Ok guys, anchors question

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Thrusters used to deal with problems for electric lowering of anchor while you can do it like it’s supposed to be done without all these troubles? Really!?

Maybe it’s better to use the virtual anchor option that the megayachts have? Just go where you want to be and press the button and you’re done only needs a stern thruster added to the arsenal of gadgets

Using the thruster has nothing to do with how the anchor is lowered.

Whether or not the windlass brake or windlass motor is used to lower the anchor is irrelevant. In either case, the bow will try to fall off downwind as the chain is going out, if there's much wind, and there often is where I sail. Thruster is a very useful tool in this case.


I have nothing against using the brake instead of the windlass for paying out chain, it's just that my windlass (Lewmar Ocean 3) has a crappy brake which is awkward to use, requiring a winch handle. Powering down works fine. Like WingSail, I don't just dump the chain out at once; I pay it out gradually as the boat drifts down slowly. I would do the same with the clutch, if I were doing it that way.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I actually saw 45’ sailboats with stern thrusters… and they needed them to prevent hitting things in the marina !

That would be boats with dual rudders but single propeller. Without propeller wash on the rudder, it's hard to control the stern of the boat. Hence the stern thruster.


I agree it's a huge disadvantage of dual rudders.

[goboatingnow]

Personally I buy the biggest anchor that fits on my bow roller and can be handled by my tigress 1000W windlass

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...A big issue is keeping the bow from being blown off by the wind during this process. Why God made bow thrusters (one of the reason).

Do you find that (the bow being blown off) disconcerting? For us it doesn't seem to be an issue. As chain is being let out the boat does get sideways, but it moves to leeward slowly. This drift provides to energy to begin to the set the anchor once the chain fall is ceased however once the bow is again oriented into the wind we use power to set the anchor.

A bigger issue for us is determining where we will wind up as the boat is drifting back; it often looks like we be somewhere other than where we planned but usually it's OK.

Even after 38 years anchoring is often a trial and error business.

Photo: Judy's circular motion with her finger means "apply more power in reverse".

[goboatingnow]

A bow thruster is never going to prevent sailing around an anchor it will overheat first

Try rigging a riding sail on the backstay. Easily made up on a sowing machine.

[Troy H]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

I didn’t inspect but it was probably Jimmy Hoffa.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

A primary function of an anchor is as an emergency device, regardless of whether it ever gets used for that or not. When you decide on number, type and size of fire extinguisher(s) on board, you factor in the potential magnitude of a fire. Same thing with sizing an anchor that could potentially be used in an emergency situation.

I would not size an anchor to make it suitable as an emergency brake.

I have to stretch my imagination to picture a situation where I would use the anchor as an emergency brake (like being in motion and wanting to stop).

The most likely situation would be when proceeding slowly near shore or an obstacle and suddenly losing power. In close quarters we keep our speed dead slow. Usually if the engine is running or we are sailing we are able to stop. But we have lost power at inopportune moments. That has happened. But our approach usually would be an instant U-turn (rotating around our keel) then maybe anchoring if quickly setting sail was not feasible. The need to anchor for that type of contingency is always in my mind, but we've never needed to do it.

I guess your scenario would be possible but it simply has never occurred in my experience.

I've selected my anchor based on manufacturer's charts and have not oversized. I do carry a bigger anchor but have very rarely considered using it and only actually deployed it twice, (but in both cases our normal anchor was holding, we were just worried).

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

We do too.





I let the boat drift slowly back once the anchor hits the bottom, as the chain goes out.


A big issue is keeping the bow from being blown off by the wind during this process. Why God made bow thrusters (one of the reason).

By using the power down (we do) you can control how the chain lays out across the bottom. My is usually at the helm while I'm upfront and she can easily control our backward speed with the engine.

We also back down to at least 2400 rpm and that ensures the hook is firmly embedded.

Using the dump method means there is a good chance you will end up with a pile of chain on the sea floor - for those that say they control the speed of descent with the clutch:
What is then the difference to using the power down? If you brake the chain descent with the clutch it will probably not lower any faster than power down

But both methods will work just fine.

We went 1 size up on our anchor from the Mantus sizing charts because Greg (owner of Mantus) suggested we do this if we were going to use the anchor as our main/storm anchor. It is the only anchor we use and in over 1500 nights on the hook over the past 6 years, we have only dragged once adn that was our own fault.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Do you find that (the bow being blown off) disconcerting? For us it doesn't seem to be an issue. As chain is being let out the boat does get sideways, but it moves to leeward slowly. This drift provides to energy to begin to the set the anchor once the chain fall is ceased however once the bow is again oriented into the wind we use power to set the anchor.

A bigger issue for us is determining where we will wind up as the boat is drifting back; it often looks like we be somewhere other than where we planned but usually it's OK.

Even after 38 years anchoring is often a trial and error business.

Photo: Judy's circular motion with her finger means "apply more power in reverse".

I agree that the bow falling off isn't generally an issue when anchoring. I've never found a case where the bow blows down so fast that rode can't be deployed fast enough. Being that we have twin engines, once deployment is complete and I'm ready to back down, it's just windward engine first until the bow points to the wind, then put the second engine in reverse. I've had more issues with the bow blowing off during retrieval than deployment (if it blows off too far the angle of rode to roller becomes a problem).

[s/v Jedi]

So, here is a revelation: you do not need any thrusters to anchor. You don’t need two engines to anchor. You don’t even need a single engine to anchor. You need an anchor, a decent windlass and the proper technique, that’s all.

Observe how an experienced solo sailor anchors. Observe how one can do it without using the engine at all.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

So, here is a revelation: you do not need any thrusters to anchor. You don’t need two engines to anchor. You don’t even need a single engine to anchor. You need an anchor, a decent windlass and the proper technique, that’s all.

Observe how an experienced solo sailor anchors. Observe how one can do it without using the engine at all.

Maybe it's because I have a light boat (not much inertia) but I don't feel I can properly set the anchor without the engine. (I'd do it if the engine was unavailable, but I am not comfortable with it, THAT would affect my sleep that night)

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by carstenb

By using the power down (we do) you can control how the chain lays out across the bottom. My is usually at the helm while I'm upfront and she can easily control our backward speed with the engine.

We also back down to at least 2400 rpm and that ensures the hook is firmly embedded.

Using the dump method means there is a good chance you will end up with a pile of chain on the sea floor - for those that say they control the speed of descent with the clutch:
What is then the difference to using the power down? If you brake the chain descent with the clutch it will probably not lower any faster than power down

But both methods will work just fine..

There might be some chain “piled up” when the anchor first hits tne bottom but if the boat is falling off in a good wind it won’t be there but a few seconds before laying out and you resume veering the chain using the clutch. In light conditions helm backs the boat, idle reverse, until the anchor grabs, then powers back to set. If I use my Quick console to lower the chain electrically I’m usually standing. When I use the clutch (99% of deployments) I’m down low to operate the clutch (yes, using a winch handle on a friction clutch plate). When the clutch is braked I can easily grab the chain at the windlass and feel whether and how the anchor tackle is moving along the bottom. (Yes, you can often see the chain “jumping” as well.) But, I’m right there to veer more scope in short pulses if required.

I don’t think we meant to say or imply “control the speed of descent.” The thing free-falls to the bottom under gravity. Once there, we can control the average rate (e.g., ft/sec) at which the chain is veered as the boat falls off or is backed away. This prevents the piling up of concern. But there is no question that my anchor gets to the bottom faster under gravity than by powering it down. My Quick (remote) console is right there if I need to pull some chain back in briefly.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Maybe it's because I have a light boat (not much inertia) but I don't feel I can properly set the anchor without the engine. (I'd do it if the engine was unavailable, but I am not comfortable with it, THAT would affect my sleep that night)

I'm of the same school of thought. Yeah, it should set fine without backing down on it, etc. But if I've got engines available to use, I'd rather back down and know for sure it'll set and that I didn't manage to drop it on an old tarp or something stupid.

[Auklet]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

I'm of the same school of thought. Yeah, it should set fine without backing down on it, etc. But if I've got engines available to use, I'd rather back down and know for sure it'll set and that I didn't manage to drop it on an old tarp or something stupid.

We always power back to test the set of the anchor for overnight. That we deploy it using the clutch or electric, in strong wind or light, is not germane. The anchor set is always tested with the chain snubber attached. Sometimes we have to power it all up and try again!

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Maybe it's because I have a light boat (not much inertia) but I don't feel I can properly set the anchor without the engine. (I'd do it if the engine was unavailable, but I am not comfortable with it, THAT would affect my sleep that night)

You have a point, but light boats also have small anchors that set easier. I think the trick is to let the wind take the boat at a speed that one needs to get the feel for, pay out the chain neatly while doing so, which requires use of the clutch because electric is too slow, then knowing when the appropriate amount of chain is out to set the anchor, at which point the clutch gets tightened enough to set the anchor but not so much that it gets pulled out. This coming taut of the rode immediately tells if the anchor is set properly just by the feel of the chain, which transmits whatever is going on below.

It sounds all complicated but it’s not. People who fail to set the anchor are often trying at a scope worse than 2:1 because that’s all they got out with electric lowering before the rode gets taut, so they just drag the anchor around like idiots. It’s a daily sundowner entertainment where the charter boats hang out, only to be interrupted by the clueless one who anchors right on top of you

But yes, we use the engine too, just to make sure and test the set; not to set it with.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Using the dump method means there is a good chance you will end up with a pile of chain on the sea floor - for those that say they control the speed of descent with the clutch:
What is then the difference to using the power down? If you brake the chain descent with the clutch it will probably not lower any faster than power down

I think we mostly agree, but when you end up with a pile of chain on the seabed, you did wrong. Maybe we are spoiled with our Maxwell windlass, but we can set the clutch so that it stops as soon as the anchor hits the seabed, then lays out the chain in a straight line as the bow moves back downwind.

I would assume every windlass can do this as long as they are properly maintained and the clutch isn’t seized or corroded etc.