Photos of Anchors Setting

[noelex 77]

New anchorage. 9m @ 5:1

This is a very deep set with the fluke buried a long way under the substrate. This indicates a much softer substrate than is normal for this area. It is mostly mud, under the thin weed covering. The setting force was a bit higher, as there was 20 knots of wind, which added to the force produced by the motor. The Mantus took slightly longer to set this time, perhaps 3m, but has ended up deeply buried and level. A great result. In this sort of medium soft substate most anchors do well, but this is a big concave fluke area buried a long way down. Without the large roll bar there would be nothing to see.

Interestingly, for the first time the Mantus failed to set on the initial drop. This does occasionally happen for anchors and the Mantus has done a great job to go so long without this occurring. It started very slowing dragging after about 20 seconds in full reverse. I will go for a dive and see if I can find the first drag mark from the original set and see if there was any reason.

This is how it set on the second try:

[avb3]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I have been asked for photos of the Mantus on the bow. So I took these today.

It is hard to get a good perspective from these shots. I will try to take some photos from the tender, but my tender fits on the transom so it is a bit of pain to retrieve it after I have pulled up the anchor. So you have to wait .

To paraphrase Steve Dashew "The anchor isn't big enough until people in the marina start laughing". Well I only go to a marina every couple of years, but I hope I could at least raise a smirk .



.......

Noelex, I notice that you have a rig of some sort setup to hold the anchor in place on your bow

I have the same problem with mine, in that I need to ensure that it does not flop around under way. I have tied a line to the bow of the anchor, however, I like the idea of whatever metal rig you setup better. Is it just something you jerry rigged? I barely have room underneath my furler for the shank, and I need to keep the anchor held tight in an upward mode to ensure that the bottom of the furler does not rub on it.

Have you had any issues with that?

And your right, they are flippin' huge on a boat. I'd show you, except my boat is about 3000 miles away from me right now.

I want to confirm Noelex's experience. Although I have not dove on my anchor (yet), it invariably sets quickly and firmly. Most of the substrate I have been in is good old Florida mud. And yes, I back up and hold the throttle for some time to judge if it has set. I feel that is obligatory for save anchoring.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by avb3

Noelex, I notice that you have a rig of some sort setup to hold the anchor in place on your bow

Yes, I hate the anchor rattling around. Any noise when sailing in rough conditions makes things seem worse and sleep is also then more difficult when off watch. The concave shape makes the underside the right shape to part the waves and the roll bar provides a good secondary attachment point so there is no need for it to bang around.

Securing the Mantus is a bit of work in progress at the moment. It's only temporary, as you really don't know how secure things are until you punch into some steep seas. If it works well I will make it more permanent.

The system I have so far consists of:

1. A rope that pulls the shank backwards. This takes the load off the anchor winch and is a back-up to prevent the anchor dropping in deep water if the winch clutch slips.

2. A rope that ties the back of the shank down.

3. A rope that attaches from the the roll bar to the bow roller. This has a turnbuckle on it so it can be easily tensioned.

4. A wooden block that braces the shank in the middle of the bow roller.

All this is only necessary when punching into big seas, but it is very quick to put on or take off.

[Llamedos]

Originally Posted by poiu

1st Post

But we should anchor as if we will encounter a storm and with a fair scope as well as well set. Do we know what will happen in the night? In the Caribbean squalls of storm force strength are not uncommon. This is one of the lessons from looking at all the pictures noelex is taking. From the pictures of badly set anchors ( and some on ridiculously short scopes) it is clear we are not prepared for bad conditions.

Last Post

You are focusing on scope. That doesn't matter much and I don't know where you get that I am arguing for long scopes as in your example. OK, scope does matter, but I'm not saying put it all out. If you have a 3:1 or less scope as many of Noelex's examples feature, especially if not set then you are really asking for trouble. Set on 5:1 or 6:1 and then go down to 4 if you really must, are well set and have no swinging room and are prepared to take more of a risk on holding. A 5:1 scope is better and gives 70% of Fortress anchor strength for example. Not a terrible loss. If the anchor is correctly sized, well set, ideally tested (takes full reverse) then you are ready for the storm force squall.

You also refer to extreme conditions. I am not suggesting preparing for that, but maybe this is semantics. One person's nasty storm is another person's strong wind. A storm force squall (>40kt is what I have in mind), which I don't think is extreme. A little worrying, sure. A simple reverse test will prove if your anchoring and gear is up to it. Pretty easy.

I have a Rocna 70kg, though I can't see why you ask, what that has to do with any of my comments or how it might possibly justify my call for longer scope even if I had made such a call. These points apply regardless of what hook you choose to throw in.

Poiu,

Your first response did seem to indicate that you considered scope to be important and the way it was written seemed to advocate higher scopes in anticipation of storm conditions, Kas also read your reply in this light. Now you seem to be saying that you do not routinely put out longer scope than "normal".

Now you just want us to set our anchors properly at whatever scope we feel comfortable with. That is pretty much what I have always said - it is much more important to set your anchor correctly with a good amount of reverse power and then go and physically check the setting whenever possible, that way you give yourself the very best chance of holding through an unexpected squall.

If your replies were never meant to convey that you were advocating long scopes as routine then I apologise for the misunderstanding - that is how I understood your reply.

Also I was generally using the terms "storm conditions" and "extreme conditions" to mean much the same thing and your indication of >40knts wind is probably a good indicator for both terms.

The type of anchor being used is valid, although probably not so much for the general principles being discussed. I made the point originally that the modern generation anchors perform much better on shorter scopes than older anchor types so if you had said you were using a CQR then I would have understood your perceived preference for longer scope.

Since you have a Rocna you are probably well aware of it's excellent performance on short scope and I also agree completely with your suggestion of setting the anchor on a long scope and then shortening scope in tight areas, it is something I do if required.

Also I have always said my prefered scope is 4 or 5:1 in normal depths and normal conditions. A properly set, properly sized, modern anchor should give more than enough holding power to cope with squalls and gusts at those scopes. An improperly set anchor will always be nearly useless in squalls and gusts and I don't think anyone is suggesting anything different.

[noelex 77]

This is a Claw anchor.

It is branded Trefoil and looked nicely made, of course what is important is the geometry and balance which I cannot assess while underwater.

It was dropped on the edge of a light weed patch. There was very little drag mark, but its central fluke had already started to dig in as you would expect with this softish substrate. I suspect it had landed upright.

There is very little to be learned from the anchor performance at this stage, but it has at least engaged quickly. Unfortunately the wind has been very light which means very little setting force for boats that have not used their motor or boat momentum to set the anchor.

This anchorage is not ideal for good anchor testing. There has been light wind and there is a multitude of powerboats, water skiers and jet skies zipping around which is not conducive to safe snorkelling. I will be glad when we can back to the less touristy islands.

[noelex 77]

This was a genuine CQR I think.

It was dropped in light/medium weed.
The boat concerned gave the anchor a good tug backwards, but it was done mostly with the yacht momentum so it was a bit abrupt. The CQR is very sensitive to setting technique and generally requires more careful treatment unless the substrate is ideal.

This was the result:

The drag mark was quite long (6m) at at the end it had set only partially, although it was at least making an effort. The anchor still had a significant list and while the fluke was lost in the weed there was only little penetration into the underlying substrate. However, it had at least started to engage the substrate so there is some hope it would do better with a more sustained gradual pull.

[noelex 77]

This was a Delta (genuine I think, but there is an odd crease mark near the toe where the ballast is located.

It is just sitting on the bottom. There is no drag mark and no force has been applied. If you drop your anchor in light wind and apply no setting force this is what it looks like.

[robert sailor]

That's called the Italian set!

[kas_1611]

AKA the Germanic set

[noelex 77]

This is a CQR in a new anchorage.

You can argue over your "favourite" boating nationality for the naming rights to this one.

It was dropped while stationary instead of gradually going backwards. Once again in a light wind. This says nothing about the CQR's performance, but does give you some idea how the anchor will look underwater if you repeat the example.

[kas_1611]

Oh that is just a classic !!!

Thank you for providing the biggest chuckle of the day out here on my oil rig

Keiron

[Palarran]

Noelex, those pictures of the CQR in post 666 are great. That is the type of weed bottom that concerns me. I know you really like to find the best bottom for your own boat but it would be really interesting to see the Mantus in weed like that and what the results are with full reverse applied.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Palarran

it would be really interesting to see the Mantus in weed like that and what the results are with full reverse applied.

I am interested as well, so I will certainly do this.

Normally there are are quite a lot of anchorages in this area where dropping in weed is unavoidable. There are also anchorages that we come into at night or in rough conditions where the patches of sand cannot be seen so you invariably end up in weed.

Unusually, I have not hit this yet with the Mantus.

I am hoping this will just occur naturally. I think one of the benefits of this thread is that I am showing real anchoring results in real conditions. The spots I have selected so far have not been influenced by any thoughts of testing the anchor. I am just using it normally.

However, if it does not happen soon I will do a deliberate test by ignoring the nice sandy spots and selecting weed.

[Palarran]

That would be great. My 55 kilo Rocna is nearly identical to your Mantus so it would provide me a lot of info. I should have tried harder to take some photo's this summer but our underwater camera (SeaLife) decided to quit working one week into the trip. Palarran would have made a great platform to do a rotation test in weeds as if the conditions are calm I can put the wheel hard over and engage one motor in forward and the opposite in reverse with lots of throttle and make the boat rotate around the anchor.

[noelex 77]

This is the Mantus in the new anchorage.

This is a very impressive performance at a very short scope. The scope was 2.6 :1 in only 6m of water. I also found after diving that it was on quite a significant downslope. A downslope makes more difference than you might imagine. Its effect is to increase the upwards pull on the anchor shank effectively reducing the scope.

The Mantus has set very well. It is level with its fluke completely buried. Notice the shank is significantly up off the bottom as a result of the severe upward pull. It has also taken much longer to set (about 5m) than is usual for this anchor. The set is also more of heaping up than normally occurs for the anchor, but frankly it is amazing that it managed to set at all with the very short scope in shallow water on a downslope. The fact that managed to completely bury its fluke and hold full reverse was a fantastic performance. This is a big oversized anchor, which helps the holding at short scopes, but very few anchors would even begin to set in these conditions.

Photo 1 was taken just after the set:




This was a few hours later. The wind has swung 90 degrees. The chain has swung around, but not the anchor:




This shows how the shank has been lifted by the very short scope, but the fluke has still completely buried. The angle of pull during the setting, with full reverse, would have been much higher: