My Rocna didn't hold in mud - a first. Confession from a cocky new gen anchor owner

[Jagarwal]

Originally Posted by Panope

I am a terrible communicator.

I disagree, marketing hype had me buy a 33 Kilo Rocna, luckily I caught your videos before shackling it to my chain. Returned it for a refund and picked up a Mantus M2 instead and have had no problems so far, with the caveat being I’ve only used it for about three months.

Thanks for the work and expense you bear putting these anchors to the test.
If people aren’t getting the valuable information from your videos it’s on them as poor or lazy seekers of information.

Jack

[Sailor 99]

Originally Posted by Panope

The reason they don't watch the videos is because they (for the most part) suck.

-boring
-endless hours of mud
-poor editing
-poor choice of words
-poor on camera/microphone demeanor
-a voice that irritates some liseteners

I am not joking. I believe I have been successful at finding some good info about anchors and utterly terrible at communicating the info.

Steve

Not at all. I think you do a tremendous job.

[ColIn Ferguson]

My Rocna has failed several times in different circumstances, but usually due to poor holding with thick weed or a hard bare rock bottom.
However I have also had it fail several times in med style stern to mooring during my early learning stage with it.

I believe the problem was that I did not pull up hard enough on the chain and put out too much scope for it to dig in properly. I tended to pull up with the windlass until it was a bit tight, but with a long scope of heavy chain it is easy to delude yourself that the anchor is in, when it is not.
The windlass is struggling to pull up as hard as a 43 ft boat in a breeze, so the anchor does not set well.
The key is to put out less scope so the chain is properly straightened out and the anchor dug in. I now drop no more that 3 boat lengths out, pull up to the max with the windlass and that seems to work much better.

[Icarus]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I have often thought about diving down and using a small hand sledge hammer to set my Rocna where I know the bottom has a hard pan layer or is clay.



At the extrema or upper bound, where the bottom is like a concrete slab, one would not expect any anchor to hold. From that bottom types can span the range to soft silt where the water bottom interface is not well defined.



I know I would sleep better in some locations if I dove down and hammered the anchor in. That said, in the event of a reset it would be unlikely to be successful.



It seems that in the long haul, having a night watch during bad weather is the only sure way to avoid a possible disaster.

Diving on your anchor with a sledge hammer?
Forums are full of wisdom.

[Kropdad]

Hi Steve, I watched your videos for the better part of two weeks as I'm a bit of a newbie and wanted the best anchor I could afford. I think your videos are exactly what I needed, informative and open minded. We ended up going with the excel and have not dragged once since purchase, even in some decent blows with a goodly amount of fetch. Thanks mate, we really appreciate the effort you put in.

[Goodboatguy]

For the OP, you may need more scope. Anchoring in shallow water requires a higher scope ratio than anchoring in deep water. I learned this anchoring in shallow water in windy conditions and occasionally would feel a sharp jerking motion of the boat, which I eventually realized was the chain coming tight to the anchor.

Applying some physics:

In deep water, as the boat moves aft, the chain lifts, and it takes a tremendous load to pull the chain tight all the way to the anchor. Say you are anchored in 50 ft of water with only 3:1 scope, then you would have 150 ft of chain out. With no load, the chain will hang vertical for 50 ft and have 100 ft along the bottom. To pull the chain tight to the anchor, the boat would have to move aft 41 ft (hypotenuse = chain length of 150 ft, depth = 50 ft, then bottom L = 141 ft. 141 ft - 100 ft = 41 ft to move aft to pull chain tight), but its unlikely to so due to the dampening effect of lifting the chain.

In contrast, the OP's situation had 90 ft of chain in 11 ft of water. Ignoring the height to the deck, that's 8:1 scope, which seems better than 4:1, right? Not really! At rest, the 90 ft of chain would have 11 ft vertical and 79 ft along the bottom. When the wind pipes up, the boat will pull the chain tight after moving aft only 10 ft (hypotenuse = 90 ft chain, 11 ft depth, and 89 ft bottom distance. 89 ft - 79 ft = 10 ft). If the chain pulls tight, it can jerk the anchor out of the bottom and the boat will drag.

Comparing the "work" involved with lifting the chain makes the comparison even clearer. Work = force x distance. Assume the chain weighs 1 lb/ft. In deep water water the "work" required to lift the chain to tight condition is 2500 ft-lbs vs only 320 ft-lbs in shallow water. Bottom line, it shallow water, you need to use a substantially higher scope ratio as compared to deep water.

[opusnz]

Originally Posted by Panope

The reason they don't watch the videos is because they (for the most part) suck.

-boring
-endless hours of mud
-poor editing
-poor choice of words
-poor on camera/microphone demeanor
-a voice that irritates some liseteners

I am not joking. I believe I have been successful at finding some good info about anchors and utterly terrible at communicating the info.

Steve

Steve, don't be so hard on yourself. Your videos are fantastic for those who actually want to learn from real world experience. They have made me much more knowledgeable about anchoring, despite being an opinionated old fart who one time thought he knew it all. Some people have the attention span of a gnat and will never sit through one of your videos but it isn't your fault. Just ignore them. You do a great service so please keep it up.

[David Mathis]

For many years we’ve been satisfied with a modified 20K Bruce although we still use a Danforth in soft mud. For the first couple years the Bruce usually held but a few times it failed to penetrate hard sand and hard clay. After diving on it when it failed to penetrate hard sand and dragged quite some distance, an idea of sharpening the leading edge emerged. Not long after that incident, the anchor was removed from the boat and introduced to an angle grinder. The leading edges and tips were sharpened to about like the edge of a butter knife or maybe a little sharper while avoiding making it so sharp that a cut was a threat. The bare metal was sprayed with cold galvanized to delay the inevitable rust. We later returned to the spot with the hard sand that the Bruce did not penetrate. After the changes in the edges and tips, it easily penetrated the bottom within a few inches of the drop and when the power was applied, it dug in much better than In pre sharpened configuration. It penetrated so deep that breaking it out of the hard sand was a real chore when trying to leave the next day. The sharpening didn’t make it a magic bottom hook but did improve the performance significantly in some hard to penetrate bottoms.

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by gulfislandfred

I remember all the same praise for the Bruce, when they were the new thing.



A lot of people use Bruce anchors, especially commercial fishermen. A lot of fishermen use the Northill, too. They're not as pretty on the bow roller, which seems to be one of the criteria for some folks.


Every anchor drags sometimes. Blame the anchor, spend more money on the latest, if you like.



The reason you can't sell a Bruce for $100 is that you can buy a new one, or a decent copy, for $100. Yes there are bad Bruce copies available for the same price.


People who can afford jewelry will pay for it. People who don't have much money will still go cruising, and use what works.

Couldn’t leave this well enough alone. I’m sure folks long ago also said this when the fisherman anchor was the standard and the “new fangled” CQR and then Bruce came along.
Sure, most anchors work most of the time. And no anchor works 100.00% of the time.
It’s all a percentage game and it’s pretty clear most new gen anchors raise the success rate significantly especially in less than ideal conditions (like shifting winds and currents, short scope, emergency setting, and lack of time for “soak” and “careful” technique)
All of us who have spent far less than most boat systems cost on a new gen anchor swear never to go back. If one’s budget is so tight (which I respect, having been there) so as not to afford a new gen anchor, so be it.

But, don’t be deluded into thinking the Bruce and CQR will have the same success rate over 100s of sets in varying conditions as the Mantus, spade, excel, and others.

[Quebramar]

Originally Posted by Goodboatguy

For the OP, you may need more scope. Anchoring in shallow water requires a higher scope ratio than anchoring in deep water. I learned this anchoring in shallow water in windy conditions and occasionally would feel a sharp jerking motion of the boat, which I eventually realized was the chain coming tight to the anchor.



Applying some physics:



In deep water, as the boat moves aft, the chain lifts, and it takes a tremendous load to pull the chain tight all the way to the anchor. Say you are anchored in 50 ft of water with only 3:1 scope, then you would have 150 ft of chain out. With no load, the chain will hang vertical for 50 ft and have 100 ft along the bottom. To pull the chain tight to the anchor, the boat would have to move aft 41 ft (hypotenuse = chain length of 150 ft, depth = 50 ft, then bottom L = 141 ft. 141 ft - 100 ft = 41 ft to move aft to pull chain tight), but its unlikely to so due to the dampening effect of lifting the chain.



In contrast, the OP's situation had 90 ft of chain in 11 ft of water. Ignoring the height to the deck, that's 8:1 scope, which seems better than 4:1, right? Not really! At rest, the 90 ft of chain would have 11 ft vertical and 79 ft along the bottom. When the wind pipes up, the boat will pull the chain tight after moving aft only 10 ft (hypotenuse = 90 ft chain, 11 ft depth, and 89 ft bottom distance. 89 ft - 79 ft = 10 ft). If the chain pulls tight, it can jerk the anchor out of the bottom and the boat will drag.



Comparing the "work" involved with lifting the chain makes the comparison even clearer. Work = force x distance. Assume the chain weighs 1 lb/ft. In deep water water the "work" required to lift the chain to tight condition is 2500 ft-lbs vs only 320 ft-lbs in shallow water. Bottom line, it shallow water, you need to use a substantially higher scope ratio as compared to deep water.

This is brilliantly clear, will not forget this - thanks much!!

- An «*anchoring newbie*» who hated physics in high school [emoji17]

[Shaneesprit]

How did you set the anchor in the first place?
I always drop anchor under way and let the boat about turn as it digs in, then let the scope out
Nearly took all of my scope recently as I couldn’t tie off as the rope went through my fingers, anyway slowed it down enough and run aground as she turned - guess it was shallow enough 😂 at low tide

[Rotten Ricky]

There is no such thing as the perfect anchor as the sea-bed material they try to attach to varies enormously.

I have had great service from my knock-off, Bruce-style anchor and it continues to be my main anchor - but I have personally witnessed a C&C 40 hung up temporarily on a reef and when they hauled the anchor there was a huge rock jammed in its throat, stopping the anchor from burying on a reset with the tide change! But depending on the application I still think the Bruce or clam-style are a good and economical anchor.

The one anchor I plead with people to stay away from is the Danforth. In a single direction with a steady pull they are OK - if you can get them to attach. They might be OK as a temporary monitored lunch hook. But with the tide change, the line or chain will wander and possibly get fouled around the cross-bar or shank and will not reset. Then you have a pile of chain and stuff sliding around the sea floor. I had this happen and nearly end up on the rocks - TWICE! - so never again will I use a Danforth or its variants like Fortress. An anchor should have a smooth single shank that nothing can foul on. Like my other anchor a CQR.

As with some other designs, the Danforth are also hopeless in eel-grass or hard sand or anything that it can slide over. But like I say, every situation is different.

Best of luck in finding the perfect anchor.

Cheers, RR.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Palarran

I don't know but it does show the one major fault of the new gen anchors which is when they do break free, if plugged with mud, won't reset.

Its not new gen anchors, its Roll Bar Concave anchors, I have postulated here many times that the reason IO wont use them is the scenario as you described.

[David B]

Originally Posted by Factor

Its not new gen anchors, its Roll Bar Concave anchors, I have postulated here many times that the reason IO wont use them is the scenario as you described.

Agree - as per my earlier comment here, I see the roll bar is a 'fix', over an anchor that has weight in the right place, and not that bar that can foul the anchor.

Good marketing presenting something that appears radically different, with the advantage of lighter handling weight. They generally work well - but then there are the situations where those two features become the issue.

[Simi 60]

And yet here we are with roll bar concave anchor, 150lb Manson supreme
Has never let us down in 5+ years of constant anchoring and has held our 65 tonne in 80'knots with a 180degree wind shift and many 40 to 50 as well.

Never once seen a clogged hoop