Photos of Anchors Setting

[sanibel sailor]

Georgetown SC on the AICW ought to be the benchmark for soupy bottoms. I must have tried 8 times, never got a "set" and just laid overnight to what was not much better a 35 lb coffee can with concrete. Very sheltered fortunately. Others reported same.

[cofc]

Originally Posted by sanibel sailor

Georgetown SC on the AICW ought to be the benchmark for soupy bottoms. I must have tried 8 times, never got a "set" and just laid overnight to what was not much better a 35 lb coffee can with concrete. Very sheltered fortunately. Others reported same.

Terrible anchorage. Down by the mill is better, but less sheltered.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Photo will probably be making the anchor thread rounds.

Attachment 149533

That is not bent! That appears to have broken/snapped along possibly a weld line? But it aint bent!

[sanibel sailor]

Sure looks bent to me. Weld line???

[Factor]

What I was alluding to was the appearance of an actual separation of the metal, a tearing at what may be a weld line. That is way more than bent, look closely at the photo - you will see the metal is "torn". I have bent a few anchors in my time, I have never torn the metal.

[a64pilot]

Looks, bent, then broken.
Depending on heat treat level of course the metal is more or less malleable.
Bent anchors don't bother me, anything can be destroyed with enough force, however failure mode is a concern. I'd much rather see bent, than broken. Likely bent may still hold.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by sanibel sailor

Georgetown SC on the AICW ought to be the benchmark for soupy bottoms. I must have tried 8 times, never got a "set" and just laid overnight to what was not much better a 35 lb coffee can with concrete. Very sheltered fortunately. Others reported same.

The Chesapeake Bay has a few places just like that.

a. Wait and set gently. I've done a bit of testing that shows that if you set very lightly (100 pounds), wait 30 minutes, and then repeat, each time increasing the pull, the soil had time to consolidate around the anchor and it will set deeper, perhaps 2-4 times what you can get on the first go. Wind gusts can help over time as well. Some folks refer to this as "soaking" the anchor, but it actually requires delayed setting to reach full advantage. Scope and the effects of yawing matter. It's complicated, but often the anchor is dug in pretty well by morning. Experiment.
b. A big Fortress is the trick. In soft mud testing I've actually used a 12-pound Fortress (FX-16) to drag a 35-pound NG anchor through soft mud.

The point is that there is good mud under the soup, but the anchor needs to get deep to reach it. That requires either a very deep setting design, or special technique.

[Steve Bedford]

Thinwater,
Excellent reply and description. This is pretty much the technique we recommend to our customers when setting the Super MAX Anchor in ooze or soup. The. Anchor needs time to settle into the seabed. Often the process of setting is rushed and quick resulting in less success in a good hold in the set.

The Fortress, especially in the widest shank/fluke angle is a tremendous anchor in these conditions and proven over time and testing. The Super MAX Anchor, especially the pivoting arm model, has a fluke to shank angle of 45 degrees as well and provides maximum resistance to these unstable seabeds with a large concave fluke. It will continue to "sink" in the soup using the technique you describe and provide a safe and secure hold.

Steve Bedford

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The Chesapeake Bay has a few places just like that.

a. Wait and set gently. I've done a bit of testing that shows that if you set very lightly (100 pounds), wait 30 minutes, and then repeat, each time increasing the pull, the soil had time to consolidate around the anchor and it will set deeper, perhaps 2-4 times what you can get on the first go. Wind gusts can help over time as well. Some folks refer to this as "soaking" the anchor, but it actually requires delayed setting to reach full advantage. Scope and the effects of yawing matter. It's complicated, but often the anchor is dug in pretty well by morning. Experiment.
b. A big Fortress is the trick. In soft mud testing I've actually used a 12-pound Fortress (FX-16) to drag a 35-pound NG anchor through soft mud.

The point is that there is good mud under the soup, but the anchor needs to get deep to reach it. That requires either a very deep setting design, or special technique.

Exactly corresponds to my experiences with soupy mud in UK waters.

You have to give it plenty of time to "soak in", or whatever -- maybe sink through the soup.

My 55kg Rocna did very badly in such bottoms; the Spade I'm using now is much better. I'm guessing that the lead ballast in the Spade helps it to sink down through the soupy layer, whereas the less dense Rocna tended to float. But Fortress with the flukes set to 45 degrees is the killer app, doing very well in very soft mud and not requiring any "soaking" at all.


Another tip for anyone struggling with soupy mud -- in my experience, this tends to be encountered where rivers or streams are dumping out into the sea. If you avoid the area where you can visualize the alluvial silt is being dumped out by the stream, you will usually find much better holding.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Another tip for anyone struggling with soupy mud -- in my experience, this tends to be encountered where rivers or streams are dumping out into the sea. If you avoid the area where you can visualize the alluvial silt is being dumped out by the stream, you will usually find much better holding.

generally agree, but there is at least one cruising niche where not . . . . those are actually exactly where you usually want to anchor in 'fjord like' environments. Because elsewhere you have glacier scoured rock. And in Chile those spots also tended to be most protected from the williwaws.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

generally agree, but there is at least one cruising niche where not . . . . those are actually exactly where you usually want to anchor in 'fjord like' environments. Because elsewhere you have glacier scoured rock. And in Chile those spots also tended to be most protected from the williwaws.

Yes! I've never anchored in "fjord-like environments", but up in the Swedish and Finnish archipelagos you have quite a lot of what you describe -- polished rock bottom which no anchor can hold in, and you go for the low point, looking for a kind of "basin" where you know silt will have accumulated.

But you still avoid the mouths of streams if you can.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes! I've never anchored in "fjord-like environments", but up in the Swedish and Finnish archipelagos you have quite a lot of what you describe -- polished rock bottom which no anchor can hold in, and you go for the low point, looking for a kind of "basin" where you know silt will have accumulated.

But you still avoid the mouths of streams if you can.

Yea, agreed those archipelagos are 'shallowish' so you can usually go for a low points. In 'fjordland' the low point is often deep, a couple hundred meters down, so you just go for what you can grab hold of.

But you say you avoid mouth of streams in Sweden - why? for this soup reason or another reason? We lived in Gothenburg for a couple years and I dont remember avoiding stream mouths but it was a long time ago. I know in northern chile, and in south island NZ, and greenland, you sometimes avoid stream mouths because the bugs like to live there in the fresh water.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

. . . But you say you avoid mouth of streams in Sweden - why? for this soup reason or another reason? We lived in Gothenburg for a couple years and I dont remember avoiding stream mouths but it was a long time ago. I know in northern chile, and in south island NZ, and greenland, you sometimes avoid stream mouths because the bugs like to live there in the fresh water.

Yes -- soupy silt which collects near the mouths of streams.

In the archis up here, the bottom is strewn with boulders and there are huge depth variations. Watching the depth gauge you realize you can't even imagine what that bottom looks like -- underwater mountains, vertical towers, holes, canyons . . . . Losing an anchor would be pretty easy to do. We always look for pools between the rocks with gradually sloping bottom towards a low point in the middle (which might be 15 or 20 meters deep). Silt collects over probably thousands of years in such places and covers the boulders, and you can anchor there. The silt which accumulates in low places away from streams, probably accumulates over such a long period of time that it is dense and good for anchoring, unlike what you find near the mouths of streams. Some flat places are just bare rock -- and your anchor will just slide along the bottom until it hooks an uncharted electrical cable

For anchoring in these parts, some kind of sonar which can tell the type of bottom, would be really useful.

[a64pilot]

Around here the bottomless soup can be found in the Bayous, right where you want to be in a Hurricane. I assume the soup is millions of years of accumulated organic material?
My Rocna near as I can tell has performed well there, but it is stupidly oversized, so maybe the size makes up for less than stellar performance and since it works I think it's good?
It works so well it took me at least a half hour to get the thing out the one time I sat out the Hurricane that thankfully missed us last year.

Any decent fish finder can tell the type and consistency of the bottom, there is some learning to understand what you are seeing of course, My Zeus plotter is actually a decent bottom machine, and I have the small cheap one.
In fact back in the 70's when the good chart recording ones first became available to regular fishermen, they were called bottom machines, cause you found the fish based on the type and structure of the bottom.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Around here the bottomless soup can be found in the Bayous, right where you want to be in a Hurricane. I assume the soup is millions of years of accumulated organic material?
My Rocna near as I can tell has performed well there, but it is stupidly oversized, so maybe the size makes up for less than stellar performance and since it works I think it's good?
It works so well it took me at least a half hour to get the thing out the one time I sat out the Hurricane that thankfully missed us last year.

Any decent fish finder can tell the type and consistency of the bottom, there is some learning to understand what you are seeing of course, My Zeus plotter is actually a decent bottom machine, and I have the small cheap one.
In fact back in the 70's when the good chart recording ones first became available to regular fishermen, they were called bottom machines, cause you found the fish based on the type and structure of the bottom.

Thanks; very interesting. What transducer do you recommend using with the Zeus, which is also what I have?