Photos of Anchors Setting

[chasfgr]

Originally Posted by chris95040

Chasfgr- Could you elaborate on "handling the CQR's peculiarities" ? I think I've just been lucky so far in my anchoring.... It'd be nice to have a few additional tips + tricks up my sleeve.

I have a 45lb CQR on my 20,000lb 41 ft monohull, it's worked well for me with just dropping it when we've come to a stop, laying a good 4:1 or 5:1 scope (all chain), hooking up the snubber, motoring in reverse until the chain looks tight, verifying we aren't moving, and calling it a day.

In New England I don't get to go take a peak at it very often to verify how it set so this thread has been a real eye opener - thanks Noelex!!!!!


-Chris!

It takes much longer to set, than modern anchors, about 4-5m and needs far more pulling in than most people give it and it really doesn't take well to short scopes - I find 5:1 about the minimum. It's small fluke area makes it useless in soft mud and soft sand, but marvellous in shingle. Most people pull it in sufficiently for it to be "cocked" (the start of the set) which is quite dangerous because a wind shift can then cause it to drag.
For the Med, there are a whole raft of anchors better suited for the sandy bottoms you get.
As to rusting - well the galvanising comes off any anchor doing its job properly and burying itself.

[Blue Skye]

Originally Posted by conachair

Any chance we could keep the cqr / newgen in threads elsewhere, please ? In the history of threads this is one of the best ever, it would be nice to stay on topic without the "anchor noise"
Ta

Amen! but, I surmise there is no chance

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

In the 3rd picture of the Delta there looks to be some chain at the top. Was the anchor chain wrapped up on itself. I mean that is horrible performance even for a Delta. Something wrong there I think.

This was a very atypical result from the Delta.

The Delta can sometimes be defeated by a very hard substrate. It drags with its toe down, but never managing to dig in. The thicker ballasted toe of this sort of design needs quite a bit of force to get it to initially bite and then continue to penetrate. The geometry of the fixed plow design does not present the toe at a very aggressive angle of attack which further exacerbates this issue. Typically the toe just scrapes the sand when this problem occurs.

However, to see one drag like this with no sign that the toe is even engaging the substrate is very unusual. It does suggest there was something wrong with the anchor.

It was very hard to examine this anchor with the clouds of sand and the constant movement, especially while trying to take photos at the same time. It was also in reasonably deep water. So the possibility of some sort of unseen problem with particular anchor is real, but I am sure the chain was not around the fluke.

[Llamedos]

Originally Posted by poiu

Sorry for contributing to what might be thread drift.

I disagree with the first point. If you set your scope to achieve a desired angle of pull on the anchor and make that choice to allow for storm conditions then catenary has no effect on scope as the chain is nearly straight. The biggest impacts on scope required are the strength of holding, , the holding power of your anchor, the strength of wind expected and how much scope you are able to let out. I would agree with what you say about catenary if it were to relate to low wind strengths up to say 20kt where the catenary has a big effect on the pull angle on the anchor.

As to the second point. The chain can never be straightened out. It will break before it flattens. At somewhere around a quarter of the chain's breaking strength the flattening of the catenary is at the upper end of the exponential reduction of the curve. From there to the chain's breaking point is a matter of a few inches in a typical scenario. The chain at that stress will have more elongation (and damping effect) from its elasticity than from the catenary curve elongation.

Maybe slight thread drift but the topic is all about how well or badly anchors can set in different conditions, sea beds, scopes etc so a bit of discussion on scope is not too far off topic.

I tried to make the point that extreme conditions are very much different to normal conditions and that my comments were based on normal anchoring conditions.

Most of us select our scope on the basis of depth and anticipated holding conditions - we do not select a scope for storm conditions in "normal" circumstances. I agree that in storm conditions the catenary is not a significant factor. In "normal" conditions catenary is important and it is worth helping people understand the effect it has.

Almost everyone I know tries to select an anchorage that gives good shelter from any expected winds and to try and make sure the wind is offshore to minimise sea conditions, so all my comments are valid in most anchoring conditions.

Can the chain be straightened? The quote you included from my post said pretty much the same as your point 2. Once you get anywhere near that point conditions are going to pretty extreme and it is highly likely that the actual holding power of the anchor will be the limiting factor not the breaking strength of the chain unless the anchor is wedged in a rock!!!

In extreme conditions it is vital that there is some shock absorption in the system and this is usually in the form of a snubber - for extreme conditions a much longer snubber line than normal is highly recommended. The main function of the snubber in extreme conditions is to prevent shock loadings at the anchor that can easily cause the holding to fail catastrophically.

Another poster also mentioned Alain Fraysee's website and it is very informative, albeit probably a bit too technical for many people. However it is well worth a look if you really want to understand the mechanics of anchors, scope, wind strengths etc.

[cagney]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

It does look twisted in photo 2, but I think it is just an illusion.
This is a photo taken from almost the same angle and it looks straight or even a bit twisted the other way.

Most of the photos are taken at a very wide angle setting and the camera lens does have some distortion.

It is very hard to examine the anchors closely on the bottom so if anyone sees anything that I have missed, or an anchor that is non genuine, please point it out.

Looking at the photo I still think this Delta is twisted. The tip of the anchor is supposed to be in the same plane as the flat (normally vertical) side of the shank. So I would expect the tip of a " healthy" Delta to be much closer to the bottom. I think that a normal Delta would even have the tip starting to poke into the bottom.
Any chance of looking at this anchor when it's off the bottom, or has the boat already left your anchorage?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by cagney

Any chance of looking at this anchor when it's off the bottom, or has the boat already left your anchorage?

Sorry, they only stayed a few hours. You could be right. It would certainly explain the weird performance.

The great thing about photos is people can judge them for themselves. I cannot see evidence of the twist myself, but I am often too busy taking the picture to note these things when diving. So anyone can make valid judgments based on the images.

I am concerned that in photographing a lot of anchors it is easy to make mistakes and condem an anchor for poor performance without realising it is a copy, or bent/modified. I hope these kind of mistakes are rare, but if anyone notes examples like this please come forward. The advantage of a forum is that multiple opinions can hopefully filter out these issues.

[noelex 77]

I have been asked for photos of the Mantus on the bow. So I took these today.

It is hard to get a good perspective from these shots. I will try to take some photos from the tender, but my tender fits on the transom so it is a bit of pain to retrieve it after I have pulled up the anchor. So you have to wait .

To paraphrase Steve Dashew "The anchor isn't big enough until people in the marina start laughing". Well I only go to a marina every couple of years, but I hope I could at least raise a smirk .





If you are worried about an anchor getting dirty on the bottom, just give it a spa

[chasfgr]

Originally Posted by cagney

Looking at the photo I still think this Delta is twisted. The tip of the anchor is supposed to be in the same plane as the flat (normally vertical) side of the shank. So I would expect the tip of a " healthy" Delta to be much closer to the bottom. I think that a normal Delta would even have the tip starting to poke into the bottom.
Any chance of looking at this anchor when it's off the bottom, or has the boat already left your anchorage?

I'd agree with Noelex that the shank is straight, but I suspect, when recovered one will find the shackle jammed down the shank, so that the pull is closer to the root and totally unbalancing the anchor. Insofar that the pull is twisted I'd agree.

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

To paraphrase Steve Dashew "The anchor isn't big enough until people in the marina start laughing". Well I only go to a marina every couple of years, but I hope I could at least raise a smirk .

It doesn't look stupidly big and the roll bar is only as wide as the pulpit. However, that said I wouldn't want to be blown side on to you in a marina but on the other hand there is plenty of room to hang a big fender

Keiron

[poiu]

Originally Posted by Llamedos;

...Most of us select our scope on the basis of depth and anticipated holding conditions - we do not select a scope for storm conditions in "normal" circumstances...

But we should anchor as if we will encounter a storm and with a fair scope as well as well set. Do we know what will happen in the night? In the Caribbean squalls of storm force strength are not uncommon. This is one of the lessons from looking at all the pictures noelex is taking. From the pictures of badly set anchors ( and some on ridiculously short scopes) it is clear we are not prepared for bad conditions. We need to set our anchors an awful lot better to stand up to the storms and squalls that will hit sooner or later. I believe assuming normal conditions is right at the heart of the problem.

[kas_1611]

Originally Posted by poiu

But we should anchor as if we will encounter a storm and with a fair scope as well as well set. Do we know what will happen in the night? In the Caribbean squalls of storm force strength are not uncommon. This is one of the lessons from looking at all the pictures noelex is taking. From the pictures of badly set anchors ( and some on ridiculously short scopes) it is clear we are not prepared for bad conditions. We need to set our anchors an awful lot better to stand up to the storms and squalls that will hit sooner or later. I believe assuming normal conditions is right at the heart of the problem.

A wise skipper consults the weather forecast and makes his/her decision on where to anchor (or not) based on that. If the weather forecast indicates that a storm is due to pass over then you either ensure your anchor is set for those conditions or run for a safe harbour. Trust me if I see a storm is forecast I'm heading for a harbour or marina, if none are available then I aim for the most sheltered bay around and will stern to anchor with 2 stern lines out.

Sure conditions can suddenly appear as I know from personal experience. Anchored outside Cavtat we had set the anchor, reversed on it and checked our transits. All was good, forecast was for no more than 20kts, which we know our Delta is perfectly happy with. At 4am the Bura hit us with winds of 45kts, out of the blue and yes we dragged. So did several other boats. We picked up, circled round the bay and an hour or so later the wind had dropped to single digits so we reset and went back to sleep for a couple of hours.

What we have all seen from this thread is all anchor types need to be set properly and that there are a scary number of sailors who either don't know how to do this or don't have the experience to know why it is so important. I sleep sound in my bed, comfortable that my anchor should not drag (I do have an anchor alarm & I set the wind alarm too) but there is always the worry of the idiot(s) around who "lob it and forget".

If this thread does nothing else I hope that it will make people realise how important good technique is for safe, secure anchoring whichever anchor we chose to use. And for that we are all eternally grateful to Noelex and his mermaid.

Keiron

[chasfgr]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I have been asked for photos of the Mantus on the bow. So I took these today.

It is hard to get a good perspective from these shots. I will try to take some photos from the tender, but my tender fits on the transom so it is a bit of pain to retrieve it after I have pulled up the anchor. So you have to wait .

To paraphrase Steve Dashew "The anchor isn't big enough until people in the marina start laughing". Well I only go to a marina every couple of years, but I hope I could at least raise a smirk .





If you are worried about an anchor getting dirty on the bottom, just give it a spa

Looking at these pix, my guess is that you assembled the roll-bar when the anchor was in the roller.
Which is what I'll have to do, when mine arrives. We'll then see if I can climb over it when moored bows-to at a quay.
I have to confirm Greg and Phillip were a delight to deal with, within 24 hrs of my first enquiry the anchor was on its way. They do have a Netherlands distributor now but he was out of stock.
And not the silly prices quoted by Rocna, Manson et al.
OK have to pay the kleptocrats when it gets here!!

[Llamedos]

Originally Posted by poiu

But we should anchor as if we will encounter a storm and with a fair scope as well as well set. Do we know what will happen in the night? In the Caribbean squalls of storm force strength are not uncommon. This is one of the lessons from looking at all the pictures noelex is taking. From the pictures of badly set anchors ( and some on ridiculously short scopes) it is clear we are not prepared for bad conditions. We need to set our anchors an awful lot better to stand up to the storms and squalls that will hit sooner or later. I believe assuming normal conditions is right at the heart of the problem.

I think Kas has answered your point pretty well but I would add a little more.

In my original post I made the point that it is often not possible to use much more than 5:1 scope in the busier / smaller anchorages around the Greek Islands and Turkish Coast, I also said I hade no probs with long scopes in extreme conditions and deserted anchorages. However if you were to routinely anchor in these areas with "storm scope" you would pretty quickly cause problems with all the other boats anchored on "normal" scope and I do not believe it is wise to encourage others to use long scopes in normal circumstances.

As Kas said you need to consult forecasts and be aware of local conditions to decide on scope required not simply put out storm scope "just in case".

I agree with your comment about most people needing to set their anchors much better to improve their security.

In storm conditions the limiting factor is almost always the holding power of the anchor in the sea bed - i.e. you will drag before anything else fails. If your anchor does not have enough holding power no amount of scope will save you in extreme conditions, long scope will help a little but the benefit is marginal. If you read Alain Fraysee's page you will see that he states scopes beyond 8:1 give very little extra security because the angle of pull is already very low at 8:1 scope - actually 7 degrees. I accept that long scopes can give a little more shock absorption but this is only a marginal benefit in extreme conditions.

To survive extreme conditions it is vital that we have an anchor that has sufficient holding power - everything else is secondary. This probably means having an oversized anchor compared to "normal". It is also vital that the anchor is properly set and that the bottom is of a good holding to ensure that the anchor is able to perform to it's maximum potential.

We have a 35kg Rocna type anchor, this is one size bigger than recommended and once we are happy that it is properly set we are very comfortable and happy we can cope with most unexpected squalls or gusts that we are likley to get here even on our normal 4:1 or 5:1 scopes.

Poiu - you may have mentioned it previously but it would help if you confirm the type and weight of your anchor so we can judge if your call for longer scopes is justified.

[chasfgr]

I hope this is not considered "fred drift", but on looking @ Alain Fraysse site again,
Rode - Static Behavior
the starting point for his subsequent calcs is as follows:-
Depth Minimum scope Chain length
4.6 m (15 ft) 5.6:1 26 m (84 ft)
9 m (30 ft) 4.0:1 37 m (120 ft)
18 m (60 ft) 2.9:1 54 m (176 ft)
These have more to do with angle of incidence @ the anchor stock, to allow the flukes to penetrate, than with wind forces. These numbers are based upon all chain but he does go on to assume a chain/textile rode 70%/chain 35% textile.
His (almost) standard storm scope is 7:1 minimum in 6m water.
I'd recommend the site - the math is easy, the conclusions clear but remember this work is now about 10 years old and anchors have developed considerably since then.
Whether or not modern anchor design have made these figures too conservative could be argued, but I'd stick with them.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by kas_1611

A wise skipper consults the weather forecast and makes his/her decision on where to anchor (or not) based on that. If the weather forecast indicates that a storm is due to pass over then you either ensure your anchor is set for those conditions or run for a safe harbour. Trust me if I see a storm is forecast I'm heading for a harbour or marina, if none are available then I aim for the most sheltered bay around and will stern to anchor with 2 stern lines out.

What we have all seen from this thread is all anchor types need to be set properly and that there are a scary number of sailors who either don't know how to do this or don't have the experience to know why it is so important. I sleep sound in my bed, comfortable that my anchor should not drag (I do have an anchor alarm & I set the wind alarm too) but there is always the worry of the idiot(s) around who "lob it and forget".

If this thread does nothing else I hope that it will make people realise how important good technique is for safe, secure anchoring whichever anchor we chose to use. And for that we are all eternally grateful to Noelex and his mermaid.

Keiron

I quite agree, except for your first paragraph. We often don't know when that thunderstorm will hit and certainly don't know if a storm force squall will hit, so we need to anchor as though a storm will hit. OK, you could make an exception for when conditions are really settled, but it's not hard to set well, so I do it every time.

Originally Posted by Llamedos

I think Kas has answered your point pretty well but I would add a little more.

In my original post I made the point that it is often not possible to use much more than 5:1 scope in the busier / smaller anchorages around the Greek Islands and Turkish Coast, I also said I hade no probs with long scopes in extreme conditions and deserted anchorages. However if you were to routinely anchor in these areas with "storm scope" you would pretty quickly cause problems with all the other boats anchored on "normal" scope and I do not believe it is wise to encourage others to use long scopes in normal circumstances.

As Kas said you need to consult forecasts and be aware of local conditions to decide on scope required not simply put out storm scope "just in case".

I agree with your comment about most people needing to set their anchors much better to improve their security.

In storm conditions the limiting factor is almost always the holding power of the anchor in the sea bed - i.e. you will drag before anything else fails. If your anchor does not have enough holding power no amount of scope will save you in extreme conditions, long scope will help a little but the benefit is marginal. If you read Alain Fraysee's page you will see that he states scopes beyond 8:1 give very little extra security because the angle of pull is already very low at 8:1 scope - actually 7 degrees. I accept that long scopes can give a little more shock absorption but this is only a marginal benefit in extreme conditions.

To survive extreme conditions it is vital that we have an anchor that has sufficient holding power - everything else is secondary. This probably means having an oversized anchor compared to "normal". It is also vital that the anchor is properly set and that the bottom is of a good holding to ensure that the anchor is able to perform to it's maximum potential.

We have a 35kg Rocna type anchor, this is one size bigger than recommended and once we are happy that it is properly set we are very comfortable and happy we can cope with most unexpected squalls or gusts that we are likley to get here even on our normal 4:1 or 5:1 scopes.

Poiu - you may have mentioned it previously but it would help if you confirm the type and weight of your anchor so we can judge if your call for longer scopes is justified.

You are focusing on scope. That doesn't matter much and I don't know where you get that I am arguing for long scopes as in your example. OK, scope does matter, but I'm not saying put it all out. If you have a 3:1 or less scope as many of Noelex's examples feature, especially if not set then you are really asking for trouble. Set on 5:1 or 6:1 and then go down to 4 if you really must, are well set and have no swinging room and are prepared to take more of a risk on holding. A 5:1 scope is better and gives 70% of Fortress anchor strength for example. Not a terrible loss. If the anchor is correctly sized, well set, ideally tested (takes full reverse) then you are ready for the storm force squall.

You also refer to extreme conditions. I am not suggesting preparing for that, but maybe this is semantics. One person's nasty storm is another person's strong wind. A storm force squall (>40kt is what I have in mind), which I don't think is extreme. A little worrying, sure. A simple reverse test will prove if your anchoring and gear is up to it. Pretty easy.

I have a Rocna 70kg, though I can't see why you ask, what that has to do with any of my comments or how it might possibly justify my call for longer scope even if I had made such a call. These points apply regardless of what hook you choose to throw in.