Anchoring in Mud

[boatman61]

There are seriously times I wish I was not a polite English Ass...... but this is getting technically over the top stupid......

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by Teeto

This thread seems to have tapped into long held "religious" beliefs about anchors. Very interesting to hear. I would be intrigued to hear about positive/negative experiences with the Manson Supreme from others. Craig thanks for the feedback. I'd just like to hear some impartial views on both types - Rocna & Manson.

I used a Manson Supreme 35 pound before moving to a Rocna 20 (44 lb). I kept the Manson because it's a great anchor and it's a backup primary. (Secondary is a Fortress FX 23).

I rate the Manson and Rocna about equal, but there are differences. The Manson has a much sharper point and will likely penetrate weeds and hard-pan better. The Rocna tests higher in ultimate holding in published tests (I have never been able to verify this in my own use, nor have I tried to set up any scientific comparison.) The Manson shank and roll-bar sit higher on the roller, and it therefore is more likely to interfere with sprits and retaining pins. This last attribute is why I chose Rocna -- I could mount a larger size Rocna on my bow roller, and there is no such thing as too much anchor at 0-dark-hundred when a squall comes through . I have never dragged with either and have always been able to get a good set first attempt (so I guess the Rocna is sharp enough).

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

I rate the Manson and Rocna about equal, but there are differences. The Manson has a much sharper point and will likely penetrate weeds and hard-pan better.

It doesn't though, does it - it never has, primarily because it's tip-weight is so compromised compared to the genuine Rocna (between 17-23% vs the Rocna's 33%) - and especially since they started recently running a blunt chamfer around the tip so it's no longer sharp at all! Too many issues with damaged tips or rusting as the galv wears, precisely why the Rocna does NOT have an ultra sharp edge. It might work well for a while but will not stand the test of time.

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

The Rocna tests higher in ultimate holding in published tests

Including harder seabeds. Why? Because it penetrates faster and deeper.
http://www.petersmith.net.nz/boat-an...eme-anchor.php

[Mark Johnson]

Fortress,

I'm surprised to hear your comments arguing against the quality of your own anchor... Hmmm?

If you look at my past post carefully you can see that what I said was: "in a comparison of the "lightweight" type anchors, test research as well as my personal experience, was that pound for pound the Fortress was the best holding of the type". This is why other than my primary bow Delta, I have three successively larger Fortresses. For relatively small trimarans like mine, MAX strength doesn't mean as much as a piece of gear's strength to weight ratio, so that is what trimaraners look for.

In other words, the fortress 55 that I used to carry as a storm anchor, which weighs around 35#s, IMO, will out perform ANY 35# lightweight in the world, (for straight line holding power). I suspect in fact, that a Danforth would have to weigh twice as much to equal it in straight line holding power. So the Fortress has a much higher strength to weight ratio.

Since I made this point in several places in my previous post, I'm surprised to see you disagree with my statement.



CFARRAR,

I agree with your point completely! Before the three anchors that you mentioned came out, the Delta had recently been proven to out perform the most popular... Bruce and CQR in test after test. In fact a CQR had to weigh 45#s to equal the Delta @ 35#! So the Delta having a better strength to weight ratio, made it an easy choice for me on my trimaran. It was also found to set quicker and re-set more reliably.

When I cruised the Chesapeake for the first time, I got to experience the lowest density mud I had EVER encountered. My Delta, as well as all of my Fortresses (in the mud position), could not stand the full RPM backdown that I always try to do, not even close! (My 18 HP and folding prop, isn't all that powerful in reverse)

Since we were getting 60 knots of wind in a thunderstorm, about every week or ten days, this was very important!

So, NONE of my anchors could get a grip in this "snot" mud. Then I learned to drop the Delta, fall back, and leave it in reverse at just above idle, for about 30 min. (I'd just chill and have a beer). Afterwards, I'd slowly go up to 2,000 RPM for 5 or 10 more minutes. Then ever so slowly, go up my 3,000 + target RPM. It took time, but certainly wasn't hard work.

Very Very soft mud like the above, is a challenge, and in this case, even my huge Fortress was neither gripping in, nor getting below, this soft layer. (In this ONE particular case, a smaller but heavier Danforth, just MIGHT have gotten below the soft stuff better)? I really don't know... Admittedly, I didn't try the "40 minute set technique" with the Fortress anchors, as I expected at least the large one to just bury and set.

I finally learned to gently wiggle the 35# Delta a couple of feet down, to where the firm mud frequently resided. In many cases it is not just the anchor, it is the anchoring skills...

The newer Spade, then Rocna, now test out to be even better than my Delta, I don't doubt that, but their replacement sizes that would be a bit better, will not fit in my wing locker, which is where I put the bow anchor when at sea, otherwise I'd consider stepping up a notch.

There will always be a better mousetrap! I know that my Delta will hold in a Cat. 1, with good holding, (done so many times), and now that I've learned to "set it" in SOFT mud, it might even do so then...

Mark

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by cfarrar

If you haven't used a Rocna, Spade, Manson or similar, you owe it to yourself to try one. If you do, you'll agree that a Bruce or CQR will not outperform a new generation anchor in mud or any other bottom type.

My personal experience with a Rocna 25 (55#) on my 40' 22000# boat was sufficiently positive that I bought a second Rocna.

Unless I'm offshore and carry both anchors I do have a spare as a result. I might be able to loan a Rocna anchor to people near Annapolis who would like to try one. We'll have to work out some security of course because I want the anchor back!

[troymclure]

Had no probems anchoring in mud with a cqr, it's a bit oversized for my boat but still find i anchor better in mud then sand.

[Blue Stocking]

Everyone should learn how much reverse RPM = how much wind. (more or less), and anchor for a gale every night. Unless the soft mud is a layer on top of hardpan, or a really loose gravelly bottom, it is almost always possible.

Mark[/QUOTE]
Little bit of a stray, if I may.
This is really good advice .
Many of us over-prop for low rpm, light wind motoring. But when the wind cranks up, you need to get the engine rpm higher on the power curve to slog to windward.
OK, I know you Ahabs reef down and take it on the nose.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Everyone should learn how much reverse RPM = how much wind. (more or less) ...

I doubt that most sailboat auxiliaries could match the force of 35 - 40 kts of wind, in a full throttle back-down.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

Fortress, I'm surprised to hear your comments arguing against the quality of your own anchor... Hmmm?

Mark,

When you are a manufacturer of such an important piece of safety equipment as a boat anchor, you had better be upfront and straightforward about the performance capabilities of your product.

No one understood this fact better than our company owner, a lifelong boater & the designer of the Fortress anchor. Previously he was an engineer and designer of propulsion systems for injector seats in fighter planes.

In sand, mud, or clay bottoms, Fortress offers world class performance that is unmatched.

However, in grass, weeds, or rocks.....average at best and where no anchor is really 100% dependable. In grass & weeds, I have heard conflicting reports, as some Fortress owners tell us that they are sharp enough to slice their way through the grass or weeds and then get into a firmer bottom, while others tell us that they quickly foul and pull the grass or weeds right out in clumps.

In rocks, I think that plows have an advantage with the single narrow fluke wedging its way between the rocks, vs. the two big wide flukes of the Danforth/Fortress type.

The biggest problem that we hear from our customers is the difficulty in getting their Fortress anchors back out after a storm. The jokes we have heard are endless, i.e. took a day to get the anchor loose, pulled up fossils with it, or dinosaur bones, or a Chinese gardener, etc. but the anchor did its job, so the complaints are not too loud.

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

Since I made this point in several places in my previous post, I'm surprised to see you disagree with my statement.

No worries Mark, I just interpreted it in a different way. Sorry, my fault!

Your comments are much appreciated.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Mark,

When you are a manufacturer of such an important piece of safety equipment as a boat anchor, you had better be upfront and straightforward about the performance capabilities of your product.

... and in keeping with that: I think you should stop asserting that a Fortress (or any other Danforth design) handles reversing pull resets as well as all other designs.

I agree with Mark Johnson's assessment of the pros and cons of the Fortress, and that it will out perform any other anchor OF EQUAL WEIGHT, (for straight line holding power) once set. But if it is flipped any piece of debris that wedges between fluke and shank (a ball of mud, a clam, or stone as small as a large marble) can keep it from lying in a setting position. I've seen it and so have others who have used a Danforth-style design long enough. Plow-style, claw style, scoop-style, and Bulwagga don't have this same degree of vulnerability (although none are infallible).

I carry a Fortress for specific purposes and think it's a great anchor for it's strengths -- but....

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

... and in keeping with that: I think you should stop asserting that a Fortress (or any other Danforth design) handles reversing pull resets as well as all other designs.

I agree with Mark Johnson's assessment of the pros and cons of the Fortress, and that it will out perform any other anchor OF EQUAL WEIGHT, (for straight line holding power) once set. But if it is flipped any piece of debris that wedges between fluke and shank (a ball of mud, a clam, or stone as small as a large marble) can keep it from lying in a setting position. I've seen it and so have others who have used a Danforth-style design long enough. Plow-style, claw style, scoop-style, and Bulwagga don't have this same degree of vulnerability (although none are infallible).

I carry a Fortress for specific purposes and think it's a great anchor for it's strengths -- but....

SailFastTri,

As I have stated before, I stand behind the opinions of anchor design experts and feedback from our customers concerning re-setting capabilities of our product. To summarize:

• No anchor will dependably re-set if it breaks free from a sea bottom during a wind shift. Oftentimes when an anchor breaks free, it does so dramatically and it is no longer an anchor, it is a giant glob of mud or clay, with no sharp edges in which to re-penetrate the sea bottom.

• It is entirely possible that a pivoting fluke anchor (Danforth/Fortress) with its massive two flukes will have a more difficult time re-setting, since this giant glob of mud or clay will be much larger than a plow anchor type with its single narrow fluke.

Further, the mud and clay might be stuck between the fluke and shank and prevent the flukes from re-opening in a setting position, BUT....

These massive two flukes will do a far better job than a single, narrow fluke type of preventing the anchor from breaking free in the first place.

The precision-machined Fortress is manufactured to be much sharper than heavier, dull-edged steel anchors, and so it is able to bury much deeper into common sea bottoms. This fact, along with its two large flukes, give the Fortress far more resistance to breaking free from a sea bottom, no matter what is going on above it with the boat.

And so would I rather have an anchor that might re-set better (plow), or an anchor that is not as likely to, once again, break free in the first place (Fortress)?

Be safe,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

[Fortress]

SailFastTri,

On a separate note, please have a look at the series of independent anchor tests at the link below.

As you will see, the Fortress is by far the lightest anchor in these tests, and so the Fortress does not just out-perform anchors of equal weight, but anchors that are much heavier as well.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

1995 Anchor Study

[Mark Johnson]

Fortress...

I have used Danforth "types" for over 36 years... As a person who spent years living anchored out in relatively clear water, (Key West), and went snorkeling to the tune of thousands of hours, observing my and other's anchors daily... I can assure you of this: There is debris of varying sizes all over the place, that can and does foul any Danforth / Fortress type anchor quite regularly, when they try to flip flop, in a sudden reversal of wind or current. (Strong or otherwise)

I'm talking about firm mud or sand where the MOST a small boat's aux. engine can do, is bury just the flukes, with the upper palm totally exposed, as well as the top of the shank. In this kind of a set, a 90 degree side pull does NOT just spin the anchor in the bottom, in spite of the cross bar that is only 1" under, It flips the anchor over more often than not. Been there done that, seen it dozens of times... The same is true of a 180 degree reversal in pull. If the anchor is just a bit above the bottom, with only the flukes dug in, as it surely would be on a firm bottom, then it has about a 50% chance of flipping over and NOT resetting because of a fouled hinge.

This is not true of anchors like my Delta. In thousands of nights on the hook with this anchor, and many sudden reversals in a violent thunderstorm, The only time it has EVER actually pulled OUT of the bottom, is a couple of times that I could find nothing better than to anchor in thick grass. Then it did pull free with no possibility of resetting, due to the fouling. That failure was TWICE OUT OF OVER 2,000 times! In every other 90 degree veer or 180 degree reversal of wind or current, It either was SO buried, or the wind / current so light, that it didn't move at all, or in gale force winds, it gradually spun in place, plowed about a foot, (still 18" under), and reset firmly.

There is no way a Fortress, or any other lightweight type, would have done this AS RELIABLY, in the above scenario.

99% OF ALL EXPERIENCED CRUISERS USE A SINGLE HOOK MOST OF THE TIME!

99% OF THEM WOULD BE COURTING DISASTER TO DO THIS WITH ANY BRAND OF HINGED FLUKE, LIGHTWEIGHT "DANFORTH TYPE" ANCHOR... INCLUDING FORTRESS AND THEY KNOW THIS!

No anchor or anchoring situation is perfect, we are always just trying to stack the odds in our favor. Without a doubt, with all of their Maximum holding power advantages, The Danforth / Fortress types should be used as an emergency storm anchor, lunch hook, or in pairs opposing each other. They just MIGHT take a 180 degree reversal spin 50% or so of the time, but the odds of successfully spinning around for a Delta / Spade / Rocna type is in the high 90%s. There is a reason that virtually all World cruisers use THIS type of hook for their daily use.

To say that your Fortress, or any other "lightweight" style anchor is suitable to be used alone, day in day out, as a boat's primary anchor, and it will take wind & current reversals as good or better than the best of the plow types... Delta / Rocna etc, is utterly irresponsible. It just aint so!

I hope that no one believes you... Or if they do, please anchor way down wind!

M.

[Fortress]

Mark,

Good comments, and I think that you hit upon a very important point in regards to the depth to which a Fortress/Danforth anchor is buried and its corresponding ability to re-set.

It is indisputable that if this anchor was only able to be slightly buried in a firmer bottom to the depth that you described, with the upper palm and shank still exposed......then the anchor would certainly be prone to pull out in the case of any veering.

Obviously, if it was possible to "power set" the anchor well by backing down hard on it, then it would be completely & deeply buried, with only the chain exposed, and in turn the anchor would be far less likely to come loose during a wind shift......since it would have much more weight of the sea bottom on top of it.

The key here is how well the anchor is buried, so your point is well taken.

Please find below Bob Taylor's comments regarding this question. As you might recall in a previous write up, Bob designed anchoring systems for the US Navy and offshore oil industries for over 40 years, and he wrote the anchor performance guides for the American Petroleum Institute:

"Any anchor is prone to being pulled out of the bottom during a wind shift; there is no significant advantage of one type of anchor over another as long as the anchor fluke(s) are set. Either anchor type will be more resistant to handling off line loads in a mud bottom because the fluke is more deeply embedded.

In a sand or hard sea bottom the fluke is not deeply embedded and thus will not handle off line loads as well (Mark's point). However, I never had any difficulty accepting off line loads of +/- 15 or so degrees for any soil type. If you look at a plow type such as the CQR then the resisting fluke area is closer to the center line of the shank than a bilateral fluke so the resisting moment is less, which suggests that a plow type may be more susceptible to rotation and pullout due to side loads. However the fluke may be a little deeper so that may compensate.

All in all, I can’t come up with a logical reason why one type would be better than another when load is off line. Except, that a high efficiency anchor like yours enjoys deeper penetration than the plow anchors, so it would be less susceptible to being pulled out when load deviates from the original setting direction.

As I mentioned there is no anchor that can handle major off line loading so there are limits to everything."


Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

[Mark Johnson]

Brian,

I was making a fair comparison between the two types of anchors that HAD both been backed down on hard, until the chain was straight... where the two types were both properly set. (I don't count the Bruce or CQR, I was comparing to the newer generation of the type).

Most of my cruising has been in firm sand, where often NEITHER type buries until none of it is showing, or the Delta will bury completely and the larger Fortress will not! I also dive on my anchor to make sure it is not a sand layer on top of hardpan. I am now a "mud cruiser" and live in the land of sudden violent thunderstorms.

IF your small Fortress WAS buried a foot down, it is highly unlikely that it can STILL take a 1,000# + load from the side, or totally the wrong direction, without suddenly pulling out!

The Delta / Rocna types don't try to, in really heavy loads. Their smaller, less powerful flukes, allow the head to spin around, remaining up right, BEFORE the loads get huge. It frequently doesn't need to RE-set much, because it just spun in place. IT DID NOT PULL OUT! It is the "lightweight type's" resistance to spinning in place, that make it more likely to try to just flip over instead.

I have tried many times, and in really soft mud, (which is the bottom that WOULD allow either type to really bury), a Fortress must be set S L O W L Y !!! From my dinghy, Just to experiment, I've tried to drag the (mud position) Fortress backwards at speed, while holding the rode with one hand, IF I'm going 6 knots. It just drags through the really soft mud, and makes no attempt at all to re-set.

If the Fortress was holding just fine in its original direction as a storm approaches, but there is a big shift, and rather than spin around in 35 knots of wind, (when my Delta would spin around in a 90 or 180 degree wind shift), it just keeps holding. Then it picks up and the load is now over 800 pounds in the wrong direction. It will VERY likely pull out totally! NOW, since the boat will be going backwards at great speed, it will not re set.

These other types wouldn't either, but since they gently spun around long before the wind got over 60, (more often than not), they are already buried and still set, but in a new direction. I am not guessing here, I have dove on my anchor after a storm countless times, and even after being well set, if the winds got over 60 the Delta spun to a new orientation, RATHER than pull out. My GPS anchor alarm will confirm weather I did or did not drag.

(BTW, I DO agree that no anchor will reset reliably, once it has been pulled completely free of the bottom). My Delta, (or the type), gently and slowly spinning in place in a rising wind, is what it usually does in a gale. It does not "break free" and then reset.

I hate to Quote myself, but:

"No anchor or anchoring situation is perfect, we are always just trying to stack the odds in our favor. Without a doubt, with all of their Maximum holding power advantages, The Danforth / Fortress types should be used ONLY as an emergency storm anchor, lunch hook, or in pairs somewhat opposing each other. (EVEN WHEN PROPERLY SET), They just MIGHT take a 180 degree reversal spin 50% or so of the time, but the odds of successfully spinning around for the newer Delta / Spade / Rocna types is in the high 90%s. There is a reason that virtually all World cruisers use THIS type of hook for their daily use. They either stay motionless, or in a real blow, they spin around in the very hole that they created, usually without dragging!

To say that your Fortress, or any other "lightweight" style anchor, is suitable to be used alone, day in day out, as a boat's primary anchor, and it will take even strong wind & current reversals as well or better than the best of the (NEWER) plow types, like Delta / Rocna etc, is utterly irresponsible. It just aint so!

I hope that no one believes you... Or if they do, please anchor way down wind!

Enough already...

M.