Mantus rode

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by chowdan

Lovely anchorage spot!

Out of curiosity - in a situation like that where to the left is 3000ft and where you anchored was 100ft, did you stern tie to keep you at the right angle?

That is absolutely the classic approach for such anchorages, and brought long ropes especially for that purpose. You might have noticed that hard core expedition yachts often have large spools of rope on deck - it's for this.

In this particular case the anchor was in the low part of the bottom of the cove, so it wasn't necessary.

Thread drift, but I don't like stern ties or second anchors from the stern because they may force your boat into an unnatural position, even broadside to the wind. Sometimes you can't do without them, though. Sometimes there is no other good way to keep from swinging into some hazard, or keep your anchor pulling uphill.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Well, again, I disagree.

I believe that the scope you described is very dangerous for storm conditions, regardless of depth.

You didn't identify the storm conditions, but if over 40 knots you were very, very lucky to hold.

One may get lucky with a bottom sloping steeply up toward shore to drag but reset, before landing on the rocks.

I have also been anchored in a fjord with 1000 ft depths and 1000 ft cliffs on either side, with 20 ft tides. Fortunately conditions anchored in 50 feet remained calm.

I have also been anchored short scope in a small bay of 50 ft depths near shore (not my first choice but nearest refuge).

We weren't so lucky when a microburst with 70 knot winds blew through and found ourselves, (with everyone else in the anchorage), pinned up against the rock cliff shore. Fortunately it only lasted about 10 minutes and we could wedge the cockpit cushions and inflatable dinghy between the hull and rocks, and didn't suffer any major damage.

Again you are entitled to your opinions, but your continued attempts to belittle mine are getting old and tired.

If you disagree with me, I don't care; but when you insult me; that's another matter. Knock it off.

Disagreeing with your advice, is not the same as belittling it, and I certainly never insulted you.


Einstein once said that everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. That's really what we're talking about here. The question of how much chain to carry, and how much scope you need in what circumstances, cannot be simplified to the extent you do it. Such oversimplifications will lead to dangerously incorrect decisions.


The classical newby mistake in anchoring is not using too little scope (only a very few, entirely clueless charter skippers do that), but using too much scope. All experienced sailors have suffered from sharing anchorages with people who have been incorrectly taught things like "any scope of less than 8:1 compromises holding", and so lie to 8:1, or 10:1, or 12:1 in crowded anchorages in benign weather, causing carnage. That's why we bristle when you espouse such things. That's not an insult to you -- it's just we directly suffered the consequence of that kind of advice.



A sailor who fails to appreciate that the amount of anchor chain required on board, and the amount of scope needed, varies according to a number of factors, and is less in deeper water, will make bad decisions if he is faced with a choice of anchoring on 4:1 on a perfectly good bottom in deep water, or going out to sea in a storm or moving to an anchorage with rocks and a crappy bottom but shallow enough so that he can use 8:1.


I would suggest that you do more study yourself -- read Dashew's The Cruiser's Encyclopedia, which has a wealth of good information on anchoring, and pay the small sum required to get into the Morgan's Cloud site, or at least study Peter Smith's excellent short anchoring guide, and then give your clients more nuanced advice.


Like:


1. 300 feet of all chain rode is the most almost anyone will ever need, and you can anchor successfully in water up to 100' deep in that, with the right anchor, right technique, and right bottom conditions. If you know you will never need to anchor in water that deep (tideless areas for example), than somewhat less chain than that is ok. If you're using mixed chain/rope, then you need more.



2. More scope generally gives better holding, but you run into vanishing returns at 8:1 in shallow water, and less than that in deeper water, on an all chain rode.


3. More scope is not always better -- more scope increases swinging room, makes life harder for others sharing the anchorage, increases risk of fouling the anchor, and is plain unnecessary in many cases.



4. Use the right scope, not the most scope. 5:1 or 6:1 is almost always enough if you have a good anchor and use decent technique, less in deeper water.


5. Use the best anchor you can find, and the largest you can practically handle. Make your storm anchor your bower anchor. If you can handle a larger "storm" anchor, your bower is too small!




None of this stuff comes from me -- more or less consensus of real experts, if you study it enough.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

. . .I believe that the scope you described is very dangerous for storm conditions, regardless of depth.. .

Let’s break this down.

Only because it could be interesting for others. I’m not holding this very exotic anchoring situation up as a standard, to which Rod’s advice should be held – that would not be fair or reasonable.

This situation definitely falls under the “don’t try this at home, kids!” category. Despite Dashew’s experiences with very short scope (And who of us is a Dashew? Not me.), 2.2:1 is definitely at the ragged edge of what you can hope to get storm-worthy holding out of, and that only in ideal conditions (in this case – 100 pound Spade, ideal bottom, 800 pounds of chain out, very deep water).

The situation was this – back of Scorseby Sund, forecast was for a F9 out of the NW blowing overnight, mountainous terrain with glaciers (in fact, the actual polar ice cap) creating risk of violent williwaws (very cold air, chilled by the ice, a thousand meters above sun-warmed air at sea level – katabatic city, man). Uncharted, rocky waters, almost no shelter anywhere, almost nothing like an anchorage, no harbours in 500 miles. Worse than that, in case of a really bad storm, you can’t go to sea – the water of the Sound is full of icebergs (major iceberg calving area), growlers, bergy bits, pack ice – you don’t want to be out in that in bad weather and visibility. A wave throws a growler into you, and your boat will be smashed into bits in an instant, and you will sink in the icy water before you can even look in the direction of the life raft.



Here we are anchored next to the only village in all of Northeast Greenland, Ittoqqortoomitt, supposedly the most remote human habitation on earth, anchored in 30-40 meters next to one of the only two ships a year which comes to this place, the only real communication with the world. Note that Eastern Greenland is an entirely different world from Western Greenland. Western Greenland is washed by a warmish North-going current, so the coast is navigable for months every year despite the latitude. That is why 90% of Greenland’s 55,000 people live in the Southwest. Eastern Greenland, on the other hand, is washed by a current which flows from the North Pole, and so is frozen all but a month or two every year at best. That’s why no one lives there.

It is an extremely risky place to sail, the adventure of a lifetime. I am dying to go back, but I don’t think I will go there again in a plastic boat. I have a much better understanding of the challenges now, and I would not have gone this time if I had had an actual clue what I was getting into.

The place in this photo, which is at the entrance to the Sound, has no shelter at all from anything with any South in it. The nearest actual cove which resembles an anchorage with some kind of multi-directional shelter is 70 miles away, deeper into the Sound, and at the time of this photo is still frozen solid and inaccessible. So if we had gotten any weather out of the South, we would have had to make our way through the pack ice about 85 miles to the West to the first cove-like feature which was not frozen, an unsatisfactory spot with bottom shelving up steeply from great depths, and little shelter. I was sweating over the weather and ice charts for hours every day, trying to conceal from the crew how hairy these calculations were.

But in the event we were reasonably lucky with the weather. It was in fact sunny and calm most of the time we were there, and the sun didn’t set at all, so the light was glorious. We happened to be near what I think is the best shelter and most feasible anchorage in the whole Sound, but perhaps for Denmark Bay, but that was frozen solid with fast ice.


Precise knowledge about how well the anchor works on short scope was a matter of life and death, on this trip. And I happened to know that this particular anchor, a 100 pound Spade, in very deep water, well set in a good flat bottom, with 800 pounds of chain hanging in the water, and in shelter which would prevent any wave action, would hold my particular boat at 2.2:1 in winds in the 40’s, and it did. If I had not known that, I would have been forced to choose some other place to weather the blow which would have been much more dangerous – more exposed and bad holding on a rocky ledge further out, for example, or taking my chances amongst the icebergs in the sound – I shudder to think about that.
Thread drift, but the other really terrifying scenario in those waters is having an iceberg drift over your anchor. If you are blocked by an iceberg from maneuvering over your anchor, especially a well-set, large Spade, you will never get it up, and you will lose it. I cannot carry a spare duplicate set of ground tackle – 900 pounds of it -- so we would have been left with the Fortress and rope rode, which is wholly inadequate in that water. We would have had to leave. Preventing icebergs from getting to you is one reason to try to get into shallower water, as they have huge draft, with 7/8 of their mass under the waterline, but there is just hardly any place to anchor in less than 100 feet. So in this place:




we did have a small iceberg start to drift over our anchor, something I noticed from the mountain I was climbing nearby (someone else was on watch). I scrambled back down and jumped in the dinghy, and got the anchor up just in time.

If this horrible thing happens to you, you tie a fender to the end of the chain (or several fenders in deep water with heavy chain), then jettison your chain and hope to God that the iceberg drifts off again and re-exposes the fenders, and doesn’t catch and carry off your ground tackle. My next boat will have space to stow a second set of heavy ground tackle, in a large midships chain locker which will get all that mass of chain down near the keel (2x 100 meters x 12mm chain = 2/3 of a metric tonne of chain) In the rare case when you might actually want more than 100 meters of chain out, you might join the two chains together, but this would be a rare case indeed. There was no time in Greenland last summer when we had swinging room enough to deploy more than 100 meters of chain.

One more minor comment – Rod said something about “being lucky with a sloping bottom”. It’s important to note, that there is no such thing as being “lucky with a sloping bottom”. Sloping bottoms are nothing but bad news, very bad news – never anchor on a sloping bottom if you have any possible other choice, in a challenging situation. Why? Your anchor won’t hold on a sloping bottom if the wind is blowing offshore, as you want it to be if you are looking for shelter. So you need a shore tie, and you will actually be hanging from that, not from your anchor. Now that might be ok if you have something good to tie off to, and if you have a good stout shore tie rope with proper chafe protection, but what if the wind shifts, as it usually does in a storm? Well then you are up the creek without a paddle, because you can’t swing to a shore tie, and if you are caught beam-on to a good blow, all hell will break loose, your anchor will be pulled out, and if you don’t act very quickly and cut loose the shore tie and motor off, you will be on the rocks. I just don’t think that lying to a shore tie is a good place to be in a blow unless you’re really sure that the wind won’t shift.*


Even worse, you won’t find good holding on a sloping bottom in any case. Silt rolls downhill, and the mud or silt on a sloping bottom tends to be thin and unstable. If you are going to be facing challenging weather, you should always look for a flat, smooth bit of bottom where there will be a deep and stable accumulation of silt or sand. This often requires choosing the deepest parts of coves, and coincidentally, that may mean anchoring in deeper water on less scope, so another reason why it is really good to understand precisely how your anchor behaves on short scope, rather than just going for maximum scope at all costs in a knee-jerk manner. One caveat to this is that it is unfortunately not only silt which rolls downhill, but also boulders, and your anchor chain wrapped around a boulder can really mess you up. So when anchoring in the deepest parts of coves, it is important to survey the bottom with your depth sounder to try to determine whether there are boulders present. A good, powerful fishfinder which lets you look at the bottom texture and density would be invaluable in such situations.


*(note however that some of the expedition boats carry multiple massively long shore tie lines which can be rigged in different directions to hold the boat in the middle of a cove – now that is a different story, of course).




Other views of the anchorage where we went through the storm:

[ramblinrod]

[QUOTE=Dockhead;2845838]

Einstein once said that everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

“The most complicated skill is to be simple.” ―Dejan Stojanovic

“Simplicity is, as simple as you make it.”
― Anthony Liccione

It would seem that you pride yourself in making everything more complicated than it really has to be.

You attempt to quash every generalization or rule-of-thumb, even the application of the laws of physics, for the purpose of, well, I don't know what, just making things more complicated I guess.

I believe that your advice here, to use little scope 3:1, instead of lots of scope 10:1, for storm conditions, is the ABSOLUTE WORST AND MOST DANGEROUS ADVICE I have ever read on CF.

Sorry, but it's true.

I don't care what books you have read or who you choose to listen to, that is just incredibly poor advice in my opinion.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Could you identify the specific language that was a personal insult to you? I'm having trouble identifying where that occurred.

He cannot because it didn't happen. It is RR's standard response when logic and facts fail. He made the same accusation against me in a previous thread when to the contrary, the personal insults and name calling were all from him.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

I don't care what books you have read or who you choose to listen to, that is just incredibly poor advice in my opinion.

Not just books he has read. Dockhead has been there and done that and done so successfully, as have those he chooses to listen to.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

One more minor comment – Rod said something about “being lucky with a sloping bottom”. It’s important to note, that there is no such thing as being “lucky with a sloping bottom”. Sloping bottoms are nothing but bad news, very bad news – never anchor on a sloping bottom if you have any possible other choice, in a challenging situation.

I disagree.

If one is in a deep harbour that slopes up toward the shore this is good news.

The alternative deep harbour would be deep to the walls; this is bad news.

If anchoring in a small harbour with a sloping bottom and a storm coming, it is best to set the anchor on the ascending slope, on the opposite side the wind is to come from, at a depth that gives 10:1 scope (or as close as practical).

For example, if the storm is coming from the north, you have 300 ft of rode and the best nearby harbour is 100 ft deep in the centre, mud bottom, DO NOT ANCHOR IN THE CENTRE IN 100 ft WITH 3:1 SCOPE.

Instead, set the anchor in 30 ft of water on the south ascending slope and use a 10:1 scope.

Of course if there is insufficient room to do this before shallow water, the plan must be adjusted accordingly; set the anchor only as much more forward as necessary, to let out all of the rode you can.

Why?

Because if you anchor in the deep water with short scope, you are likely to drag and foul your anchor with a rock or log so it can't set and just skips across the bottom until you crash into the wisely anchored boat using 10:1 scope and not dragging at all, or run into shore and smash on the rocks.

I'm not too concerned if the latter; Darwinism at it's absolute finest hour.

Actually that's not true; I have cast out lines many times in the middle of a thunderstorm to idiots dragging by with short scope anchors to hold them AND ourselves with my anchor, set properly for conditions with long scope.

The only time longer scope is really a problem, is when some dough hunk with more money than brains, who wasn't smart enough to seek shelter and get squared away early, arrives just before or just as the storm hits, and expects everyone to shorten scope and endanger their vessel and crew to make room, because, well, they think they are so special.

This explanation should not be confused with a large harbour, where one can anchor close to shore on the windward side, protected from the wind by the shoreline.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by skipmac

He cannot because it didn't happen. It is RR's standard response when logic and facts fail. He made the same accusation against me in a previous thread when to the contrary, the personal insults and name calling were all from him.

I am sorry, but this is simply not true.

As in this thread, I post information that I believe may help forum members.

When contradicted or challenged by others, I support my position based on my knowledge, skill, and ability, with facts, logic, and reasoning.

Sometimes, the detractor gets upset that they posted something incorrect or foolish, and lash out with insults and bombarding arguments having little or no relevance to the subject, and when that fails, start launching insults and personal attacks.

On occasion, after being insulted incessantly, I may have lose my cool and respond in a less than my normal gentlemanly manner.

Please show me any thread where I have cast the first insult.

Can't do it?

Didn't think so.

I can show you where I have finally got fed up and responded in kind to those who like to dish it out but can't take it.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Not just books he has read. Dockhead has been there and done that and done so successfully, as have those he chooses to listen to.

I'm sorry, but I am just not impressed by what one has done, or who they listen to, when they recommend anchoring with shorter scope when longer scope is possible, everything else being equal.

That position is just clearly wrong in my opinion.

I too have anchored in some pretty hairy places under some pretty crappy conditions, and have donated more books I have read on sailing and seamanship, including anchoring, than I care to admit.

All of my experience, and everything I have read, dictates that everything else equal, longer scope is better.

In my opinion, carrying only 300 feet of rode, in a remote cruising area where it is anticipated one may need to anchor in 100 ft of water, under storm conditions, is poor seamanship, plain and simple.

Perhaps the reason they are still here to tell about it, is just pure luck, and absolutely nothing to do with skill or knowledge at all.

Note that we haven't heard from many who have dragged onto the rocks with short scope in deep water.

Some could argue, "See, it works."

Or perhaps they are just too embarrassed to admit their foolish behaviour, or don't bother to frequent CF any more after losing the boat.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

If one is in a deep harbour that slopes up toward the shore this is good news.

That's a lee shore

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

. . . If anchoring in a small harbour with a sloping bottom and a storm coming, it is best to set the anchor on the ascending slope, on the opposite side the wind is to come from, at a depth that gives 10:1 scope (or as close as practical).

For example, if the storm is coming from the north, you have 300 ft of rode and the best nearby harbour is 100 ft deep in the centre, mud bottom, DO NOT ANCHOR IN THE CENTRE IN 100 ft WITH 3:1 SCOPE.

Instead, set the anchor in 30 ft of water on the south ascending slope and use a 10:1 scope. . . .

In other words, put yourself on a lee shore, with the bottom already shelfing up? With a storm coming?


To each his own, but I don't personally know anyone who would do it that way.



Nor is there a single set answer to it -- it depends on the exact circumstances, including the slope of the bottom. But the lee shore version is about the last one I would personally look at. This gives up shelter, dragging room, everything, puts you where the wave action will be the worst, has you swinging in shallower water than where you anchor is. The only good thing about it is that the anchor is pulling uphill, and that is not something which will normally compensate the huge risks and disadvantages of being anchored on a lee shore.





If the bottom slopes steeply (like what I was in all summer), then you really don't want to be on the slope in any direction, if you can help it, for the different reasons I said, and you would prefer to be on short scope in deeper water if you find good holding there. If that's not feasible -- water too deep, light rode, iffy holding, boulders, then most experienced people would go for the shore tie on the WEATHER, not lee shore, to get the maximum shelter, and you would lie to a shore tie, with the anchor dug in pulling uphill to stabilize you. That is kind of the classic solution and why the expedition yachts carry large reels of shore tie rope on their decks.


Another variant is to try to find a shelf or a flat spot in the slope of the weather shore -- you might look to the mouth of a stream or river, where silt is deposited, there is often a shelf of silt and sometimes firm enough for good holding.



Going over to the lee shore would be something I, personally, would consider only in a truly desperate situation -- nothing to tie on to on the weather shore, no holding in the middle, no shelf, no way to go back out to sea.




It it's a wide bay with a gently sloping bottom, that might be a somewhat different story, but then I would be trying to find a way to get close under the weather shore, for the shelter. In this case, what would even be the value of giving up shelter, to get your anchor into a slight upward slope.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Pete7

That's a lee shore

Yup. And if one is in a harbour with wind coming in the mouth, they are going to be on a lee shore (unless they head out to sea, which could be the wisest choice yet).

As I stated, if one could position themselves to be in the lee of shoreline protection, ie, wind is athwart the harbour opening, that would be the place to be.

But if the wind is going to funnel down the harbour, anchoring in a 100 ft with 300 ft of rode, instead of 30 ft with 300 ft of rode, everything else equal barring any mitigating factors (tides, bottom changes etc.) the latter is the wiser, in my opinion and based on my knowledge and experience, which is fairly extensive.

In general, unless one creates unusual special circumstances to favour the less favourable, anchoring in the middle of a small harbour that is 100 ft deep, is not as wise as anchoring where it is more protected and/or shallower.

It truly is this simple.

Of course one who wishes to overcomplicate things, can throw in all kinds of mitigating circumstances like shelves and different holding and whatnot to make the less favourable seem more favourable, but it simple isn't true, in general terms.

[ramblinrod]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In this case, what would even be the value of giving up shelter, to get your anchor into a slight upward slope.

Yes, and if one is going to anchor away from an upward slope (as I have done on many an occasion, as well as just about any other anchoring configuration one can possibly imagine), what should they do about scope, if not increase it to the max, so they don't pull the freakin' anchor out (as long as they stay in windward protection).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

. . . In my opinion, carrying only 300 feet of rode, in a remote cruising area where it is anticipated one may need to anchor in 100 ft of water, under storm conditions, is poor seamanship, plain and simple...

We "only" carry 100 meters of chain, which weighs 726 pounds, because that is all you can practically use due to the constraints of swinging room. And that is why practically no one carries more than that. In none of the places where we were anchored, could we have used greater scope, because there was simply not room to swing that far.



Dashew took 265 feet of chain with him to Antarctica -- I guess he's also a "poor seaman"? Morgan's Cloud, the legendary 56 foot metal Arctic expedition boat, had 70 meters of 10mm chain with 30 meters of rope for years (recently upgraded to all chain and G70). Bad seamen?


There is actually a quite similar story to mine, on the Morgan's Cloud site (unfortunately behind a paywall, but well worth the small charge), called "Anchoring Decisions, 11 August 2011".



Also in Greenland, but this in the (charted!) SW part.


His anchorage looked a bit like ours:





with 250 feet of water in the middle of it, and a storm coming up, and ice in the water -- all the problems I learned to deal with last summer. A little wider than ours, which made his problem somewhat simpler.



So John's first choice was to take a shore tie on the weather side of the cove, tucked under the shore for shelter as much as possible, and away from the ice. But then:


"But when the winds reached strong gale (41 to 47 knots) with much higher gusts that came first from one beam and then the other, the boat was being slammed back and forth placing huge loads on the anchor and shore-fast. Everything was holding, but if either failed we would have been on the rocky shore in seconds and the boat lost, and there was no knowing how much worse it was going to get.

"So we made the very hard decision to slip the shore-fast, haul the anchor, and move further out in the cove where, although it was blowing even harder, and the water was a lot deeper at 100-feet, the boat could swing to the gusts and we had a good half a mile to leeward to sort things out if we dragged. (At this point, the strong winds had blown the ice away to leeward.)"


So much like our situation. But I had skipped the shore tie phase because I anticipated this issue. As I said in a previous post above, I don't like shore ties in really bad weather.



So John ended up anchored in 100 feet of water, on only 70 meters of chain (plus 30 meters of rope), and closer to the weather shore, not on the lee shore side. So about 3.3:1 and without the benefit of heavy chain.



Bad seamanship? John has been cruising extreme high latitudes for decades; he would have to be pretty lucky to have survived that without superb seamanship.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by ramblinrod

Yes, and if one is going to anchor away from an upward slope (as I have done on many an occasion, as well as just about any other anchoring configuration one can possibly imagine), what should they do about scope, if not increase it to the max, so they don't pull the freakin' anchor out (as long as they stay in windward protection).

You seem to have a fetish for scope. Do you not understand, that increasing scope "to the max", vs. to the minimum needed to keep the anchor shank horizontal, does nothing to keep you from "pulling the freakin' anchor out"?


Scope is not the be-all and end-all of anchoring. There is a lot more to anchoring then just letting out more chain.