Videos of Anchors Setting

[Muaddib1116]

Originally Posted by Panope

I am starting to lean in that way of thinking, Thinwater.

I might say that "in good bottoms, just about all anchors (regardless of regardless of era) have enough holding power".

Here is how I would rate these qualities, in order of importance.

1. Behavior in dynamic situations (setting, resetting, dragging, veering)
2. Holding in poor bottoms.
3. Physical details (strength, longevity, etc.)
3. Holding in good bottoms.

Again, that is just my (current) view point. Others may have different priorities, and they are certainly not wrong.

In that last video of strait line winch resistance, I was far more fascinated in the way the anchors coped with being dragged, rather than the ultimate holding.

I am still trying to decide what is better: Anchors that rollout clean at lower hold numbers (and reset), or Anchors that pull-out hopelessly fouled, at higher holding numbers? I could argue benefits of both.

Steve

I like your priority list, this is similar to what I've been thinking. A big reason I picked the Excel over the Spade was the one piece design, and the solid shank. It reduces the tip weight percent, but your testing has shown the Excel still resets fairly well.

In regards to your question, I agree, an argument could easily be made either way. I would say that if you can accommodate the adequate size, then you could arrange to use an anchor that comes out clean and resets that still meets your holding power requirements. Again, in regards to my choice of a 110lb Excel, it's definitely on the large side according to the manufacturer, but my windlass seems to be handling it fine, perhaps I could have gone with the 121lb Excel without any issue. I figured that even though it's near the top of the testing leaderboard, any deficiencies in the various tests (veer/reset/holding) could be fudged a bit with going large.

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nfEv2J9ynI

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=621mkTG-_iU

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Panope

Interesting dataset Steve. What would be really great is to have the same survey results from various other locations around the continent or even the world. I'm sure the breakdown would vary considerably from location to location.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Interesting dataset Steve. What would be really great is to have the same survey results from various other locations around the continent or even the world. I'm sure the breakdown would vary considerably from location to location.

I'm sure you are correct, Mike.

I have theory (more of a wild guess), that anchors might have a tendency to be favored according to latitude. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the two most common types here (Bruce, CQR) were both developed at a similar latitude.

Maybe the glacial till of the last ice age is similar, worldwide?

Maybe coral sands are also similar, world wide?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Panope

I'm sure you are correct, Mike.

I have theory (more of a wild guess), that anchors might have a tendency to be favored according to latitude. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the two most common types here (Bruce, CQR) were both developed at a similar latitude.

Maybe the glacial till of the last ice age is similar, worldwide?

Maybe coral sands are also similar, world wide?

Interesting theory. Makes sense. I wonder if we could employ CF users to do this kind of global survey. If everyone followed your approach, we could probably generate a global perspective.

I'd be happy to participate ... once I get back to my boat, which probably won't be till the Spring now (Covid-gods willing )

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Panope

a. I did a similar count around here (Chesapeake) a few years and got a VERY different result. Delta, Rocna, and Fortress were the leaders, with Delta way out in front. Regional differences.



b. 95% of the boats in the survey either never leave the dock or never use the anchor. Do they even count? It might be interesting to get the binoculars out and count on boats underway (double counting could be a problem).

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by thinwater

a. I did a similar count around here (Chesapeake) a few years and got a VERY different result. Delta, Rocna, and Fortress were the leaders, with Delta way out in front. Regional differences.

I was surprised to see Steve's Delta numbers, especially on the powerboats. In my memory, Deltas are far more common on powerboats.

My theory is that the local breakdown will follow marketing and availability, rather than be based on what works best in a given area. But I prefer Steve's theory.

Originally Posted by thinwater

b. 95% of the boats in the survey either never leave the dock or never use the anchor. Do they even count? It might be interesting to get the binoculars out and count on boats underway (double counting could be a problem).

Yes, a better survey would be to look at which anchors are actually being used in a given area. But that would be a lot harder to do, especially in cold waters where diving isn't really an option.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Panope

...I have theory (more of a wild guess), that anchors might have a tendency to be favored according to latitude. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the two most common types here (Bruce, CQR) were both developed at a similar latitude.

Maybe the glacial till of the last ice age is similar, worldwide?

Maybe coral sands are also similar, world wide?

That is an interesting thought. Let's build on it.


Brown water south of the glacial areas (Chesapeake etc.) is probably another large classification. Different temperature swings. Different cohesion etc.


I noticed that your results in sandy mud are quite different from what I've seen in bottoms of similar density. I'm guessing the sand/mud mix has very different characteristics, just as crushed sand, river pump sand, and coral sand are all very different. Sand for construction should be sharp, and sand for frac propping must be very rounded.


The mix is also changing. The CQR and Bruce anchors are old and slipping. Mantus and Vulcan are growing locally. Rocna was hot for a while, but not so much now. Delta is still selling, mostly because it is OEM or cheap.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The mix is also changing. The CQR and Bruce anchors are old and slipping. Mantus and Vulcan are growing locally. Rocna was hot for a while, but not so much now. Delta is still selling, mostly because it is OEM or cheap.

I've been noticing this as well. Prior to this year, I'd only seen one Vulcan other than mine. I've seen several this year. And as always, some Rocnas, Mansons, etc. Saw my first Excel in the wild this year too.

At this point, based on Steve's testing, I'd expect to see more Mantus, Excel, Vulcan, and maybe Viking anchors appear. Not so much for the others. The Spade has its galvanizing issues and the performance doesn't seem to justify the extra cost over something like the Vulcan that'll typically fit on the same boats for less money and shows to be well rounded performance wise.

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKHzvfO1UfY

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, a better survey would be to look at which anchors are actually being used in a given area. But that would be a lot harder to do, especially in cold waters where diving isn't really an option.

Yeah, and don't leave out the fishermen. Around here they could be anchored in rocks or sand, so an anchor that can do both is preferred I think. Bruce has been fairly common. I am not sure it's latitude, but typical bottom material to deal with, which coincidentally follows latitude, perhaps? More mud, vegetation and rocks in higher latitudes and more sand in the lower?

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2OFn-1uak

[Panope]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0hyDXcdUe8

[Panope]