Photos of Anchors Setting

[noelex 77]

This is a bit of an oddball, an Admiralty stockless anchor that has actually set !!

I do see a few of these anchors usually on the Gullets and they are invariably terrible. The tips are usually too blunt to penetrate the hard sand.
This one set reasonably well, but remember there is only a very small fluke area below the substrate so the holding power is still limited.

They dropped in only 3 m, which I think was the main reason reason for success. They have managed to find some softer sand close to the beach. The anchor is larger than it looks in the photographs (perhaps 130lb at a guess).

Anyway, I can only take the photos, even if they are atypical results, and leave you to judge for yourself.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by 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).

The striking thing about that photo is the angle of attack the blade is trying to make with the sand. Rather than plough its way down into the sand it looks like its in snow shovel mode.

Pete

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Pete7

The striking thing about that photo is the angle of attack the blade is trying to make with the sand. Rather than plough its way down into the sand it looks like its in snow shovel mode.

Pete

Concave plough.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

This is a bit of an oddball, an Admiralty stockless anchor that has actually set !!

I do see a few of these anchors usually on the Gullets and they are invariably terrible. The tips are usually too blunt to penetrate the hard sand.
This one set reasonably well, but remember there is only a very small fluke area below the substrate so the holding power is still limited.

They dropped in only 3 m, which I think was the main reason reason for success. They have managed to find some softer sand close to the beach. The anchor is larger than it looks in the photographs (perhaps 130lb).

Anyway, I can only take the photos, even if they are atypical results, and leave you to judge for yourself.

Best photos to date.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by downunder

Concave plough.

I hope it is not that far out. The fluke is supposed to be flat

Originally Posted by downunder

Best photos to date.

Thanks it's easy when the anchor is shallow.

[Sos]

Love this thread and the pictures are great!.

I use the first method of setting my anchor but when going astern I like to
hold the chain / rode to feel when or if it has set.

[noelex 77]

The Admiralty Stockless is a very old design. There seem to be several variations. The shape of the one in grey I photographed on the pallet seems to be a more common design (these variations probably all have different names, but I don't know what they are). This has a slightly bigger fluke area than the model I shot underwater, but you can see it is still a tiny and blunt blade area compared to even a CQR, let alone a new generation anchor of the equivalent weight.

They are mainly used by larger ships that anchor in a slightly different way, relying much more on the chain holding power. You can see in the second photo I took that while this anchor is massive, in relation to the size of the boat it is tiny. As you can also see they made a mess of using two anchors.

These anchors do not scale down to small sizes well, but are sometimes used by larger pleasure boats. If you are tempted to put any faith in the certified Super High Holding Power (SHHP) sticker, bear in mind that this anchor is the reference point. A new anchor only has to demonstrate 4x the holding capacity of the Admiralty Stockless (or a low 12x its own weight) to earn the rating.

[noelex 77]

I understand the stockless is not the most topical anchor, but unfortunately it is the only option available to photograph at the moment (the Mantus is totally unchanged).

The boat concerned wisely elected to anchor out in deeper water overnight. They would have hit the beach if the wind had swung around. I wanted to get a photo of their anchor in the more typical harder sand we get here, but by early this morning they had re anchored back in the same spot just off the beach.

The drop was not great and their anchor dragged a bit before it bit (this has left very little trace in soft sand). This is the result. This is a more typical set for this anchor with only the tips of flukes dug in (if this type of anchor sets at all), but I think in this soft sand it would dig in OK if a bit of progressive force was applied. Of course soft sand and a small fluke area is not a recipe for great holding even once it has dug in.

My mermaid took the photos

[NornaBiron]

Originally Posted by 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 .

We anchored in the bay at Knidos, Turkey, a few days ago. It's a very busy spot and we stopped for two nights. Whilst there I watched and dived on over 20 anchor sets, seeing lots of different techniques and anchors used. I would suggest that only 5% of the sets would hold in 20 knots plus, some would not hold in less as the photos show. It was a good job no wind was forecast.

Before we bought our 45kg Spade we used a CQR for four years. It sometimes took a few goes to set but only ever dragged once. I would suggest that a lot of the problems people have with anchors is their setting technique. I must say we do sleep better knowing our anchor is set. If your anchor will not hold with you going full astern you should not sleep well

[noelex 77]

Thanks for the great photos.

I have not seen many boats this season so it's nice to see some other anchors.

Here is my analysis based on yours photos, for what it's worth:

Photo 1:
The anchor is well set. The thick and tapered top section of the shank suggests this is a Spade (NornaBiron's spade?). The anchor has taken slightly longer to set than is typical for the Spade which indicates unless it was done with a short scope it is probably a firm substrate. The nice progressive and smooth increase in depth of the setting mark is a great sign. It indicates the anchor has evenly dug in. There is no signs of skips or hops.

After the set the anchor has rotated with the wind direction about 30 degrees from the setting direction. The anchor has stayed level and set during this rotation.

Photo 2:
This might not be genuine Delta it's difficult to tell with the weed.
The anchor is not set at all. The weed around the fluke is typical of the results of an anchor that has been dragged a long way. Even with only very scattered bits of broken weed on the bottom, anchors collect this on the fluke when dragging. The longer they are dragged the more they collect. In this sort of case it is very helpful to see the boats anchoring technique. Was the scope adequate? Was the anchor dragged backwards too quickly? The anchor was set downwind or wind has changed since the set causing the chain to loop back around the anchor.

Photo 3:
Delta. Not set all. Most of the drag mark cannot be seen.
There is another mark in the sand just above the anchor shank. It is difficult to tell if this is chain mark, or a drag mark. Chain marks always point to the tip of the shank and if this is a chain mark it indicates the anchor was significantly further back. This would indicate the anchor has been pulled a long distance. If it's a drag mark it is worse, as it indicates that the anchor dragged one way, turned around out of picture and is now dragging back. It could also be a second attempt at setting the anchor or the marks from another boat previously in the same spot, but to have marks from two different occasions within a foot of each other is unlikely.

Photo 4:
Bruce. Looks genuine, but you cannot be sure from the photo. It has started to set, but has not rotated level. Only part of the drag mark can be seen. Perhaps this anchor will set properly with a bit more force, perhaps it has been given adequate force and has dragged in this orientation without digging in any better? Seeing the full drag mark and watching the boat concerned anchor would provide a more definitive verdict

Photo 5:
Bugel copy. The anchor is set, but not very well. It has a significant list. The reasonably long drag mark shows the anchor has been given some force, but has not set well despite this. If this was at a reasonable scope and in a progressive manner, the anchor has not performed well. The Bugel only has a small blade area and this needs to taken into account. It is very similar to the result in my photos of the Bugel copy.

Photo 6:
CQR. Poorly set, on it's side with only part of the fluke buried. However, its difficult to see the drag marks and this is how a CQR looks in the early stages of setting so it could just be inadequate setting force.

Note:
There is nothing special about my analysis. I would encourage everyone to do the same. NornaBiron having seen the anchors in person can tell me where I am totally wrong . It is important when looking at these photographs to do so with a critical eye. If you get a chance to see your own anchor underwater, or those of boats around you, there is a lot of information in the scrape marks on the sand that can be used to estimate what is going on.

[noelex 77]

A new anchorage and the Mantus has once again done its usual great set. (The first photo) You can see from the marks in the sand that it has set in less than a couple of feet. This anchor sets amazingly quickly.

There was a French boat already in the anchorage. We anchored beside the other boat in the same depth of water (10m) and had about the same amount of scope out (4.5:1). The substrates looks very much the same.

The Delta has set so so, (the second photo)but this was at the end of a long drag mark (about 10 m). Worryingly, the drag mark shows evidence of quite a few jumps and skips. You can see how the drag mark goes deeper then suddenly shallower, even quite close to the anchor. This is generally caused by the anchor partially hopping out then grabbing again. Anchors do this when they are struggling to dig into the substrate.

I did not see the Delta drop and it is possible that they reversed too quickly when there was only a small amount of chain out, but if you look to the right of the drag mark you can also see the chain mark. This indicates the chain was on the ground (and therefore the scope was adequate) for at least some of the time when the anchor much further forward. The wide chain mark indicates the anchor probably spent some time further forward and it is possible that part of the furrow is simply due to a slow drag caused by the wind.

[Fuss]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Photo 5:
Bugel copy. The anchor is set, but not very well. It has a significant list. The reasonably long drag mark shows the anchor has been given some force, but has not set well despite this. If this was at a reasonable scope and in a progressive manner, the anchor has not performed well. The Bugel only has a small blade area and this needs to taken into account. It is very similar to the result in my photos of the Bugel copy.

First assuming that in this sand is is possible to dig in as the first photo shows....

I have a bugel and it never set like that.
I would guess that it was pulled on a short scope so the tip never dug in. Or never really pulled at all after it was down, what shows is just the initial pull during the chain deployment. One of the two.
In that sand my bugel would set straight and show only the top.

[Fuss]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The Delta has set so so, (the second photo)but this was at the end of a long drag mark (about 10 m). Worryingly, the drag mark shows evidence of quite a few jumps and skips. You can see how the drag mark goes deeper then suddenly shallower, even quite close to the anchor. This is generally caused by the anchor partially hopping out then grabbing again. Anchors do this when they are struggling to dig into the substrate.

I did not see the Delta drop and it is possible that they reversed too quickly when there was only a small amount of chain out, but if you look to the right of the drag mark you can also see the chain mark. This indicates the chain was on the ground (and therefore the scope was adequate) for at least some of the time when the anchor much further forward. The wide chain mark indicates the anchor probably spent some time further forward and it is possible that part of the furrow is simply due to a slow drag caused by the wind.

Thats what I would imagine, reversed too quickly with not enough chain out.

I can't imagine it being that inadequate that with the right scope it behaved like that before it set. If mine did, I would change it.

My bugel usually looks like your first photo.

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Fuss

First assuming that in this sand is is possible to dig in as the first photo shows....

I have a bugel and it never set like that.
I would guess that it was pulled on a short scope so the tip never dug in. Or never really pulled at all after it was down, what shows is just the initial pull during the chain deployment. One of the two.
In that sand my bugel would set straight and show only the top.

I assume You do have a real thing.
The anchors shown on the photos in previous posts are copies, I'm quite sure. Even from photos the dimensions does not look right. Look at the proportion of the shank versus rollbar size

Original Bugel (and good copies) are well setting anchors, but most of the copies justa are not...

[NornaBiron]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Thanks for the great photos.

I have not seen many boats this season so it's nice to see some other anchors.

Here is my analysis based on yours photos, for what it's worth:

Photo 1:
The anchor is well set. The thick and tapered top section of the shank suggests this is a Spade (NornaBiron's spade?). The anchor has taken slightly longer to set than is typical for the Spade which indicates unless it was done with a short scope it is probably a firm substrate. The nice progressive and smooth increase in depth of the setting mark is a great sign. It indicates the anchor has evenly dug in. There is no signs of skips or hops.

After the set the anchor has rotated with the wind direction about 30 degrees from the setting direction. The anchor has stayed level and set during this rotation.

Photo 2:
This might not be genuine Delta it's difficult to tell with the weed.
The anchor is not set at all. The weed around the fluke is typical of the results of an anchor that has been dragged a long way. Even with only very scattered bits of broken weed on the bottom, anchors collect this on the fluke when dragging. The longer they are dragged the more they collect. In this sort of case it is very helpful to see the boats anchoring technique. Was the scope adequate? Was the anchor dragged backwards too quickly? The anchor was set downwind or wind has changed since the set causing the chain to loop back around the anchor.

Photo 3:
Delta. Not set all. Most of the drag mark cannot be seen.
There is another mark in the sand just above the anchor shank. It is difficult to tell if this is chain mark, or a drag mark. Chain marks always point to the tip of the shank and if this is a chain mark it indicates the anchor was significantly further back. This would indicate the anchor has been pulled a long distance. If it's a drag mark it is worse, as it indicates that the anchor dragged one way, turned around out of picture and is now dragging back. It could also be a second attempt at setting the anchor or the marks from another boat previously in the same spot, but to have marks from two different occasions within a foot of each other is unlikely.

Photo 4:
Bruce. Looks genuine, but you cannot be sure from the photo. It has started to set, but has not rotated level. Only part of the drag mark can be seen. Perhaps this anchor will set properly with a bit more force, perhaps it has been given adequate force and has dragged in this orientation without digging in any better? Seeing the full drag mark and watching the boat concerned anchor would provide a more definitive verdict

Photo 5:
Bugel copy. The anchor is set, but not very well. It has a significant list. The reasonably long drag mark shows the anchor has been given some force, but has not set well despite this. If this was at a reasonable scope and in a progressive manner, the anchor has not performed well. The Bugel only has a small blade area and this needs to taken into account. It is very similar to the result in my photos of the Bugel copy.

Photo 6:
CQR. Poorly set, on it's side with only part of the fluke buried. However, its difficult to see the drag marks and this is how a CQR looks in the early stages of setting so it could just be inadequate setting force.

Note:
There is nothing special about my analysis. I would encourage everyone to do the same. NornaBiron having seen the anchors in person can tell me where I am totally wrong . It is important when looking at these photographs to do so with a critical eye. If you get a chance to see your own anchor underwater, or those of boats around you, there is a lot of information in the scrape marks on the sand that can be used to estimate what is going on.

The photo of set 1 was taken around half an hour after anchoring. Our Spade dug in well straight away with 3/4 power astern. I think the scars in the sand where there before as we did not rotate. The anchorage is like a well ploughed field.

Photo 2 was attached to a Sunsail Lagoon catamaran tied to to the shore. They just dropped it and there it stayed. When I first swam over it I thought I had found a lost anchor and chain. I could not believe it when I followed the chain and it was connected to a boat! The cat stayed overnight and did not move much, luckily there was very little wind.

Photo 3 - I watched the anchor being dropped and they had about a 4:1 scope. They pulled back and dragged for around 50m. There they stayed. Again, a good job there was no wind.

Photo 4 - the Bruce was dropped with around 4:1 scope. They set back and applied power for 30 seconds. By the engine noise I would say they used about half revs but not knowing the horse power etc I think that full power would have been better to improve the set.

Photo 5 - the Bugle was set using a good technique, however it was in a different anchorage - I got my photos muddled sorry :-) Our Spade was completely buried on the same ground. When speaking to the owner of the boat he was interested to see the photo, on showing him he said he dives regularly on his Bugle and it always sets this way and holds him well. He told me that if there is a bad forecast he lays a Fortress with a 10m rode attached to the Bugle. I'm not knocking his idea, but I would rather one good anchor than two to get tangled in if the poo hits the fan.

Photo 6 - the CQR was set using little force and the boat was tied back to the pontoon. We were set 68m from the pontoon in 9m of water. A guy on the pontoon went loopy when we put the power on to set - I think he should have been more concerned with the unset anchors around him!

We use a range finder to know how close we are to other boats and the shore etc.