The Delta Failed us Again.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

It's why I carry an old fisherman's. It's only 15 lbs., but in certain weed or rock bottoms, it's the only thing that will grab. Damned useless save for a bar ornament otherwise.

Have you ever needed to use it? For rocks, any anchor with a grabbing surface like a Bruce or Rocna should work just as well. For weeds, a 15lb fisherman is too light.

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Get a good book, like Earl Hinz's, and learn about the newer anchors.

That is an old book and doesn't discuss any anchor newer than the Delta (at least mine doesn't - maybe he has written a new edition?). A better book discussing new anchors and anchoring technique and theory is Alain Poiraud's.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by congo

Something that should be taken into consideration, Delta anchors, when we released our Sarca anchor some twenty years back, Simson and Laurence launched the Delta, I am fortunate enough to still have my origional test Delta from Simson and Laurence.

When Robertsons anchor testing took place they supplied a Delta themselves only now they were all made in China, when comparing-- the origional Delta had a thinner shank and was a much harder steel as to the China produced unit from Robertsons.

Performance was chalk and cheese, and yes the origional Delta in soft mud matched against the Rocna or Supreme was an absolute eye opener in diving and holding power where as the one produced in China was a far cry from the origional.
This may well explain why some swear by them and others dont.

Regards Rex.

I think we had an original - it was a much thinner shank and the bottom edge of the shank was actually machine sharpened. I have never seen another like the one we had.

Mark

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by colemj

I think we had an original - it was a much thinner shank and the bottom edge of the shank was actually machine sharpened.

It is a pity more anchor manufacturers don't do this.
The Bugal and Fortress have a shank that is machined /extruded to taper and penetrate better. The Spade and Ultra also have shanks that are fabricated to be thinner at the bottom.
It is a feature that could be usefully incorporated into many designs at least over the part of the shank that does not rest on the bow rollers when retrieved.

[congo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by colemj
I think we had an original - it was a much thinner shank and the bottom edge of the shank was actually machine sharpened.

No mark, our origional Delta is not shamfered on the underside of the shank.

And No Noelex we do not have to sharpen the underside of our anchor shanks, our anchor designs bury shank and all, if you reverse throttle at all you will not get to see the anchor.

Your float, roll bar anchors (concave ) dont need the float for the purpose you explained as they rarley will ever bury the roll bar.

In strong shifting wind and tides the rope of the float makes a very good fast anchor release system when you least of all want it to,seriously- well you may argue but we have tried your float method with a boat moored close to shore in strong wind testing an anchor, sure enough it ended up on the beach with the float rope tighly lashed around the chain.

Regards Rex

[pbiJim]

In areas with bottoms that are tough to penetrate, I've seen fishermen take a file to the points on a Danforth.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

It is a pity more anchor manufacturers don't do this.
The Bugal and Fortress have a shank that is machined /extruded to taper and penetrate better. The Spade and Ultra also have shanks that are fabricated to be thinner at the bottom.
It is a feature that could be usefully incorporated into many designs at least over the part of the shank that does not rest on the bow rollers when retrieved.

The flip side of a sharp fluke (I realize you were talking about shanks -- sorry for the drift) is that it doesn't hold galvanizing. My Spade is rusty on the sharp bits, and can't be regalvanized (AFAIK, because of the cast-in lead ballast), and was rusty before my first season with it was over. The yellow application on the top of the fluke comes off, too. So they tend to look pretty shabby after a short period of hard use.

The only solution to that is use it often -- anchoring in sand "sands" the rust right off, and the anchor looks ok again for another week or two

[Stu Jackson]

SCOPE

Anchor Scope Illustrated Photo Gallery by Compass Marine How To at pbase.com

[colemj]

Originally Posted by congo

No mark, our origional Delta is not shamfered on the underside of the shank.

Hmm. Here is a picture of a Delta in a Yachting Monthly article that I found googling. This is what ours also looked like. I also found a review on the Delta anchor when it first came out by Charles Kanter where he mentions the shank being sharper on the bottom. The Delta Anchor times 300 (5th paragraph).

Mark

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't know if you ever anchor in deeper water, but by the time you get to 15 or 20 meters depth, I think 3:1 is fine.

In the English Channel, where the tidal range can be more than 10 meters (33 feet), you can often find yourself in 20 meters of water at high water after anchoring in something much less at low water.

In that kind of water, I typically just put out my whole chain (100 meters or 330 feet of 12mm), but if there's not enough swing room for that, 3:1 is really ok.

No, not yet, and I concur that with all-chain, it's less of a concern. I expect this will be the case when we go voyaging and fetch up on islands with relatively steep profiles. I've been present when anchoring in places with wide tidal ranges, however...just not longer than lunch!

I was addressing specifically the OP's original scenario, which was in relatively shallow water and in tight conditions.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by colemj

Have you ever needed to use it? For rocks, any anchor with a grabbing surface like a Bruce or Rocna should work just as well. For weeds, a 15lb fisherman is too light.



That is an old book and doesn't discuss any anchor newer than the Delta (at least mine doesn't - maybe he has written a new edition?). A better book discussing new anchors and anchoring technique and theory is Alain Poiraud's.

Mark

Yes, I used it once here in shallow stuff and light air on Lake Ontario, but it served with 5 m of chain and about 30 m of rode in 3 m of depth on a 33 foot five tonne boat. The 15 kg. Bruce wouldn't get down at all, and that's how we discovered a mild current, but strong enough to see us drag.

The Earl Hinz book is indeed old in regards to latest generation anchors, but I meant in terms of total anchoring technique (which includes scope, the usefulness of swivels, the use and rigging of snubbers and bridles, and considerations of scope, tandem moorings, etc. Even the nearly extinct kellet on a messenger line!).

Anchors are of course a critical part of that discussion, but as is widely acknowledged, if you have the other pieces of the puzzle as part or your seamanship, you can get an old Bruce or CQR to work in many, if not most, conditions. When I hear arguments in favour of the newer style SHHP anchors that one can "anchor in 5:1 or even 3:1 scope", I think "why would you want to do that?" Some of the arguments seem to validate bad practices, like insufficient scope, rather than using the better holding power with the proven techniques of adequate scope, snubbers, bridles, etc.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by congo

Quote:
Originally Posted by colemj
I think we had an original - it was a much thinner shank and the bottom edge of the shank was actually machine sharpened.

No mark, our origional Delta is not shamfered on the underside of the shank.

And No Noelex we do not have to sharpen the underside of our anchor shanks, our anchor designs bury shank and all, if you reverse throttle at all you will not get to see the anchor.

Your float, roll bar anchors (concave ) dont need the float for the purpose you explained as they rarley will ever bury the roll bar.

In strong shifting wind and tides the rope of the float makes a very good fast anchor release system when you least of all want it to,seriously- well you may argue but we have tried your float method with a boat moored close to shore in strong wind testing an anchor, sure enough it ended up on the beach with the float rope tighly lashed around the chain.

Regards Rex

Rex, good to see you are still posting. Good points. I've yet to see a SARCA Excel here in Toronto, but maybe before we go...otherwise, I'll have to come to you. It's on our short list for a main anchor.

[jeepbluetj]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

However, I'd still be interested to hear if anyone familiar with Dana Point has had a similar problem in the East basin or can comment on what I could have done differently.

There's all kinds of info on the thread already, but I have indeed anchored there several times so I'll add some local info for the rest of y'all.

Why 3:1? this is a very small anchorage - not alot of room at all. So it's generally always short. It's also inside the breakwater.

Was winter, so I was the only boat there, and used a CQR copy with about 4:1 scope, maybe a bit more. Didn't drag. But I've got a whole lot less boat than the OP.

Using two anchors would give you much more stress on the anchor from the current. Wind is usually quite negligible there at night, and there are no waves - it's inside the harbor. So the biggest factor IMHO is current. anchoring parallel to the breakwater (the one that runs to the beach - behind the baitbarge) may give less stress on the tackle due to current (and wind) - but most folks face stern-to that breakwater.

The bottom is best described as trash-laden goo. It's soft mud with junk in it.

There is another designated anchorage outside the harbor (towards Doheny - by the inlet) that is undoubtedly quite rolly, but is generally empty enough to let out lots of rode. (I've never anchored there)

And of course, there's guest slips over on the west end - except this weekend because of the boat show.

[Robin3]

anchoring parallel to the breakwater (the one that runs to the beach - behind the baitbarge) may give less stress on the tackle due to current (and wind) - but most folks face stern-to that breakwater.

Am I understanding that people routinely anchor fore/aft across the current? No wonder the odd one will go walkies, especiallly if the bottom is not good holding as well! What is the attraction of being stern to the breakwater or do some tie the stern to it to get ashore maybe? I cannot envisage any scenario where I would deliberately anchor side on to wind or current, however little.

[jeepbluetj]

If you look at the google image, the sailboat is anchored in the area the OP was talking about.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Da...1b764516f668df

You'll notice it's on one anchor, I'm guessing that it's showing that the current is coming in. (I don't see any flags flying where there are flagpoles, and the water looks calm)

When I go by the anchorage, I often see boats anchored there facing stern-to that breakwater (was a raft-up that way this weekend).

My slip is in the east basin, so I go by this anchorage all the time. I don't generally look close enough to notice 1 or 2 anchors, and if the wind is a bit northerly (rather than the prevailing westerlies) wind may rotate that way. Was just really pointing out that it'd be best to anchor for current in this spot.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

When I hear arguments in favour of the newer style SHHP anchors that one can "anchor in 5:1 or even 3:1 scope", I think "why would you want to do that?"

Unfortunately particular anchorages often limit the maximum scope that can be used. (This can vary depending on the wind direction, other boats etc)
This is not a problem that is related to new generation anchors, but has been a difficulty that has always faced cruising sailors.

You can, and should, reject some anchorages because the maximum possible scope is inadequate for the conditions, but too much caution and you will miss out on some great spots.