Anchoring Perfectionism vs Realities of Soft Mud

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Because it's not maximum resistance at 2200 RPM. The prop gears down and continues to apply more and more force, until it is applying the full amount of power of the engine to the water.

If you imagine a tractor in high range top gear trying to drag a heavy object with the throttle pushed all the way, then the same tractor in low range and first gear and full power. It's exactly the same here.

So, using your tractor explanation as an example, then I'd equate what you're trying to do each time you anchor... with a tractor pulling up stumps. Why would you want to intentionally wish to uproot the anchor you just planted before it's had time to set completely?

Seems to me like a lot of wasted time, effort and wear and tear. IMHO. Just give it half revvs, look around, then let your Spade do it's job. The next wind or tidal shift is going to undue what you did in the first place anyway.

When are you going to post a "selfie" with your anchor properly set at 10 meters?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So, using your tractor explanation as an example, then I'd equate what you're trying to do each time you anchor... with a tractor pulling up stumps. Why would you want to intentionally wish to uproot the anchor you just planted before it's had time to set completely?

Seems to me like a lot of wasted time, effort and wear and tear. IMHO. Just give it half revvs, look around, then let your Spade do it's job. The next wind or tidal shift is going to undue what you did in the first place anyway.

When are you going to post a "selfie" with you anchor properly set?

That's what my father says: "What are you doing? You'll pull it out!"

I dunno. I think that if the anchor is really set, then you can't budge it with the engine. And this works 90% of the time if not more.

It's funny to be rethinking anchoring technique after all these decades of doing it. Characteristic of this sport, I guess -- just when you think you've really mastered one aspect of it, it turns out -- there's still plenty to learn.

I guess there are two questions:

1. What is "good enough", where setting the anchor is concerned? This is an objective question I think since we know roughly what wind speeds equate to what engine power used for backing down.

2. Are we screwing this up by trying to back down hard too soon, in soft bottoms? Maybe I'll do an experiment -- my hook has been lying for two days in soft mud after my latest half-assed setting job. I'll be moving later this afternoon. Instead of just pulling it up, I will try to back down on it and see if it has set itself to a higher standard than I did two days ago. Hmmmm.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's what my father says: "What are you doing? You'll pull it out!"

I dunno. I think that if the anchor is really set, then you can't budge it with the engine. And this works 90% of the time if not more.

It's funny to be rethinking anchoring technique after all these decades of doing it. Characteristic of this sport, I guess -- just when you think you've really mastered one aspect of it, it turns out -- there's still plenty to learn.

I guess there are two questions:

1. What is "good enough", where setting the anchor is concerned? This is an objective question I think since we know roughly what wind speeds equate to what engine power used for backing down.

2. Are we screwing this up by trying to back down hard too soon, in soft bottoms? Maybe I'll do an experiment -- my hook has been lying for two days in soft mud after my latest half-assed setting job. I'll be moving later this afternoon. Instead of just pulling it up, I will try to back down on it and see if it has set itself to a higher standard than I did two days ago. Hmmmm.

It got you through two days and nights, that should be your answer. The "half-assed setting job" worked 100%.

Anchoring is more like playing the lottery, each day you pick your favorite numbers and then hope for the best. There're no guarantees.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

Ann, what do you & Jim do in terms of having 2 rodes in play, given that you only have one bow roller, if memory serves? What do you do in order to avoid them chafing & tangling one another?

Thanks.

We haven't had to do this ever, in a tidal stream. Maybe something to do with the fine silt being carried away.

We have two fairleads on the bow, and the rode for the Danforth comes in through the port one, and the main chain is on the roller...with it's snubber.

We rarely have to use the Danforth, but Dockhead has the ability to have both the main NG anchor and his Fortress at the bow. Honestly, if you can keep from dragging by using only the Fortress, obviously that'd be best. But, especially in crowded situations, as Dockhead often encounters, I'd rather fight unwinding the rodes than deal with the hassle of dragging. If you can just drag out of the anchorage, with nothing in the way for a long ways, no worries, really. We once "anchored" on scoured rock, with just a whole lot of chain attached to an unset anchor. According to the GPS, we did not drag enough to alarm. But it was a creepy deal.

As you know, Dockhead is anchoring places we've not been. However, we have moved from soupy mud anchorages when possibly two anchors would have held us. If he has to anchor in soupy mud, his Fortress is probably his best bet, even with tidal flow. From what I read, they keep on diving. His biggest problem might be the recovery, if it finally found gooey mud.

Ann

[SVNeko]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Maybe this is the time to get the Fortress out. The Fortress doesn't actually have any problem with soft mud. Dives right in.

Like most of us, I consider the Fortress to be unsuitable for overnight anchoring, but I'm not sure that the lore this is based on is actually all that valid.

I have spent a few nights lying to my Fortress in tidal waters and had no problems. That doesn't prove anything, but maybe worth some further experiments.

Have friends who've gone halfway round the world with a fortress as their primary. They drag far more than any other boat I know but for some reason refuse to change ..
even after watching from a cliff as their boat went walkabout and another time having to enlist 15 Kuna Indians to push them off a bank.

I would never so use one but would like to be able to deploy one occasionally. It's just too much of a PITA to assemble each time. Now, did use our big one during a hurricane's close pass and, man, it is strong. Took half a day to get it back.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But how do we know, that Danforth-style anchors don't reset? I always heard this and always assumed it must be true, but is it really a fact?

The fluke anchors like the Danforth/Fortress models have exceptional holding ability in very soft substrates, particularly if you are prepared to take a chance that the anchor will not enter an area of harder substrate and use the 45° setting.

However, I think the problem with this style of anchor breaking out with a reasonable wind shift is a significant stumbling block in many overnight anchoring situations. Multiple anchors help, but they are a pain, and in many configurations the anchor is still required to do some rotation.

In softer substrates the anchor will bury deeper, but I don't know that this helps the rotation problem significantly. The longer setting distance of softer substrates also means there is more risk of catching stones which can interfere with the moving parts in this style of anchor. There are user reports of Fortress anchors breaking out with a change in direction of pull even though the anchor was subject to strong winds beforehand and must have been deeply buried before the wind change broke the anchor out. Have a look at MaineSail's report here as an example (post #59):

Boat Us conducts anchor tests - Page 6 - SailNet Community


I don't think there are any easy answers to dealing with very difficult substrates. In the "good" old days is quite common to receive numerous warnings from other cruisers about many areas where anchors would not hold. The great versatility of modern new generation anchors means that areas like this are now rare, but they do still exist.

Very soft mud is a challenge, but unlike rock at least when you test with reverse power you will always get an indication of a problem. There are usually areas of an anchorage that are firmer than others so a bit of perseverance will often find a spot where the holding is better.

There are some special techniques that I believe are a help. A very slow build up of setting force is very important. You also need to be especially careful that the anchor is not dragged backwards before it has a chance to bury. As Paul suggested, anchors that are allowed some time to settle seem to improve the chance of getting the anchor to dig in, but this not possible if anchoring in strong wind. Some anchors perform better if initially they are given some force at shortish scopes, say 3:1, but you should not allow an unset anchor to drag backwards. The short scope setting technique is anchor/substrate specific. For some models it can be detrimental so some experimentation is needed.

[Snowpetrel]

I am a big fan of the "soak time" theory. A few times I haven't been able to get a reliable set, but after a few hours soaking its held much better in soft stuff.

The other thing I am a big fan of is weather forcasts. If they aren't talking much wind then I am less bothered if the anchor isn't holding 3000 rpm.

If they are forcasting a gale that anchor has to hold pretty damn well for me to be happy. Id take an exposed anchorage with good holding any time over a sheltered anchorage with a poor bottom if its going to blow.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The fluke anchors like the Danforth/Fortress models have exceptional holding ability in very soft substrates, particularly if you are prepared to take a chance that the anchor will not enter an area of harder substrate and use the 45° setting.

However, I think the problem with this style of anchor breaking out with a reasonable wind shift is a significant stumbling block in many overnight anchoring situations. Multiple anchors help, but they are a pain, and in many configurations the anchor is still required to do some rotation.

In softer substrates the anchor will bury deeper, but I don't know that this helps the rotation problem significantly. The longer setting distance of softer substrates also means there is more risk of catching stones which can interfere with the moving parts in this style of anchor. There are user reports of Fortress anchors breaking out with a change in direction of pull even though the anchor was subject to strong winds beforehand and must have been deeply buried before the wind change broke the anchor out. Have a look at MaineSail's report here as an example (post #59):

Boat Us conducts anchor tests - Page 6 - SailNet Community


I don't think there are any easy answers to dealing with very difficult substrates. In the "good" old days is quite common to receive numerous warnings from other cruisers about many areas where anchors would not hold. The great versatility of modern new generation anchors means that areas like this are now rare, but they do still exist.

Very soft mud is a challenge, but unlike rock at least when you test with reverse power you will always get an indication of a problem. There are usually areas of an anchorage that are firmer than others so a bit of perseverance will often find a spot where the holding is better.

There are some special techniques that I believe are a help. A very slow build up of setting force is very important. You also need to be especially careful that the anchor is not dragged backwards before it has a chance to bury. As Paul suggested, anchors that are allowed some time to settle seem to improve the chance of getting the anchor to dig in, but this not possible if anchoring in strong wind. Some anchors perform better if initially they are given some force at shortish scopes, say 3:1, but you should not allow an unset anchor to drag backwards. The short scope setting technique is anchor/substrate specific. For some models it can be detrimental so some experimentation is needed.

OK, trying to get to the bottom of the question of whether Fortress anchors do or do not reset in a tide change or wind shift --

We have a concrete data point from Maine Sail and an unsatisfying explanation from the manufacturer. There is another data point in post 83. Yep, it does seem like there is something to this lore.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, trying to get to the bottom of the question of whether Fortress anchors do or do not reset in a tide change or wind shift --

We have a concrete data point from Maine Sail and an unsatisfying explanation from the manufacturer. There is another data point in post 83. Yep, it does seem like there is something to this lore.

On a more technical note, when are going to post a "selfie" with your anchor well set? This way we'll all know you're doing your homework properly. ;-)

Otherwise... you're just guessing.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Are we screwing this up by trying to back down hard too soon, in soft bottoms?

So maybe your father was right .

Anchors seem to bury easier under wind force than they do under engine force. I suspect this is due to a long setting time with a bit of force from a gust then a pause which allows the substrate to consolidate and regain some of its coherence.

Dropping the anchor and pausing before applying reverse also seems to help, especially in softer substrates and when there is little bit of wind to start the setting process. This, I think, is for much the same reasons as above.

With modern anchors in reasonable substrates pauses like this are just not necessary. Drop the anchor and "bang it in" usually works fine and is more practical and convenient. It is only when the anchor is struggling, that we need to do something different. Those that have spent many years cursing using a CQR in harder substrates will be familiar with some these methods.

The experiment is great idea. My prediction is that it will help and the anchor will hold a higher force after the long pause. Let us know how you get on.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So, using your tractor explanation as an example, then I'd equate what you're trying to do each time you anchor... with a tractor pulling up stumps. Why would you want to intentionally wish to uproot the anchor you just planted before it's had time to set completely?

Seems to me like a lot of wasted time, effort and wear and tear. IMHO. Just give it half revvs, look around, then let your Spade do it's job. The next wind or tidal shift is going to undue what you did in the first place anyway.

When are you going to post a "selfie" with your anchor properly set at 10 meters?

Whilst your last paragraph might have been egregious, I basically agree with the above.

[UNCIVILIZED]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, trying to get to the bottom of the question of whether Fortress anchors do or do not reset in a tide change or wind shift --

We have a concrete data point from Maine Sail and an unsatisfying explanation from the manufacturer. There is another data point in post 83. Yep, it does seem like there is something to this lore.

My guess on this would be No, they don't re-set reliably, especially on their own. As when setting Danforth style anchors when they're "supervised", it often takes a few tries to get them solidly hooked into the bottom. After which one monitors them for a while. None of which you can do while asleep.

That said, there may be some semi-definitive answers in a few of Panope's videos. But personally, I wouldn't trust any anchor of this type to re-set while I was asleep or ashore. There are just to many stories of bad things happening when folks do this.

Now if you're somewhere where the wind & currents are consistently coming from one direction, then I think that such anchors are okay. As in such circumstances they won't need to re-set, with or without supervision. But you'd still need to take the usual precautions.


PS: Thanks for the answers & explanation Ann T. Cate

[Snowpetrel]

One thing that slightly worries me these days is the amount of paranoia about getting massively oversized anchors and setting them hard every time. I don't they are bad ideas (unless taken to extremes) but the problem is the amount of potentially false peace of mind that this may create over time, as people forget that the anchor can drag.

There may be a tendency to sleep a little too deep, or go ashore a little too long in dodgy conditions safe in the knowledge that your oversize Super anchor can survive anything, and has never dragged. When all it takes is a tin can on the tip or a sudden windshift to unset the anchor.

There is really no perfect defense against dragging, except a suitable level of vigilance. In the bad old days we were kept on our toes by dodgy anchors. These days it is much easier to become complacent.

[Fortress]

It is our firm contention that a properly-sized Fortress anchor, with its two sharpened and massive, precision-machined flukes is not more likely to break free from a sea bottom during wind or tidal shifts than other anchors, particularly those with much less surface area that only have a single narrow fluke.

We have seen time and time again, in both independently-controlled tests (ex. Practical Sailor, Sailing Foundation) and here in forums (including CF) boaters discussing that they have had NO PROBLEMS with their Fortress anchor handling wind shifts.

However, there are those who have never had that experience, but continue on with the nonsense that ALL Fortress anchors suffer from this issue. It is absolutely maddening.

There are exactly TWO Fortress anchor models in less than a handful of instances during my almost 20 years with the company where I have heard of an issue, the 7 lb (3 kg) FX-11 and the 10 lb (4.5 kg) FX-16. That's all folks.

If this was a constant problem, then I am certain that the 500,000+ other Fortress owners from around the world would have been contacting us to complain....unless of course the wind never blows in a different direction when they anchor.


Regarding soft mud, there is no great mystery as to why the Fortress performs superbly, as the shank / fluke angle adjustment to the 45° angle allows the anchor to bury much deeper.

Large anchor manufacturers such as Baldt, Bruce, the US Navy, and Vryhof who understand basic soil mechanics and anchor design ALL make anchors with a wider shank / fluke angle to improve performance in soft mud.


During the Chesapeake Bay soft mud testing, we watched the aforementioned FX-16 develop over 1,500 lbs of holding power, which was FAR MORE than the 44-46 (20-21 kg) steel anchors, including the highly-touted new generation models.

After one 10 minute pull test, we attempted to recover the 21 lb (10 kg) FX-37 directly above this anchor at a 1:1 scope, and the winch operator aboard the 81-Rachel Carson research vessel estimated that it was buried 13 feet (4 m) into the mud.

The cable ended up breaking at 3,500 lbs and the thought that this anchor would have somehow broken free if we had only shifted the boat around is comical.


During preliminary testing, we deployed the 32 lb (14 kg) FX-55 at the 45° angle, and it kept tripping the aft winch at 4,000 lbs. Initially the crew thought that they had an electrical problem, but realized that the safe working load of the system had been preset at that tension.

By comparison, no other anchor (including all of the 44-46 lb new generation steel anchors) held to over 1,500 lbs during the entire 8 days of testing.


Finally, one HUGE advantage for a Danforth-type anchor in soft mud is that it has a pivoting shank & fluke. This results in the anchor not having a "right side up and insures that it will always land with the flukes oriented into the sea bottom.

We noted that with fixed-fluke anchors during this testing, if they landed on their side or upside down, then they were likely to continue to simply sink into the soft mud, and they were not able to orient into the fluke downward position as they were being slowly pulled along.

Safe anchoring,
Brian

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Have friends who've gone halfway round the world with a fortress as their primary. They drag far more than any other boat I know but for some reason refuse to change ..
even after watching from a cliff as their boat went walkabout and another time having to enlist 15 Kuna Indians to push them off a bank.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK, trying to get to the bottom of the question of whether Fortress anchors do or do not reset in a tide change or wind shift --

We have a concrete data point from Maine Sail and an unsatisfying explanation from the manufacturer. There is another data point in post 83. Yep, it does seem like there is something to this lore.

I wouldn't disagree that there can be some truth in the "lore" but looking at Neko's comment, just for example, what do we know from that about size of Fortress, size/weight/windage of boat, rode composition, holding (or not) substrate, setting technique, scope... and so forth? Not so much.

In this case, Neko may be easily able to fill in the blanks -- but so many of the "reports" about Fortress failure don't include enough factoids to make me leap comfortably to a conclusion about performance in tidal shifts.


FWIW, I wonder if lighter weight Fortress anchors -- by that I mostly mean their smaller ones -- may be causing a disproportionate number of anecdotal "failures" (as in tidal shifts) compared to the heavier models. Another question would be about anchor-to-boat ratio; I wonder if more anecdotal "failures" come from too-small-anchor-for-big-boat (or high-windage) scenarios. Our experience has been with an FX-23 on a 33' express fishboat (no flybridge), and the current FX-37 on our current boat. Both anchors performed well here, in mud, including tidal shifts.

-Chris