Photos of Anchors Setting

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Ozbullwinkle

You really think that the tests done by yachting magazines are totally impartial?

Funny how often the manufacturer who comes out on top of the "independent tests" then has a substantial spread of advertising in the same mag and this applies not just to anchor tests. Magazine test results, while they can be beneficial, really need to be treated with a degree of scepticism as they are far from impartial. Do you really think that they would want to risk loosing a very profitable advertising account by slamming the same company during testing?

+10

Nolex appears to be suggesting that the Yachting World's testing is the definitive test result and Robertson's is totally discredited. Yeah
As if there was actual consensus achieved.

It is very difficult and terribly expensive to set up a real world test of anchors.

I agree that such results can only be taken as a guide and that unfortunately we have to rely on our own experiences and those of others actually using the various anchors under varying conditions on threads such as these.

There is without doubt some agreement that the New Gen anchors outperform the CQR/Delta types and it seems to be accepted that similar anchors appear to perform similarly. (Supreme, Rocna, Mantus, Sarca Supreme)

Regarding the relative performance of the new gen anchors the best info we can glean is from individuals that have varied experience with the various anchors. I expect we can certainly take some good advise from Nolex on the relative virtues of Rocna and Mantus in the future. However I cannot take seriously his evaluation of the Excel without having used it. I much prefer actual users.

The various anchor threads have indicated excellent results of other new generation anchors other than Rocna and Mantus including Ultra, Spade, Manson Supreme and Sarca Excel and thats why feedback from people actually using those anchors is very useful. We don't seem to had much feedback on the Manson Boss to be able to form any concensus as yet.

Whilst we can make a case that the TAT's device developed by Anchorright has some limitations there is now doubt that it is a relatively cost effective tool for an anchor manufacturer to trial and experiment with anchor performance and development of a new anchor that differs from the popular roll bar anchor type. Its an indicator and I believe the test performed by Robertsons was valid for the various sized anchors used in those substrates as a guide. Definitive - No way.

Meanwhile lets hope we can get some more evaluation of anchors in the various conditions with photos.

Cheers

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Ozbullwinkle

Magazine test results, while they can be beneficial, really need to be treated with a degree of scepticism as they are far from impartial. Do you really think that they would want to risk loosing a very profitable advertising account by slamming the same company during testing?

I certainly agree.

Many of the smaller magazine tests should probably be ignored completely. I think even the large tests should be viewed with some suspicion. If nothing else the number of trials is low (too low in many cases to have any statistical confidence) in a very small number of substrates that are selected mainly because they are very uniform, rather than representative. They can only test ultimate holding capacity and ignore important factors such as resetting ability.

I base most of my anchor assessment on observing anchors underwater and also noting which boats drag in stronger wind or when the wind shifts.
The number of attempts needed to set the anchor is also interesting. This needs to be adjusted for anchoring technique and scope etc, but these factors are easily allowed for. I also talk to fellow cruisers and listen to the reports on CF and other forums.

Magazine tests feature well down on my list of personal criteria for assessing anchors. Even manufacturers' anchor tests are worth reading though, often the best policy is to ignore the results of the manufacturers' anchors, which always win , and look at the measurements for the other anchors.

I think the Yachting World test data that I reported does warrant some consideration. I probably give this more weight than it deserves because its findings agree quite closely with my observations of anchor performance (with minor changes). It has been by far the largest test. It was a conglomeration of several large sailing magazines and West Marine. Each magazine has written their own conclusions based on the same test data so read them all to get a balanced view. It does have some serious limitations, such as allowing manufacturers to supply anchors without checking they are representative. Eg Sharpening the anchor tip improves performance. This makes the tip more prone to bending, but this is unlikely to occur in the short test time.

I think the best policy is to consider all the available means and data when assessing anchors, but the relative significance of each piece of information needs to allowed for. I think manufacturers' videos and tests should have very little weight in the overall assessment.

[noelex 77]

This is hot off the press. A German boat has just dropped their anchor off our stern. I think it is a Bugel copy (as opposed to the genuine thing). They set it on a moderate to short scope about 4:1 in 6m of water. Unfortunately, they did not give the boat much reverse and the wind is only light (10 knots) so it has not provided a lot of setting force.

The Bugel copy has not done a very a good job. It is difficult to see from the photo, but there is a shallow drag mark extending about a metre and half. Sometimes these shallow drag marks are caused by the boat dragging the anchor backwards at a very short scope when laying out the chain, but I did not see any evidence of this with the drop.

We should be careful drawing too many conclusions from a result like this. Anchors that are poorly set with deep and long drag marks are a very bad sign, but in this case with little setting force and the possibility of drag marks caused when laying out the chain there is a reasonable chance the anchor will set properly and rotate upright with more force. I would mark this down as a poor, but inconclusive result.

There are some rocks only a few boat lengths behind the boat in question and despite the forecast of only light winds I would not be happy going to sleep with an anchor that looked like this, but plenty of people do.

The Mantus was unchanged, but photos were taken at the same time if anyone wants to see a shot.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Ozbullwinkle

You really think that the tests done by yachting magazines are totally impartial?

Funny how often the manufacturer who comes out on top of the "independent tests" then has a substantial spread of advertising in the same mag and this applies not just to anchor tests. Magazine test results, while they can be beneficial, really need to be treated with a degree of scepticism as they are far from impartial. Do you really think that they would want to risk loosing a very profitable advertising account by slamming the same company during testing?

It's ALL mags not just boating ones. A few years ago Road and Track did tests on the Cadillac CTS-V and I believe an M5 BMW, in the article they noted the Caddy accelerated faster, had a higher top speed, out braked, and had a higher G number in the skid pad and a lower lap time on the track
Test conclusion was the BMW was a better sport car, immediately following the article BMW had placed five full pages of advertising, Cadillac had none.
Road and Track knows a huge majority of their money comes from BMW, they know not to bite the hand that feeds them.

[noelex 77]

The wind is still very light, but has picked up slightly. The forecast for now is 18 knots with 25 knot gusts. In reality, in this steep sided anchorage the wind is only averaging 5-10 knots, but with some prolonged gusts in the low 20's.

The boat concerned let out another 15 m of chain, which I think was wise move, so they are now lying at about 6:1.

The wind would not be enough to change a well set anchor even if it was small for the boat size (which it is not), but it should start to effect a poorly set anchor like this.

So the question is: will this anchor set better or drag?

Any bets on what the Bugel copy will do?

My wife has just come back from a dive and given me the verdict, but we are going out for dinner tonight so I will download and post her photos when I get back.

Oh the suspense

[noelex 77]

This was the result. You can see it has dragged about 3m, under the wind force. It has not set any better. It has not rotated level. This is a very poor result. (Note the Bugel copies need to be judged individually. Some are good, some are terrible as this anchor shows). While I have only seen this anchor in one anchorage, good anchors should be reliable in all reasonable substrates when deployed correctly. This is a poor result for this particular Bugel copy.

Of course having never owned a Bugel copy I am in no position to judge this anchor

If you ever want a reason to justify buying a good anchor, this single example alone should convince you. This is only very light wind.

[Sailor g]

Noelex

Guess you will have to follow this boat to a few other anchorages to get more results. Just stay upwind, in case 😎

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Sailor g

Noelex

Guess you will have to follow this boat to a few other anchorages to get more results. Just stay upwind, in case 😎

Unfortunatly it will not be hard to get photos of anchors performing poorly.

[noelex 77]

It is a bit difficult to see the drag distance on the photos so I have highlighted a reference point on the before and after photo that I think makes things clearer.

Note you can also see the leftover chain marks that are rippled in the sand. (See the very bottom of the photo on the right) These always point to the end of the shank when they were made and therefore show the anchor movement even if you have not seen an initial reference. (Anchoring analysis 101 )

The marks in the sand reveal the history of the anchor movement if you look carefully.

These drag distances are very hard to detect from the boat. The owner would probably give his anchor a perfect score for its performance on this occasion. Underwater inspection accurately reveals the reality of the mediocre result.

[monte]

Great stuff Noelex. We had a 20kg Delta on our Lagoon 380 that always set within a few meters except 2 or 3 times when it dragged weed and we had to try again. This is from maybe 300 anchor sets between Biscay and Croatia. It never dragged once it was set. Our new lagoon 400 comes with the same anchor but we have switched it for a Kobra 25kg for a bit more peace of mind. Ill report back later with a pic or two once we get into some warmer water
We have marked the chain at 5m intervals and we usually clip the bridle on at 5:1 max depth and allow for the bridle to cover the remaining scope. The distance from the bridal clip to the bow is about 5m and the height of attachment is 1.7m, so the scope of that section is closer to 3:1, but we lay out about 10m of additional chain in a loop to act as a kellet. This method makes it a bit faster to calculate scope (ie max tide height 5m, clip the bridle at 25m. We always clip the bridle on before running both engines astern at 2500RPM for a minute while we check bearings. Actually when we drop the anchor I add a waypoint to the plotter and walk forward and press the anchor alarm app directly over the anchor, then after we put the bridle on I put another WP on the plotter and make sure we are staying put. I also set the anchor alarm radius to this point as a maximum.
One cat specific problem we have is letting out more chain in crowded anchorages. Occasionally someone anchors upwind too close and they may be 5m off our bow. I would like to let out 5m more chain but to do that requires moving forward 5m to unclip the bridle. If they are dragging it can be 'exciting' trying to maneuver away! I recall an italian guy in Elba that was slowly dragging towards us. He had at least 70m chain out in 5m water and when he was almost on us he seemed offended that we were in his way. I explaines he was dragging and maybe should reset his anchor, but his response was I should let out more chain?? I think we had 25m out ans were rock solid. I guess his anchor was either adrift or inverted...
Anyway, keep up the good work and try keep the mermaid in more of the anchor pics.
PS how does the zoom function work with the pics?!

Monte

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by monte

I recall an italian guy in Elba that was slowly dragging towards us. He had at least 70m chain out in 5m water and when he was almost on us he seemed offended that we were in his way. I explaines he was dragging and maybe should reset his anchor, but his response was I should let out more chain?? I think we had 25m out ans were rock solid. I guess his anchor was either adrift or inverted...

Monte

You just made me thinking about remote possibility, that this green, white, red ensign is actually NOT a code flag for "Present and Imminent Danger"...

[noelex 77]

Just been joined by a boat with a CQR. I actually don't see many of these now in the anchorages in the Med.(lots in marinas). They don't work well in the hard sand that is present in a lot of the anchorages around here. Most boats that spend the majority of time anchoring have abandoned them for something better.

On the first drop the anchor failed to hold and they dragged several boat lengths. They hauled up and reset. This was the rather pitiful second result. There was a very long drag mark of about 30 metres (sorry, it was too long to get all in one photo ). The anchor has ended up on its side, not set at all, with some weed clogging the tip. There is a bit of debris around the hinge.

When the anchor drags a long way like this one has it is not uncommon for it pick up something. It is sometimes difficult to be sure if it dragged because of the debris, or the debris was a result of the long drag. I think the latter is probably the case, but that is only because I have seen an identical result so many times from this anchor.

In fact the anchor was still dragging slowly in the stronger gusts when the photo was taken. You can see small puffs of sand around the anchor.
The laser rangefinder shows they have moved back about 5m in an hour. Slow drags like this (or even slower) are not uncommon in light/moderate wind with poorly set anchors and generally the owner is unaware their anchor is moving backwards.

Some anchors even have the habit of "creeping" backwards when completely set, usually in stronger winds. A habit which is disconcerting to observe, but once again the owner is usually unaware that anything untoward is occurring.

They dropped in around 8 m with a scope of roughly 5:1.

[Sailor g]

Wow-it's always surprising when someone has no clue they are dragging. Until they hit the beach or the rocks.

[downunder]

Nolex,

Your wife/mermaid is certainly getting good at her anchor shots.

[noelex 77]

The couple from the boat with the CQR went ashore for lunch , meanwhile their boat was very slowly dragging backwards. After lunch they left for I assume (hope) a marina.

They should have been able to easily detect the long drag when setting the anchor (although many people do not). The small drag after this, caused by the wind, was only 8-9 m and of course they were not even on board. It is worth developing the skills to detect even small movements of your anchor.

With sensitive transits and/or a laser rangefinder you can pick up small or slow drags that show your anchor is not happy and is likely to drag rapidly if the wind picks up. You do need to allow for some straightening out of the chain if the wind has picked up so it's a judgment that needs practise. Unfortunately GPS, or radar is not sensitive enough to reliably pick movement of a few metres.

Looking at the anchor underwater makes these slight movements immediately obvious.

Anyway my wife mermaid took another shot of the anchor a few hours later.

The first photo shows detail of the CQR. I am not sure what the debris is around the hinge (maybe a bit of plastic). You can see the anchor is completely on its side. The haze around the fluke is caused by bits of sand being disturbed by the slowly dragging anchor.

The fluke has not dug in at all, but is clogged with weed and substrate, which is usually the case when the anchor has dragged a long way in anything other than clean sand (this was only very light scattered weed). Convex anchors generally come up clean when they are raised to the surface and the assumption is that this is how they looked on the bottom. The reality is that any anchor that drags along the bottom, especially in any sort of weed, will wrap material around the fluke. How it looks when raised to the surface is not a good indication of how it looked on the bottom.

The prevention is to not have the anchor drag along the bottom and preferably to set quickly. Ironically, the concave anchors are sometimes blamed for "clogging", because when raised to surface (the bit most people see) the concave anchors retain most of this mud and weed. If you look at the anchor on the bottom you get a very different story. The CQR in question came up completely clean. There was also, surprisingly, no sign of the debris that was around the hinge.

The second photo makes the slow drag clearer. The original drag mark caused by pulling with the engine is out of frame to right of the picture (you can see chain marks leading to this point) The engine is then cut and anchor continues slowly dragging, there is then a change in wind direction of about 60 degrees and the anchor starts dragging in this new direction. The marks leading off to top left are caused by the chain (in firmer sand you can actually see the imprint of the individual chain links). The drag due to engine while setting was about 30 m. The drag after the engine was cut was about 8-9 m over a three hour period.

The owners probably thought their anchor did a wonderful job .