Yep - we dragged!

[Don C L]

I was corrected long ago on the kellet aiding the scope idea when it was pointed out to me that the scope is not increased by the weight added to the rode, but its resistance to lift it is. So once the chain is pulled taught, there's your scope. There's definitely certain advantages to keeping your anchor pulled at a lower angle to set and in absorbing shock, but the scope is what it is.
Rotating 180 in mud does seem to be an Achilles heel for anchors, but I confess this only from what I have read, since I don't have gooey mud around here. But I sure would like to see the thread of underwater shots of anchors rotating in mud!Any volunteers?
One more idea to throw in the mix: Is it possible your anchor was set in any kind of an incline in the bottom? Pulling on an anchor that is headed down a slope can really help it lose traction since the angle of the anchor in relation to the bottom is very bad and even letting out more scope won't help. Where I am we anchor bow and stern typically and often the anchor closest to the beach may be on the incline of sand coming down off the beach. Not only is this an incline but it is soft sand, and I know that won't hold, no matter how much scope I've got, so I make sure my anchor is out on bottom that is as flat as available. And I gotta watch it since we can get good breezes at night coming off the beach in some coves.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by GregW1309

I read you got the 40-60 knot gust at the same time as a 180 degree wind shift. I think ithe anchor would have to be bury'ed really, really deep to keep the set.

We had one of those cyclonic twists once, Harness Creek on the South River (another Chesapeake tributary). We hadn't right-sized our ground tackle yet for this new-to-us (at the time) boat, so the Fortress FX-23 was what we had at the time -- brought over from a previous smaller boat. It was well-set that evening, but we spun that 180° so fast I only barely had time to get the to the bridge and get the engines started... and the big "whoosh" freight train sound gave us a hint about what to expect next.

Happy ending: the "whoosh" abated, and it was easier to lift the anchor and return to our own marina only a couple miles away in dead black cloudy conditions but no serious seas on the river yet. Got to the marina, watered the dog, deluge started, and we enjoyed a nice dinner in the slip.

I didn't have an electric windlass yet, so didn't yet want to install an anchor that's too heavy to routinely lift manually... but we did immediately replace the FX-23 with an FX-37, which is more in line with this boat's weight and windage. Problem solved. Largely by avoiding those cyclonic events!

Originally Posted by Gaia

Afew weeks ago while in Martinique and convincing a friend to buy either a Spade or a Rocna (he bought the Rocna) and looking for test articles to convince him, I came across a test article by Fortress in which they showed how Fortress anchors are the best. I, knowing from experience that this is not always the case, guffawed when I read they did all their testing in the Chesapeake!

I might agree with carrying a Danforth like anchor like the Fortress only if I was only ever to anchor in deep mud instead of all other types of conditions.

Fortress has done other tests elsewhere. West coast somewhere, at least, maybe others. That particular series of tests you're probably on about where specifically about testing anchors in soft mud, and there's plenty of that around here. I think all the test results and the articles that were published based on those tests concurred the Fortress anchors work pretty well in soft mud.

And gazillions of boaters here on the Chesapeake never anchor in anything else. It's usually either mud, occasionally hard mud, often soft mud, sometimes slime... and sometimes covered with leaves.

-Chris

[Steve Bedford]

I am not sure I have ever seen so many comments in such a short time. Excellent comments by many very knowledgeable cruisers. As an anchor manufacturer, you might be surprised to hear me say this but regardless of what any manufacturer will want you to believe, every anchor has the potential to drag! There are a number of reasons for this; some operator error, some bad luck, and some “anchor error!” Yes, anchor error. Again, contrary to what anchor manufacturers will want you to believe, some great anchors simply have a better design for certain seabeds than others (or are not as suitable for certain seabeds than others).

I have been anchored in San Domingo Creek many times. The Creek is known for its soupy seabed or ooze. However, there are areas in the Creek where the seabed has greater depths of the ooze than others. Meaning, the anchor has to dig deeper in these areas to find more solid holding. Unfortunately, you might not find this out (the selected spot) requires even deeper setting until the winds pick up significantly. In some cases, this is bad luck in specific anchoring location selection! After a number of times in this creek, I believe I have found a couple of spots that appear to have less ooze than others before finding the more solid seabed. I always try to go to these spots. That is not about an anchor design but more about my trial/error on location selection.

I can provide some helpful comments (some have been stated): I always use the widest or most open setting on the Super MAX Anchor for ooze. This provides maximum resistance against the softer seabeds. Second, I always set out more rode (mostly chain) in these conditions, 10:1 or greater. Third, heavier is better than lighter in soft conditions. If an anchor has a roll bar that is usually excellent in “righting the anchor” to the attack position, the very soft seabeds sometimes (not always) does not provide enough resistance to allow the roll bar to do its thing to right the anchor.

Good luck. Maybe off list, I can share my “good spots” in San Domingo Creek!

Steve

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Steve Bedford

I have been anchored in San Domingo Creek many times. The Creek is known for its soupy seabed or ooze. However, there are areas in the Creek where the seabed has greater depths of the ooze than others. Meaning, the anchor has to dig deeper in these areas to find more solid holding. Unfortunately, you might not find this out (the selected spot) requires even deeper setting until the winds pick up significantly. In some cases, this is bad luck in specific anchoring location selection! After a number of times in this creek, I believe I have found a couple of spots that appear to have less ooze than others before finding the more solid seabed. I always try to go to these spots. That is not about an anchor design but more about my trial/error on location selection.

Useful to know. We've only anchored in San Domingo Creek a couple times over the years, as one stop on our Knapp's Narrows/Cambridge/Oxford/St. Michaels/Knapp's Narrows "circular" trips...

Didn't happen to encounter any problems there, weather was dead calm, but it seems a common condition around here. Crab Creek/Church Creek on the South River is another area where there's maybe some decent holding somewhere in there... but it's more likely ooze until you can find decent mud...

I still haven't yet had to use the more open setting on our SuperMAX, though.

-Chris

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Tingum

Many of the creeks in Md. have no bottom, the water just get thicker as you go deeper!
Not a lot that can be don unless you have a crazy heavy anchor.

When I lived up there, running aground on the Severn River used to be the least traumatic groundings ever. Your speed just slowed as you plowed through the ooze on the bottom!

[Sailor647]

Originally Posted by bensolomon

I would suggest adding a longer snubber, and perhaps change to a Danforth.

I suspect despite your snubber and scope, the shock loading probably pulled your anchor out.

We use a 46# Ultra Anchor, all chain rode 7:1 (unless a blow is coming, then it's 10:1. Swing room isn't limited.), and a Mantus bridal (not a snubber.)

Last time we anchored in the mud at Barra de Navidad, Mexico, we had to use the boat to pull the anchor out, it was buried so deep. (The Ultra digs in a little deeper each time the boat swings.)

Perhaps using an anchor bridal instead of a snubber will help prevent the shock loading that is mentioned in this post? The bridal also distributes the load evenly between the bow cleats and takes ALL the stress off the windlass.

You have a great attitude. Best of luck!

[Don C L]

I’d love to see a Bruce or new gen anchor upside down in really soft mud. I have this picture of the shank settling in a little preventing the anchor from rolling over, and then the upside down flukes only work to keep the anchor on the mud surface while the shank cuts a trough ... anyone seen this by chance or thoughts or am I clearly delusional?

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I’d love to see a Bruce or new gen anchor upside down in really soft mud. I have this picture of the shank settling in a little preventing the anchor from rolling over, and then the upside down flukes only work to keep the anchor on the mud surface while the shank cuts a trough ... anyone seen this by chance or thoughts or am I clearly delusional?

No, I think that is exactly what happened in my one case of dragging excessively. I drug over 100 yds even continued to drag when I had let out ridiculous amounts of scope, if memory serves at least 14 to 1.
I’d even go so far to say that when inverted and settled into soft mud a Rocna is stable, that is it’s not going to right itself unless it hits something to knock it upright.
Conditions were not really all that bad, more unpleasant than bad.
Nothing came up on the anchor the next day other than copious amounts of mud, foul smelling sulphurus black mud.
A problem with photographing on a mud bottom is that often you have about 2ft or vis or less.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

A problem with photographing on a mud bottom is that often you have about 2ft or vis or less.

Yeah i was kinda joking in that one, the few times I’ve gone diving in mud I had 0 visibility as soon as I hit the bottom... maybe sonograms of anchors (not) setting? Where’s Noelex and Panope when ya need em?

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I’d love to see a Bruce or new gen anchor upside down in really soft mud. I have this picture of the shank settling in a little preventing the anchor from rolling over, and then the upside down flukes only work to keep the anchor on the mud surface while the shank cuts a trough ... anyone seen this by chance or thoughts or am I clearly delusional?

i donot have a pic, but i had the abject proof with stuff growing on my one only flukita of my 30 kg bruce when we raised it for marina time, a couple of years ago in barra lagoon.... we moved 5 ft each 40 kt wind, x 4 before returning to summer status of dock queen. err princess, as queens are ambiguous. oh yeah i had 130 or so ft 5/16 chain on bottom.
i LOVE my bruce and would enjoy a 22 kg additional bruce for shorter term anchoring.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I’d love to see a Bruce or new gen anchor upside down in really soft mud. I have this picture of the shank settling in a little preventing the anchor from rolling over, and then the upside down flukes only work to keep the anchor on the mud surface while the shank cuts a trough ... anyone seen this by chance or thoughts or am I clearly delusional?

Oops I meant to say I have a picture in my IMAGINATION of that happening, no photos yet.

[model 10]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

One very popular new generation anchor is notorious for claiming superior holding... This roll bar type anchor clogs with weed or mud preventing a reset.

If you were talking about something like the 25 kg Rocna on my boat, that's what it does. I checked out a couple of boats in Isla Mujeres, MX after some wind that didn't drag and they had old CQR's that were completely buried in the grass and mud.

[hpeer]

That’s where IMHO the Mantus has an edge, that roll bar is huge by comparison.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by hpeer

That’s where IMHO the Mantus has an edge, that roll bar is huge by comparison.

Or the Spade that rights itself with a weighted tip instead of a roll bar.

[hpeer]

Yes, and I have one of each. I don’t consider the spade a great mud anchor due to the low weight to surface area. Ether in gravel and rock.

But also I like a LOT of weight. Weight improves just about everything in anchoring except you back. If I lost the windlass I would switch to the 66# Spade or FX-37 I carry on the stern.