Advice on ground tackle

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

The argument that you can't set an anchor too large for your boat is pretty much nonsense. The only legitimate issue is, as Jedi said, having a fluke remain above the seabed and catching the rode on a wind shift. In that case, I would argue that you should probably reduce anchor size, or use a design that has less of a chance of catching anything, like a non-rollbar modern design.

I want to add that I am not opposed to new anchor designs at all, I think it’s great! My point is that for me, to consider upgrading, the new anchor must be better than what I have now. I think this makes sense, but I have not found any anchor qualifying yet. If that Vulcan would come one size bigger then it would qualify I think. Something like the Viking just will never reach the level of construction quality of my 80kg Bruce so I’ll never buy one as I’m better off with what I have.

[Muaddib1116]

That's fair, and as you stated, you take measures to account for that exposed fluke.


I just got a 55kg Vulcan this winter (didn't actually realize it's the biggest one they make), and I've been using it here in Maine with really good results. It seems to be at least as good as the 50kg Excel I used last year. I switched because the shorter shank of the Vulcan works better on my bow setup. The Excel was a very good performer for me though (as it is in Steve's anchor tests), and it is for sure the best built anchor I've seen. I would bet you'd be happy with the construction of it. And it comes in a huge size range. I think it's a really good candidate for what you want.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

That's fair, and as you stated, you take measures to account for that exposed fluke.


I just got a 55kg Vulcan this winter (didn't actually realize it's the biggest one they make), and I've been using it here in Maine with really good results. It seems to be at least as good as the 50kg Excel I used last year. I switched because the shorter shank of the Vulcan works better on my bow setup. The Excel was a very good performer for me though (as it is in Steve's anchor tests), and it is for sure the best built anchor I've seen. I would bet you'd be happy with the construction of it. And it comes in a huge size range. I think it's a really good candidate for what you want.

I know… but my gut says it looks like a Delta which I dislike much…

[Muaddib1116]

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

[Izikalvo]

Originally Posted by Muaddib1116

Quoting your own company's article as a source... not overly convincing.


I've wondered about this since Izikalvo first started making this argument a couple years ago to market his anchors, especially after Steve on Panope tested the Viking against similar sized anchors and it did really well. My only conclusion is that he sees a relatively saturated market, and given the visible similarities between his Viking and the Mantus M1 (especially when he first introduced the Viking, it seemed like a straight clone, until you looked closer), that he is trying to disrupt the market and differentiate his brand by pushing a message about smaller, lighter anchors.

If you've watched as many of Steve's anchor testing videos as I have, it becomes very clear that larger, heavier anchors of the same design perform better than their smaller counterparts in any given seabed. Yes, a smaller very good design can perform better than a large bad design, as Steve has shown upon occasion. I mean, that's the entire point of searching for the best anchor, right? If you can find an anchor that outperforms all others for the weight, then you get that anchor in the same weight as your old one, then you have a much better anchor. Why would you want to bottleneck your ground tackle by a performance standard, rather than a weight/size standard? Get the best anchor you can find, in the biggest size you can handle.

The argument that you can't set an anchor too large for your boat is pretty much nonsense. The only legitimate issue is, as Jedi said, having a fluke remain above the seabed and catching the rode on a wind shift. In that case, I would argue that you should probably reduce anchor size, or use a design that has less of a chance of catching anything, like a non-rollbar modern design.

You seem to have successfully argued against yourself and you are saying almost the exact same thing as we have said.

​You are saying that a non-roll bar design will set more deeply and have less chance for the rode to catch protuberances. I fail to see the logic - non roll bar anchors have as many protuberances as roll bar anchors. If you want to stop your rode self tripping the anchor - have an anchor you can bury, easily.

​The Viking Anchor buries easily because it is made exclusively from High Tensile steel, the fluke plate is thinner and the anchor buries completely more easily. It has long been known that the thickness of the steel used to make the shank of an anchor significantly impacts anchor performance and in the last 2 or 3 decades anchor shanks have become much thinner as they have been made from HT steels. We have carried this ​proven technology further and use HT steel in the fluke - without sacrificing strength - and the anchor buries more easily. Additionally, because the steel is thinner​ in​ the fluke, ​(​which is a major part of the anchor​)​, is lighter and you can use a lighter anchor with the same hold​, ​the surface area is not reduced just the cross-sectional area of the steel plate.

Our simple technology is to choose steel appropriate for the design without compromising strength. We gain hold, because the anchor sets more deeply - for a given tension in the rode. It's the hold that determines size recommendations, not its weight.

"Quoting your own company's article as a source... not overly convincing​". maybe the following will convince you:​

Start with looking​ at this article from Practical Sailor

https://www.practical-sailor.com/sai...anchor-holding

The work clearly defines that shallow set anchors are more susceptible to yawing. There is only one anchor that sets shallow, so what the work underlines is that a 'shallow set' anchor will be susceptible to yawing. Having an anchor that is too large also exacerbates the issue. But a shallow set anchor is not only a danger if there is a change of tide but is also a danger if the wind or the yachting is yawing. Very simply a shallow set anchor is simply less secure than one that is deeply set.

To consider shallow set anchors look at this Practical Sailor article

https://www.practical-sailor.com/sai...-anchor-angles

It bears mentioning that articles in Practical Sailor are written by knowledgeable authors, their work is edited by journalists with the highest reputation in the marine publishing industry and all articles are also vetted by the Technical Editor. Any bias or data that is invalid is immediately removed. 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.

Much work has been conducted on fluke/seabed angle and this is but one graph illustrating the impact shallow setting has on hold:

See photo Nr.1

You will note that a fluke/seabed angle of 17 degrees has approximately 50% of the hold of an anchor with a 30-degree seabed/fluke angle. If you make a google search you will find that the US Navy Research Dept in California has done similar work and come to the self same conclusions.

Why does an anchor have a poor and inefficient seabed/fluke angle - because the center of effort is in the wrong place.

If you look at all fluke anchors, Danforth, Fortress, Bruce, Bugel, Brittany, Viking, SARCA, Knox - they all have the crown at the heel, except Bruce that has the crown protruding behind the heel. All ballasted anchors, Delta, Spade, Excel, Vulcan have the crown about 1/3 forward from the heel.

Mantus is a fluke anchor (it's like a welded-up Danforth with a roll bar) but has the crown in the location of a ballasted anchor. The center of effort is in the wrong place. If you take a Mantus and drill some new, extra holes and more the crown to the heel - you can double hold! We do not recommend you drill holes - it's up to you - but you will reduce the integrity of the fluke.

Now, which would you rather have an anchor with hold ‘X’ that sets shallow or an anchor the same size, but much less weight, that both sets deeply and has a hold of '2X'​?​ To us, it seems a no-brainer.

This is a shallow set anchor Photos Nr. 2, 3and 4- note the protrusion at the heel of the fluke - all ready to catch an errant rode sweeping the seabed in a change of wind. The anchor has been set and then examined when the tide has retreated.

In photo Nr. 5- Two sizes of Fortress both set to 400kg tension, that’s about the maximum you can power set with 40hp. Same seabed, same tension, similar rode. Both anchors will set more deeply to at least a 2,000kg tension - but which is going to give you more certainty with a veering wind, the shallow set big anchor or the more deeply set small anchor. You might say but the wind will set it more deeply - just think that through again a veering wind, veering because of wind sheer, first tension to one side, then the other - we would suggest a deep set anchor with buried rode is a better bet.


Now I suspect you might own a Mantus and you are happy with its hold. Just think - you could use a smaller, lighter, anchor of better design and still have the exact same hold of the Mantus, what’s not to like?

To supplement your background in anchor design I recommend you to look at this very simple thesis by a Ph.D. student. Kim

The complete dissertation is available, for free, here

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147126425.pdf


You will find that the work was approved by Charles Aubeny who along with Puech, (the graph above), are considered giants in the world of anchor research.

Kim’s work is of great assistance as he took all the parameters of an anchor and evaluated each in turn, and then in combination. He looked at shank length, shank thickness, shank location, etc, and defined the most advantageous design traits. To make it easier for you read pages 169-174 - and then read the complete work. Kim’s conclusion was that to be most efficient the crown should be at the heel.

The interesting facet of Kim’s work is that the research was conducted in Houston - a respected international base on academic anchor research. One has to wonder why the designer of some anchors did not use this local resource to support their developments.

I hope by now you are learning there is a consistent conclusion from a host of unrelated, respected, and independent sources.

But just to complete the comment here is another link for you to consider

Oversize anchors – necessary? – Cox Engineering



Anchors are about design not weight.


Finally - Many anchors are bought because they are British, Australian, or Scots. Australians favor Anchor Right - because they are made and designed in Australia. Knox anchors are popular in the UK because they are made in Scotland, and Fortress is common in America (and seldom seen on yachts from overseas (though they may be kept dismantled down below). It is worth considering where some anchors are actually made.

Viking anchors are made in Ukraine, a country that is famous for its metal and steel industry, we have many customers from the north sea area, maybe it is the name, Viking, or maybe it is because they just look at the facts and have less influence by the PR of the big companies, that I don't know.

Money-wise, selling big anchors is better than selling smaller ones.

I hope this answers your questions, please try not to use the word "nonsense" in somebody else's opinion, it is not respectable.

[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.