 reversals? For sure.

Nevertheless, there is a lot of room for subjective interpretation of the raw data. Noelex's data shows a
us plenty of examples of Deltas failing to set well while Steve has yet to test one. Steve found the Sarca anchors to perform very well whilst Noelex has had very few Excels show up near him.

I have read every page of these anchor threads and found it hugely enlightening.

My concerns around the performance of my Rocna 25 Kg anchor were addressed well enough by these threads to leave me worried that it might fail me again. Based primarily on Steve's data, I elected to sell it and get a Spade 120 instead but I could have just as well made a good case for the Excel or Mantus. )

We all have our biases and opinions that can be based on little more than wishful thinking. These threads help fill in the blanks and help reduce the subjective influence. Clearly some blanks remain.

Please keep the images & tests coming. It's a huge help.

[downunder]

[QUOTE=Dockhead;2342069]Amen!

To my knowledge, what Noelex has done is the first time ever, that a large volume of absolutely objective, absolutely real life data has been gathered in one place, on the setting behavior of a lot of different anchors. For once you don't need to rely on the opinions of the person who did the test or compiled the report -- you can look directly at the data yourself, and make your own conclusions.

I'm not saying that people's opinions are not useful -- certainly, they are, but the usefulness varies, and you can rarely be sure of the objectivity of them, especially since anchor manufacturers themselves do or commission most of the testing. So it's really great for once to get such a mass of direct observations.

Exactly.

At this point I have been unable to contribute any photos of anchors setting but as a keen diver I hope I will be able to contribute plenty of photos as soon as I start cruising hopefully within 3-4 months time.

[250224]

Originally Posted by Factor

And this is my point. You have seen an excel, never seen it being used, never used it yourself and never photographed it, and there is a world of objective evidence including Panopes videos and other independent tests - not too mention the large amount of user anecdotal evidence, all of which is strongly supportive of it. Why do you criticise an anchor you haven't used in face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

I see your point. *Nevertheless* I appreciated the comment of noelex and I think he sufficiently communicated the background on which his judgement was based.

Anyway, not sure if the photos/videos would hold statistically to be considered 'objective' experiments, let alone 'overwhelming evidence':
- there would need to be made quite many videos in as far as possible normalized conditions using different anchors
- and what should be tested? I just watched the Panopes video where the Rocna didn't bite. But aren't the chaines supposed to lay on the ground near the anchor? Thus, is this video 'real-live-relevant'?

Difficult to know. But such videos/photos give another data point which is valuable. It goes together with the more soft real-live experiences of (longtime) cruisers, e.g. which boat dragged and what anchors were involved.

[double u]

whoa Factor! most everybody will agree that the opinion of somebody having watched as many different anchors in action under so many different circumstances as noelex is somewhat more "educated" (the opinion) than average even on an anchor that he only knows from pics.

[Sailor g]

I agree. Keep the anchor thread going. The photos are great. Nolex is doing a great job. He is just laying out the info and showing how he interprets it. We can interpret it however we want. Thanks Nolex!

[Factor]

Originally Posted by double u

whoa Factor! most everybody will agree that the opinion of somebody having watched as many different anchors in action under so many different circumstances as noelex is somewhat more "educated" (the opinion) than average even on an anchor that he only knows from pics.

Sorry, gotta a disagree, if your only knowledge is a photo on the internet, or even looking at one hanging on a boat, I believe you would do well to hold an opinion until you have seen it in use, particularly a comparative opinion. I have not used a Mantus for example, I thus would not be prepared to support or criticise the anchor, what I would say is that there is a fair degree of anecdotal evidence out there that indicates they are a good thing. Noelex should be prepared to do the same with regard the excel. How on earth can someone say "I have never used brand X or even seen Brand X in use - but I know that brand X is not as good as Brand y", seriously, on what planet is that a valid observation. Particularly in the face of vast amounts of user experience and independent testing?

I think the thread is great, and the idea is wonderful.

[gspeak]

Well said Factor! Agree totally. It's a great topic providing mostly useful info except for the occasional bias & snipey "plough/plow" comment.

[noelex 77]

Oh dear, anchor threads do seem to get derailed easily. Sigh.

I don't have any recent anchor photos to get this thread back on track, but I did find these photos of a Danforth, or more correctly a Danforth copy (it is possibly a FOB model). It seems to have slipped between the cracks, and has not been posted, but is an interesting case.

Here is the initial set. The anchor has done a great job setting well and burying most of its fluke within only a few feet. An excellent result that looks safe and secure.

However, in my view, a weakness of this type of anchor design is its ability to retain grip if the direction of pull changes. There was a significant wind shift overnight. Will the anchor hold the boat securely?










Photos after the wind shift to come.

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

.

It looks like the bottom here has been extensively raked by an anchor chain ... Is that from wind shifts? was that from a previous set of this anchor? or a previous boat that had departed?

While I'm here I too would like to add my thanks for posting all these photos ... I've never seen my anchor on the bottom, so I'm learning loads.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

It looks like the bottom here has been extensively raked by an anchor chain ... Is that from wind shifts? was that from a previous set of this anchor? or a previous boat that had departed?

Well spotted.

Chain marks are normalły part of the key in deducing how the anchor has moved. These marks show where the anchor was previously located.

The chain marks will point towards where the end of the shank was located.

In this case you can see from the chain marks that an anchor was located near the bottom left of the photo.

However, in this case, I think the chain marks belong to another anchor that was dropped some time before (as you suggest). I don't think they are related. There is no connecting marks indicating the anchor moved between the two locations. It is just an unusual coincidence that another anchor was previously dropped so close.

It is a strange coincidence that anchors could be dropped within a few feet of each other within a short space of time (the marks will disappear in few days). So if anyone else has alternative view it would be interesting to hear.

Originally Posted by Kelkara

While I'm here I too would like to add my thanks for posting all these photos ... I've never seen my anchor on the bottom, so I'm learning loads.

Thanks.

[noelex 77]

With a significant change of direction of pull, anchors can respond in several ways. In decreasing order of desirability they can:

1. Shuffle. The means the anchor remains buried with both of the flukes engaged. It will then pivot around and not change in position other than rotate. Typically the anchor will develop a list, but this should normally be slight.
2. Rotate around with a very high list. This is similar to 1, but the very high list means the anchor has little grip during the rotation. A gust at the wrong time can break the anchor out completely.
3. Break out but rebury within a short distance.
4. Break out and not rebury.


Providing the substrate is reasonable and the anchor has been initially set, anchor designs that are good at rotating will almost invariably shuffle. I watch anchors carefully, especially my own. In over 2,000 nights of anchoring I never seen either my Mantus or the previous Rocna break out during a rotation. I don't believe a breakout is impossible, but the chance of it happening must be extremely low.

In my view, fluke anchors like Danforth and Fortress will sometimes shuffle, but frequently develop a high list with minimal grip, and on occasions the anchor will break out. An anchor that breaks free is much less reliable. Moving anchors do not set well. There is also always the risk the anchor will pick up some debris or move into an area of less favorable substrate such as thick weed. The pivoting anchors like the Danforth and Fortress also have the added risk of jamming their flukes in the incorrect position. Nevertheless, often, especially in lighter wind conditions, when the anchor does not develop much speed it will successfully reset. In most cases the skipper will be unaware of the drama occurring on the seabed.

I did not see this Danforth anchor rotating. It occurred at night. Nevertheless, the marks in the sand show the anchor completely broke out and had a period of very poor grip before digging in again. To its credit the anchor has reset very nicely burying its fluke completely. Even the shank has disappeared, although the Danforth shank is not very tall, so it disappears with only a small amount of bury. This is about as good a breakout and reset as you can get, but a long way from the security of ideal shuffle.

Also note that this is only about 150° change in direction, not 180°.

The anchor is once again very secure and the skipper is unlikely to have noticed the small movement. Nevertheless, anchors that regularly rotate like this will invariably have occasions when the anchor does not regain grip. Sooner or later the boat will end up dragging as the direction of force changes.