Advice on ground tackle

[Muaddib1116]

True, but I think the test performance shows it's actually pretty different.

[noelex 77]

Anchor manufacturers love suggesting that their particular anchor design is so effective that even a small model can safely be used to anchor large boats in adverse conditions, but this sort of one-upmanship has reached dangerous levels when a steel anchor of 12.6 kg (28lb) is recommended for 50 foot yachts.

Viking anchors look like a good design, but the continuing suggestion of inappropriate anchor sizes, together with the fanciful belief that a smaller anchor will be more secure than a larger anchor of the same design unfortunately will be off putting to anyone considering purchasing a new anchor.

Companies need to present a realistic view of the performance of their product rather than outlandish claims to secure sales.

Originally Posted by Izikalvo

The point about the shallow set of Mantus is simply illustrated by viewing underwater pictures of a set Mantus, see Noelex thread ‘Pictures of Anchors setting’ - virtually every picture of his Mantus illustrates the shallow set.

On the contrary. It was very rare (I can only think of two occasions) that my oversized Mantus was not the best set anchor in the anchorage, especially considering that the fluke of a larger anchor will be buried further under the substrate (because it is larger in all dimensions) than an anchor that looks identical in the photographs, but is is physically smaller.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Anchor manufacturers love suggesting that their particular anchor design is so effective that even a small model can safely be used to anchor large boats in adverse conditions, but this sort of one-upmanship has reached dangerous levels when a steel anchor of 12.6 kg (28lb) is recommended for 50 foot yachts.

Viking anchors look like a good design, but the continuing suggestion of inappropriate anchor sizes, together with the fanciful belief that a smaller anchor will be more secure than a larger anchor of the same design unfortunately will be off putting to anyone considering purchasing a new anchor.

Companies need to present a realistic view of the performance of their product rather than outlandish claims to secure sales.

On the contrary. It was very rare (I can only think of two occasions) that my oversized Mantus was not the best set anchor in the anchorage, especially considering that the fluke of a larger anchor will be buried further under the substrate (because it is larger in all dimensions) than an anchor that looks identical in the photographs, but is is physically smaller.

I agree entirely.


Experienced people know based on a lot of data that it is obviously not true that there is any advantage at all to a smaller anchor, other than easier handling. Making such an assertion instantly evaporates credibility.


Obviously a more deeply set anchor holds better than a more shallowly set anchor OF THE SAME TYPE AND SIZE -- this is trivial. It is not true that it is easier to set a smaller anchor more deeply than a larger one, unless possibly you don't have a diesel engine on board, and even then, it is not clear that a deeply set small anchor will hold better than a more shallowly set larger one. And weight plays a big role in different bottom types, in getting the anchor set. A sharp fluke is of course good, but as we know from using Fortresses, the sharp fluke with weight to help set it and keep it set, is not a panacea.


So all I can say is -- good luck with this lightweight thin construction anchor. 12.6kg for a 50 foot yacht? I wouldn't even use a Fortress of that size on a 50 foot boat.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree entirely.


Experienced people know based on a lot of data that it is obviously not true that there is any advantage at all to a smaller anchor, other than easier handling. Making such an assertion instantly evaporates credibility.


Obviously a more deeply set anchor holds better than a more shallowly set anchor OF THE SAME TYPE AND SIZE -- this is trivial. It is not true that it is easier to set a smaller anchor more deeply than a larger one, unless possibly you don't have a diesel engine on board, and even then, it is not clear that a deeply set small anchor will hold better than a more shallowly set larger one. And weight plays a big role in different bottom types, in getting the anchor set. A sharp fluke is of course good, but as we know from using Fortresses, the sharp fluke with weight to help set it and keep it set, is not a panacea.


So all I can say is -- good luck with this lightweight thin construction anchor. 12.6kg for a 50 foot yacht? I wouldn't even use a Fortress of that size on a 50 foot boat.

I’m experienced and I disagree. There comes a point where a anchor is to large for the boat or the propulsion system. A well set smaller anchor is much better than an oversized anchor laying on its side on the bottom because the boat doesn’t have the power to set it. May as well drop a block of concrete.

[s/v Jedi]

I’m afraid that my statements about shallow or even partial set 80kg Bruce have caused much of this. The thing is that this only happens in hard bottoms, where lighter anchors may just scrape it a bit, being unable to achieve a deep set.

In normal sand as well as in all softer seabeds like mud, sandy mud, mud and clay etc. we can easily set the anchor completely and the only visible part is the chain disappearing into the seabed.

Would a smaller anchor work better for us in hard seabed so we can easily set it completely? May be, if it has more holding power than our Bruce. But our Bruce has held us during hurricanes incl. At the same spot where we tripped the anchor once: Manjack Cay, Abacos, during hurricane Isaias 2 years ago. It wasn’t too bad, but it was 70kts for a couple of days.

[smj]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I’m afraid that my statements about shallow or even partial set 80kg Bruce have caused much of this. The thing is that this only happens in hard bottoms, where lighter anchors may just scrape it a bit, being unable to achieve a deep set.



In normal sand as well as in all softer seabeds like mud, sandy mud, mud and clay etc. we can easily set the anchor completely and the only visible part is the chain disappearing into the seabed.



Would a smaller anchor work better for us in hard seabed so we can easily set it completely? May be, if it has more holding power than our Bruce. But our Bruce has held us during hurricanes incl. At the same spot where we tripped the anchor once: Manjack Cay, Abacos, during hurricane Isaias 2 years ago. It wasn’t too bad, but it was 70kts for a couple of days.

I can’t say that I’m right and you are wrong, I think we have different ideas on what makes up our comfort level. Your comfort level is a large heavy anchor which most the time will hold better than a smaller anchor. My comfort level is knowing I have a well set anchor which sometimes will hold better than a heavier anchor which hasn’t set.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by smj

I can’t say that I’m right and you are wrong, I think we have different ideas on what makes up our comfort level. Your comfort level is a large heavy anchor which most the time will hold better than a smaller anchor. My comfort level is knowing I have a well set anchor which sometimes will hold better than a heavier anchor which hasn’t set.

I don’t think anyone can disagree that the most comfort is an anchor that has proven itself again and again. If your anchor held during hurricanes then you sleep good. This is why I am so happy with our anchor; it has nothing to do with opinions, designs, countries who make it etc., just that it has proven itself again and again.

[AKA-None]

Gotta love anchor threads :-)

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

If your anchor held during hurricanes then you sleep good. This is why I am so happy with our anchor; it has nothing to do with opinions, designs, countries who make it etc., just that it has proven itself again and again.

Be careful swallowing the nonsense from Viking about anchor size. Anchor sizing tables generally assume a maximum of 50 knots (some less) in good holding ground. The winter before last we held in 81 knots. As Jedi indicates, oversized anchors prove themselves again and again in the real world.

[smj]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Be careful swallowing the nonsense from Viking about anchor size. Anchor sizing tables generally assume a maximum of 50 knots (some less) in good holding ground. The winter before last we held in 81 knots. As Jedi indicates, oversized anchors prove themselves again and again in the real world.

As I said before, an oversized anchor is great as long as it sets. If it doesn’t set you may as well have a chunk of concrete used as an anchor. Design is just as important as weight if not more so.
I would take my Mantus over a CQR twice the weight any day.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by smj

I’m experienced and I disagree. There comes a point where a anchor is to large for the boat or the propulsion system. A well set smaller anchor is much better than an oversized anchor laying on its side on the bottom because the boat doesn’t have the power to set it. May as well drop a block of concrete.

In theory, you are right that "there comes a point", and I didn't say anything to the contrary. But the whole question is at where is that point? I've never seen it. Have you?


I had a 121 pound anchor on my boat and it set fine. I think an 80kg anchor, the next size up, 176 pounds would have set fine. I downsized to 100 pounds just because 121 was a tight fit in the bow roller.


Maybe for a boat which doesn't have an engine? On all the boats I've been on, from 29 feet to 90 feet, the bow roller and handling issues was always the limiting factor for anchor size, not ability to set it. But all of these boats had inboard engines; perhaps what you say would apply to a very small vessel or one without an engine.


I'm fully with Jedi and Noelex on this.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by smj

. . . Design is just as important as weight if not more so. I would take my Mantus over a CQR twice the weight any day.

THAT. however, I fully agree with.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...Experienced people know based on a lot of data that it is obviously not true that there is any advantage at all to a smaller anchor, other than easier handling...

Certainly I am an outlier in this matter but I see a definite advantage to carrying a smaller anchor:

It puts less weight on the foredeck. Less weight is better for performance. I care greatly about performance.

One can state that the extra weight in the bow is too little to make a difference; it's not even as much as the weight of a single person. One can extend that argument to everything. But the accumulated weight of all the over spec'd equipment on the boat can make a difference in performance. By corollary, the accumulated reduction of weight can also make a difference, in a positive direction.

In all matters of boat equipment I prefer "right sized" rather than "bigger is better". This is especially true of ground tackle which is by nature carried in the bow, the worst place for extra weight.

I surmised when equipping my boat that a 44lb anchor with 5/16 HT chain and a Lowrance Concept 1 windlass (set well aft) would be sufficient for my boat. In 25 years that has proven to be true. I have been in many windy anchorages and anchored on all types of bottoms, world wide. I have only twice dragged after being well set. I have a 66lb anchor that I can deploy if needed. I have used it twice (not the two same occasions, BTW).

If my 44lb anchor works perfectly why would I want to carry a heavier one on the bow 24x7x365? There is no need.

So compared to a 60/80/100 lb anchor there is, from my point of view, a distinct advantage in my lighter 44lb anchor.

For those who are willing to sacrifice performance for what they consider added safety, I could see that this argument would carry little weight (pun intended). That is OK, each of us are who we are.

[mark_morwood]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Certainly I am an outlier in this matter but I see a definite advantage to carrying a smaller anchor:

It puts less weight on the foredeck. Less weight is better for performance. I care greatly about performance.

I actually don't think that is being argued by the posts above - most seem to agree there are sensible limits on the weight due to other factors - bow roller size, desire to limit weight on the bow, etc.

I do see lots of argument against the assertion that a smaller anchor would perform better than a larger anchor of the same design once it was deployed - assuming practical sized larger anchors.

[smj]

Originally Posted by mark_morwood

I actually don't think that is being argued by the posts above - most seem to agree there are sensible limits on the weight due to other factors - bow roller size, desire to limit weight on the bow, etc.



I do see lots of argument against the assertion that a smaller anchor would perform better than a larger anchor of the same design once it was deployed - assuming practical sized larger anchors.

I haven’t seen anything comparing anchors of the same design, maybe I missed it.
On edit I think I may have stated that the spade anchors of equal dimensions would have the same holding power no matter what they were built of or their weight.