Videos of Anchors Setting

[NevisDog]

I'm so glad you pointed me towards this thread, Panope Steve. I only wish I'd found it before selecting my current bower, but at least now I'll get it right with my storm anchor.

These videos, especially #56 (and onwards) are a treasure trove, yet all my research on new generation anchors did not lead me here. It would be great if somehow Mr Google could lead folks like me to this resource.

[David M]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

A fun video we did. Shows 360 degree turns and pulls with out the non-load bearing bolt. I think we need to make a video with the set up you have Panope. I like the angle.

Pretty convincing in sand.

How about a video for soft mud or shale?

[Spade Anchor]

Originally Posted by David M

Pretty convincing in sand.

How about a video for soft mud or shale?

Here is a independent compilation of testing done on almost every anchor available in almost every seabed type. Hopefully it helps!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l59f-OjWoq0

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by Spade Anchor

Here is a independent compilation of testing done on almost every anchor available in almost every seabed type. Hopefully it helps!

Steve / Panope, can you verify the bottom type(s) where you did your testing?

I have not watched all of the videos, and so I am not sure whether hard sand or soft mud (where the water would likely be too murky for underwater filming) were included.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Steve / Panope, can you verify the bottom type(s) where you did your testing?

I have not watched all of the videos, and so I am not sure whether hard sand or soft mud (where the water would likely be too murky for underwater filming) were included.

No problem, Fortress.

With the exception of one video that I made about 20 miles North of my home port (Port Townsend), all of my testing was conducted at two sites, both within a mile or so of the Port Townsend marina.

The primary area consists of what I call "SANDY MUD". This type of sub-strait is often firm enough to walk on (when exposed by low tides), yet if you stand in one place and wiggle your feet, you will slowly descend and likely lose your shoes! It has just enough binder to form a ball (like a snow ball). When this material dries out, it seems to take on more of a "sand" appearance.

The second area consists of a "SAND and GRAVEL" combination. This sub-strait has almost no "binder" material as the fines have all been carried away by tidal current of 4+ knots.

I am no geologist, but here is my best explanation of how this substrate was deposited:

During the last ice-age (20,000 years ago), this area was covered by a 1 mile thick- ice sheet. When the ice retreated it left behind a very deep layer of "glacial till". Wave action continues to erode this relatively new land. The stones and gravel do not travel far from shore (waves), but the finer sands and clays become dispersed uniformly over wide areas.

There are no rivers anywhere near my test areas.

I have never been to the Chesapeake Bay. However, the descriptions of that sub-strait indicate that my test areas are somewhat different (more sand, less muck). Certainly, the thick, oozy, undefined bottom would be impossible to film.

Also, I have not been to the Mediterranean or other areas with so-called "hard sand" sub-strait. Again, from the descriptions by others, it appears that my test areas are not a perfect match for that sea-bed type either.

Steve

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Steve / Panope, can you verify the bottom type(s) where you did your testing?

I have not watched all of the videos, and so I am not sure whether hard sand or soft mud (where the water would likely be too murky for underwater filming) were included.

Seriously, you're in the anchor business and you're aware that these videos exist but you haven't taken the few hours it would take to watch them?! You really should! If you do, it'll be clear to you what the bottom type is, and it'll also be clear that Panope has been careful to make no unsupported claims (positive or negative) about any of the anchors tested, nor has he suggested that his tests or conclusions apply to any other bottom conditions than those where he ran his tests.

I have a large Fortress anchor aboard (and plan to procure and hang an additional smaller one on my stern rail) and feel that it can't be beat in certain soft bottom conditions so I have nothing against these great anchors, but I'm a bit disconcerted that anyone representing Fortress apparently doesn't make it their business to learn EVERYTHING possible about all anchors setting in all possible conditions. Watch the videos for yourself!

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Seriously, you're in the anchor business and you're aware that these videos exist but you haven't taken the few hours it would take to watch them?! You really should! If you do, it'll be clear to you what the bottom type is, and it'll also be clear that Panope has been careful to make no unsupported claims (positive or negative) about any of the anchors tested, nor has he suggested that his tests or conclusions apply to any other bottom conditions than those where he ran his tests.

I have a large Fortress anchor aboard (and plan to procure and hang an additional smaller one on my stern rail) and feel that it can't be beat in certain soft bottom conditions so I have nothing against these great anchors, but I'm a bit disconcerted that anyone representing Fortress apparently doesn't make it their business to learn EVERYTHING possible about all anchors setting in all possible conditions. Watch the videos for yourself!

Thanks for your input. As you may note from my message, I was inquiring because of the comment before mine:

"Here is a independent compilation of testing done on almost every anchor available in almost every seabed type."

I have watched the vast majority of the videos and I thought I might have missed something.

Safe anchoring,
Brian

[Panope]

Large ball of weed encasing anchor (Spade) on retrieval.

Anchor set and held normally (two days prior).

After clearing the weed away, a normal amount of sub-strait (sandy mud) was found on the fluke indicating that the anchor had indeed penetrated the weed.

Steve

[groundtackle]

Steve, where was that? Just a normal set or some anchor testing going on?
That's never a good thing to see, the reset may have not happened. Environmental damage always bothers me too, poor little critters.
Chris

[Panope]

Chris,

That was just a normal set in a popular anchorage.

Water was shallow. I notice much more of this type of weed in less than 20 feet.

Perhaps this weed accumulation is the result of two days of current passing by the anchor chain with the associated weed becoming entangled all the while. Then, during retrieval, the weed slides down the chain to become one big mass on the anchor.

We will never know for sure.

Steve

[groundtackle]

Steve, perhaps you should sharpen your chain..
Chris

[Morph]

Have been meaning to post here for ages.. Over Christmas I was sailing my 30' monohull in the Bay of islands in New Zealand. Thankfully I had updated the old anchor (a rocna rip off I suspect) with a very old Sarca--which I was able to verify was the genuine thing. Thank God I did.... In the second week there a 60 knot storm came through swinging through 170 degrees at (of course) midnight...

And of course you could not get a mooring or marina berth for love nor money. I found a bay to hide out in and laid the anchor in 4-5m of water with 30m of chain and waited... It blew like hell, and swung the full 170 degrees. When if finally got down to a mere 40 knots and we had not moved, I finally got a few hours sleep.

After then watching Steve's video's, I'm not having any other anchor but SARCA on any future boats--it was amazing--especially the ability to re-set with a nearly 180 deg change in direction.

[999999]

I am a new member with n bjb54t a new topic:
Anchor elements surface/weight proportion

In my view, holding power of any anchor design exclusively depends on a proportion of a fluke/plow/s weight/surface vs weight/surface of a shank, hinge, front ballast and/or back roll-bar.

With an exception of a fluke/plow surface, all other anchor elements: shank, hinge, front tip ballast and roll-bar obstructs penetration in soft sea bottom.

Hinge, front ballast and roll-bar hase only one purpose - to rotate the anchor in a correct setting position. All those elements are unfortunately preventing deep sand travel. Deep sand setting is imperative where holding power is enormous. Most of conventional anchors will set to its design depth limitation and when overpowered just drag. Smart roll-bar design has Mantus anchor with proportionally very thin and large diameter arc.

Another issue is the anchor ability to constantly correct its position due to the pull direction/wind change. Very few anchors can achieve that.

[Souzag818]

Two and a half years after purchasing a Spade S100, I have nothing but total faith in it. I've used it exclusively and never had a problem with dragging or failing to hold in whatever I anchor in, though the worst wind I've seen is 30 knots. It does bring my boat to a sudden jolt when it grabs, which is pretty quick, so I need to be prepared. Very happy with it. Just FYI

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by 999999

I am a new member with n bjb54t a new topic:
Anchor elements surface/weight proportion

In my view, holding power of any anchor design exclusively depends on a proportion of a fluke/plow/s weight/surface vs weight/surface of a shank, hinge, front ballast and/or back roll-bar.

With an exception of a fluke/plow surface, all other anchor elements: shank, hinge, front tip ballast and roll-bar obstructs penetration in soft sea bottom.

Hinge, front ballast and roll-bar hase only one purpose - to rotate the anchor in a correct setting position. All those elements are unfortunately preventing deep sand travel. Deep sand setting is imperative where holding power is enormous. Most of conventional anchors will set to its design depth limitation and when overpowered just drag. Smart roll-bar design has Mantus anchor with proportionally very thin and large diameter arc.

Another issue is the anchor ability to constantly correct its position due to the pull direction/wind change. Very few anchors can achieve that.

Out of curiosity, just how have you arrived at at this view? Have you watched the entire collection of anchors being tested by Steve, the original poster of this thread?