Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

The holding is closer to being proportional to (blade area x depth), rather than just blade area. Maybe the cqr managed to get down deeper?

Possibly, but another key component for performance in a soft mud bottom is the anchor's ability to orient the fluke in a downward position, and the CQR with its hinged shank might been able to do that better.

We don't know for certain, but it was clear from some of the readings that if an anchor landed on its roll bar or side, then the bottom might have been too soft to provide the resistance needed for the fluke to become oriented in the downward position, and the anchor just slide along the bottom.

We tested a comparably weighted 45 lb cement mushroom-type anchor, and its pull reading was almost identical to some of readings for the 44-46 lb steel anchors, which offered proof of this possibility.

Another key component to performance is the "effective fluke angle" which is the angle of attack the fluke takes into the sea bottom. There was one anchor with a very large surface area which had observers thinking "that anchor has to perform well, its huge!" but it often skated along the soft mud bottom as well and provided minimal resistance. The bottom of the fluke was virtually flat, so the reason why was clear.

Brian

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Yes, please find below an image of the anchors in this test.

Brian

well I would only consider 2 of those a soft mud anchor

[model 10]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Another key component to performance is the "effective fluke angle" which is the angle of attack the fluke takes into the sea bottom. There was one anchor with a very large surface area which had observers thinking "that anchor has to perform well, its huge!" but it often skated along the soft mud bottom as well and provided minimal resistance. The bottom of the fluke was virtually flat, so the reason why was clear.

Brian

This make me think of my Rocna. You might not be talking about the Rocna but that is it's problem as far I'm concerned. I've watched it underwater and I would increase it's angle of attack by maybe 10 deg.

[Fortress]

Here's a write up from the testing that addresses and reviews a couple of the previous points:

- I believe that every anchor was humbled at some point during the 4 days of testing in this soft mud bottom, including ours. During the first day, when many from the media were present, and on the first pull, the Fortress did not set. Instead, it basically surfed across the bottom and flat lined on the gauges.

Our protocol called for us to pay out 5:1 scope, then add 100 feet to about 8.3:1, and then pull back the 100 feet to 5:1 at a rate of 10 feet per minute, giving each anchor 10 minutes to engage the bottom.

By this setting method, we were ignoring our own advice on how to initially set a Fortress in soft mud, which was to use a shorter scope of 2:1 or 3:1 to insure that the shank did not sink below the flukes (see image below).

During another test, the same thing occurred with the Fortress, although this time near the end of the test, when the scope was shorter and the shank started coming out of the soft mud and the flukes engaged the bottom, the Fortress began spiking high loads (1,500 lbs or so), but our protocol called for all tests to be stopped at 600 seconds (10 minutes) and the test was ended.

We noticed that some of the other anchors were flat lining as well, and after all anchors were tested 4 times over 3 days, we devoted the last day to trying a new protocol, which called for us to pay out about 2:1 scope, and then give each anchor a "bump" until an initial load of 200-300 lbs was reached, and then pay out to the 5:1 scope + 100 feet and start pulling.

We thought we might learn something that could improve setting performance in soft mud, which we could then pass along to owners of the other anchors in this test.

- For the most part, the "new generation" anchors did not distinguish themselves as better performers than the "old generation" models in this soft mud bottom. In fact, a serious concern was raised as to whether a new generation anchor would be able to orient itself, either at all or even slightly, if it landed on the roll bar or side.

One of the new generation roll bar anchors was particularly prone to having this occur (the charts will indicate which one), as it appeared to either slide through the soft mud upside down or possibly slightly off to the side, and the fluke never engaged the bottom in the downward position.

We tested a 45 lb concrete mushroom type anchor, and its pull readings were almost identical with the flat line readings of this roll bar anchor.

- There can be no question that in soft mud, the Danforth-type anchor is superior. First, there is no "upside down" landing possibility, and the long stock (narrow round rod) insures that the anchor stabilizes quickly on the bottom.

Secondly, the larger surface area from two flukes will provide greater resistance and ultimate holding power. The Danforth HT, which weighed 35 lbs (20% lighter than the other 44-46 lb steel anchors), held above 1,500 lbs, while a couple of the other 44-46 lb steel anchor models had spikes of around 1,200 lbs, but they quickly broke free afterwards, likely due to their lack of surface area.

Additionally, getting the Danforth and Fortress anchors back aboard after the testing presented the greatest challenge by far. I have heard the comments about these anchors breaking free during wind shifts, but after burying them in this soft mud bottom, and seeing the difficultly getting them out at a 1:1 scope, it appears impossible that they would ever break free at higher scopes, and no matter what the direction of pull. Period.

Attached is a chart from a Fortress pull in which the wire rope was snapped at 3,500 lbs during anchor recovery. This occurred after the test had been stopped at about 600 seconds (10 minutes) and the wire rope had slid off one of the vertical rollers of our custom fairlead, and grinded on a metal portion of the fairlead when the anchor was under the boat and off to starboard.

- Baldt, Bruce, Vryhoff, and the US Navy all manufacture anchors with wider shank / fluke angles for soft mud bottom conditions, and the 45° angle pulls with the Fortress (when the flukes did engage the bottom) served as further proof of this required configuration for superior anchor holding capability in this type of bottom.

After nearly 4 days of testing, and after each anchor was tested 5 times we decided to toss out the 10 lb Fortress FX-16 at the 45° angle that we had brought aboard to see how it would do, and I believe it hit a peak of 1,500 lbs and held. It took at least 20 minutes to get it back out, and it came up absolutely packed with layers of the bottom, including soft mud, oyster shells, and harder mud with sand.

Right before recovery, the winch operator calculated that after subtracting the freeboard + water depth (27 feet) from the chain + wire rope (40 feet) that the FX-16 anchor was buried approximately 13 feet into the bottom. Amazing, and an image is below after one recovery of the FX-16 taken during our preliminary testing.

We had also brought the 32 lb Fortress FX-55 aboard, and while it had held over 4,000+ lbs during preliminary testing and tripped the aft winch several times in the process, we decided to not "test our luck" so to speak, and stress the equipment again and risk losing it as we had the one 21 lb FX-37.

More to follow,
Brian

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by Guy

This make me think of my Rocna. You might not be talking about the Rocna but that is it's problem as far I'm concerned. I've watched it underwater and I would increase it's angle of attack by maybe 10 deg.

Effective angle of attack is important when setting in different conditions. A sharp angled point of attack is best. Also effectively balancing the weight on the tip, for penetration is key to setting and part of staying set. It also plays a key role in successfully retrieving your anchor.

[bfloyd4445]

Thanks, nice explanation and confirms my 55 years experiance anchoring all kinds of small craft. I've tried em all and keep going back to the old danforth style as my hook of choice.

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by bfloyd4445

Thanks, nice explanation and confirms my 55 years experiance anchoring all kinds of small craft. I've tried em all and keep going back to the old danforth style as my hook of choice.

Anytime bfloyd!

[motion30]

Originally Posted by b. it usually caught and cooked wellfloyd4445

Thanks, nice explanation and confirms my 55 years experiance anchoring all kinds of small craft. I've tried em all and keep going back to the old danforth style as my hook of choice.

I had a big Danforth it usually set ok but when the tide changed, usually in the middle of the night it was unreliable to reset. It left me a ground a couple of times so I gave it away and bought a Mantus

[charliehows]

probably said this before - bigger is not better, latest trend is idiots who have shackled up a monster anchor running around in circles in a crowded anchorage because their bloody winch can't pull the stupid thing up. The right size anchor for your boat, is better. Which might mean replacing an old design anchor with a lighter [smaller] modern design anchor.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by charliehows

probably said this before - bigger is not better, latest trend is idiots who have shackled up a monster anchor running around in circles in a crowded anchorage because their bloody winch can't pull the stupid thing up. The right size anchor for your boat, is better. Which might mean replacing an old design anchor with a lighter [smaller] modern design anchor.

While I agree that the new generation anchors are so much better that you can put less weight on the bow, most people are only over-sizing by 10-20 lb (we went up one size from 35-45 lb. Hopefully our windlass isn't so weak that it can't handle an extra ten pounds.

On the other hand, it does usually take us a while to retrieve our anchor (Boss) because it's so well set that it take a while to break it out. Sometimes we just have to power over it to break it out, but I prefer to let the wave action slowly release it at 1:1 scope.

[JPA Cate]

Originally Posted by charliehows

probably said this before - bigger is not better, latest trend is idiots who have shackled up a monster anchor running around in circles in a crowded anchorage because their bloody winch can't pull the stupid thing up. The right size anchor for your boat, is better. Which might mean replacing an old design anchor with a lighter [smaller] modern design anchor.

Actually, Charlie,

Most Sydney-siders seem to prefer moorings, don't you think? especially with all the anchoring restrictions in Port Jackson?

I do agree some boats around there, let's include Botany Bay and Pittwater, too, seem to not have much practice anchoring, and they gotta learn somewhere.

One is free to ignore the ones who are getting it wrong.

If what you're on about is a CF member who uses quite a large Mantus anchor, I bet you have to agree it sets pretty well. Maybe it is that "whatever size is recommended for the boat" may not really be adequate for conditions all over the world, or you may have a one-off and have to make your own recommendations. Of course, as you suggest, it is wise to match the windlass capacity to the anchor/chain combination you want to fit, and that in turn depends on what depths of water you want to be prepared to anchor in. So you might well question, "recommended by whom? for what use?" and so on. The solution can be a moving target, so to speak.

Cheers,

Ann

[micah719]

So, we've got a ginormous anchor, titanic chain, and a windlass to match....electric, and manual backup. It goes on the fritz, and nearly all the chain is out. How to get it back up again? With and without a halyard winch, with and without a handy billy?

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by micah719

So, we've got a ginormous anchor, titanic chain, and a windlass to match....electric, and manual backup. It goes on the fritz, and nearly all the chain is out. How to get it back up again? With and without a halyard winch, with and without a handy billy?

I don't think it's as bad as all that.

First, the general consensus is that chain is there for abrasion resistance. Bigger isn't better. Get the lightest high test chain that will work.

Second, it doesn't matter how much chain you have out, just how deep the water is. If you're in 10m of water, you're lifting 10m of chain. The worst part is when you get to the anchor. Then you're lifting 10m of chain plus the anchor.

I only have a 45# anchor and I can easily hand-over-hand it in 20m of water.

If you have a really heavy anchor, then you can hand-over-hand the chain until you're at 1:1 and then use the manual override on the windlass for the last little bit. Then go fix your windlass.

[JPA Cate]

" How to get it back up again?"

Micah,

We have used our primary winches to do this. They are heftier than the halyard winches. We once used a halyard winch for this, and the next weekend, getting more jib halyard tension, ripped the winch off the mast. Therefore, I recommend using the primaries for the job. With a long sheet with a hook, so you can crank in the chain, flake it on deck (it's got to go back down in the chain locker), and get that puppy up. You'd find it tedious (but not so bad as taking out an old holding tank ), but eventually, it is all manageable. You use the chain stopper to keep the chain from running out, or wrap it around a deck cleat.

Ann

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by micah719

So, we've got a ginormous anchor, titanic chain, and a windlass to match....electric, and manual backup. It goes on the fritz, and nearly all the chain is out. How to get it back up again? With and without a halyard winch, with and without a handy billy?

This is a bit off topic . . . But usually the easiest way is using port and starboard "puller lines" lead to your primary (Genoa) cockpit winches. These are usually your most powerful winches. You tie (or shackle or chain hook) one to the chain at the bow and winch it in as far as it will go, and then tie the other line at the bow and winch it in, and repeat.

My windless once "broke" when I was single handing and anchored in 60' of water. I did the above and had no problem getting the anchor up relatively quickly. I later discovered I simply had forgotten to turn on the windless circuit breaker and it was working perfectly fine when I did.