About NOT power setting the anchor

[Don C L]

I think, not to flog a dead horse, it is not simply a matter of endorsing how anyone wants to do it "as long as it works for them." I have seen boats drag. I have had boats drag over my anchor and dislodge it. Probably many of us have here. I have seen folks anchor in my neighborhood who are new to the area and they don't have the local knowledge to help them judge how and where best to anchor. I have had folks anchor upwind of me who I knew either hadn't set the anchor or had too little scope for that particular anchorage, and, in order to get the needed scope they'd be on top of me, so I move. And I hate to move. I am reticent about getting into arguments with new visitors about it, but thankfully, more often than not, most folks are receptive to friendly anchoring advice if they are from out of town. Not all, but most. A little humility can go a long way, no matter how much experience we have.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

. . .Theory and practice do in fact align.

Exactly.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Two issues:
- Newbies see toss &hope for the best is a good option, so it's effectively teaching them bad habits.
- If they are in a remote anchorage with no one else around for miles, it's not my problem if they drag up onto the rocks. If they are a couple hundred feet upwind from my boat, it's in my self interest to want them securely anchored.

Yes, but I would go further than that.

Those who use poor anchoring technique ARE our problem. Not just if they are anchored upwind from us, or anchored nearby such that we have to go and rescue them.

At the very least, they drive up insurance rates. It IS our problem. We are all interested in eliminating really bad practices like this, and raising the level of seamanship.

Good seamanship is NOT just doing what you think you can get away with, or what you might have happened to have gotten away with. Good seamanship is doing it RIGHT. Very often there is objectively better, and objectively worse, way of doing things. This is one of them!

This whole conversation reminds me very much of a conversation I once had (in a sleazy harbour bar) with an old single hander in a scruffy old Albin Vega. he had been single handing for decades, done a couple of Atlantic circuits, sailed all European waters from Turkey to Norway.

No radar, no AIS, no chart plotter.

I asked him about his watchkeeping practices, and he said -- you guys worry too much about it. Mine is very simple -- when I start to get tired in the evening, I just go below, drink some wine, have a nice dinner, and go to sleep. Sleep until morning. I'm under sail, you know? I have the right of way -- any ships will just get out of my way.


When I expressed astonishment, he said:

Son I've been doing it like this for 30 years and never had a problem. You just don't have the experience; I do.

THAT is bad practice, bad seamanship. So is toss-and-hope anchoring. Just because you get away with it for some number of years, even a lot of years, doesn't make it right. Any more than smoking 3 packs of cigarettes for 30 years without cancer so far, makes it healthy.

[thinwater]

Whether tacking, reefing, launching a trailer boat, rowing... or anchoring, it is a pleasure to watch it done efficiently and well. No fuss. no talking, just done. You can tell from a distance.



One of the things I like about sailing is that the longer I do it, the easier it gets. I made all the dumb mistakes years ago and have mostly run out of new ones to invent! Not entirely, but when I do make flub something, I know the solution.


At 60, I still go rock climbing. I can't climb the hardest things I ever did, but I can do everything I could do at 25, not because I m that strong, but because I've learned efficiency.


I use multiple anchoring methods, depending on what I see, the ground tackle I have, and the boat I'm on. They are not all the same, not by a long shot. That's why it is a fun topic. Same with sailing in general. There is always something to learn.

[RaymondR]

Right on Dockhead.

[Mr B]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, but I would go further than that.

Those who use poor anchoring technique ARE our problem. Not just if they are anchored upwind from us, or anchored nearby such that we have to go and rescue them.

At the very least, they drive up insurance rates. It IS our problem. We are all interested in eliminating really bad practices like this, and raising the level of seamanship.

Good seamanship is NOT just doing what you think you can get away with, or what you might have happened to have gotten away with. Good seamanship is doing it RIGHT. Very often there is objectively better, and objectively worse, way of doing things. This is one of them!

This whole conversation reminds me very much of a conversation I once had (in a sleazy harbour bar) with an old single hander in a scruffy old Albin Vega. he had been single handing for decades, done a couple of Atlantic circuits, sailed all European waters from Turkey to Norway.

No radar, no AIS, no chart plotter.

I asked him about his watchkeeping practices, and he said -- you guys worry too much about it. Mine is very simple -- when I start to get tired in the evening, I just go below, drink some wine, have a nice dinner, and go to sleep. Sleep until morning. I'm under sail, you know? I have the right of way -- any ships will just get out of my way.


When I expressed astonishment, he said:

Son I've been doing it like this for 30 years and never had a problem. You just don't have the experience; I do.

THAT is bad practice, bad seamanship. So is toss-and-hope anchoring. Just because you get away with it for some number of years, even a lot of years, doesn't make it right. Any more than smoking 3 packs of cigarettes for 30 years without cancer so far, makes it healthy.

I was putting safety screens around all the equiptment in a brick making factory,
I enclosed one machine and it had one small hole in it to allow access to the switch,
The operator stuck his hand up over the switch to clear the machine,
He had been doing it for 27 years he told me, Safely, Hahahaha

He took the top off 3 fingers, Thats what the screens are for, To keep your fingers out of it,

[Lodesman]

Unless my understanding of it is mistaken, we can characterize an anchor as being "un-set", "set" or "power-set" - the difference between the last two being that "set" implies the anchor is starting to dig in, having been put under some tension during the laying of the chain, either by momentum, wind, current or combination thereof; and "power-set" implies that the anchor is well dug-in through the application of greater force through use of engine, sails up and backwinded, or dropping the anchor with some way on greater than drift alone. Some suggest this is to ensure the anchor is well-dug-in, but others suggest this is to test the ability of the anchor to hold if conditions worsen. I think Noelex pointed out on the first page, that most of us saily-types can only produce enough thrust to mimic the equivalent wind of about 25kts give or take. Someone else pointed out that just because you've tested the anchor to X amount of pull, doesn't mean it will hold at X+Y amount of pull, so power-setting doesn't produce the desired result of ensuring the anchor will hold if conditions suddenly change.

I'm of the mind that we should try to minimize our effect on nature. Same as when I'm hiking or camping - leave nothing behind, take nothing but pictures. All to say that I believe in disturbing the seabed as minimally as is necessary to get the job done. The more the anchor is dug-in, the greater the divot it will produce, and the more sea-bed is disturbed. So I tend to opt for the just set. If the wind comes up suddenly, the anchor should set more deeply, but if it doesn't, I'll leave having made a smaller footprint.

I think regardless of how much you choose to "set" the anchor you have to be prepared for the eventuality that it could drag, so you should have an anchor watch or anchor alarms set, which is also contributing to your due diligence requirements for your neighbours' piece-of-mind. My 2 cents.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Unless my understanding of it is mistaken, we can characterize an anchor as being "un-set", "set" or "power-set" - the difference between the last two being that "set" implies the anchor is starting to dig in, having been put under some tension during the laying of the chain, either by momentum, wind, current or combination thereof; and "power-set" implies that the anchor is well dug-in through the application of greater force through use of engine, sails up and backwinded, or dropping the anchor with some way on greater than drift alone. Some suggest this is to ensure the anchor is well-dug-in, but others suggest this is to test the ability of the anchor to hold if conditions worsen. I think Noelex pointed out on the first page, that most of us saily-types can only produce enough thrust to mimic the equivalent wind of about 25kts give or take. Someone else pointed out that just because you've tested the anchor to X amount of pull, doesn't mean it will hold at X+Y amount of pull, so power-setting doesn't produce the desired result of ensuring the anchor will hold if conditions suddenly change.

I'm of the mind that we should try to minimize our effect on nature. Same as when I'm hiking or camping - leave nothing behind, take nothing but pictures. All to say that I believe in disturbing the seabed as minimally as is necessary to get the job done. The more the anchor is dug-in, the greater the divot it will produce, and the more sea-bed is disturbed. So I tend to opt for the just set. If the wind comes up suddenly, the anchor should set more deeply, but if it doesn't, I'll leave having made a smaller footprint.

I think regardless of how much you choose to "set" the anchor you have to be prepared for the eventuality that it could drag, so you should have an anchor watch or anchor alarms set, which is also contributing to your due diligence requirements for your neighbours' piece-of-mind. My 2 cents.

... So get of my back all you incompetents that need an engine to do a Seaman like job..

[groundtackle]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Generally the wind force will do an excellent job of setting the anchor.

The real problem is without power setting the anchor there is no way to test the holding power. Even otherwise uniform anchorages can have patches of poor substrate such as smooth rock, and then there is the risk of debris (unfortunately generally man made rubbish) fouling the anchor. There are an awful lot of towels and bathing costumes that end up in the water, blown away when pegged out to dry. This is just one hazard that can stop even the best anchor designs from working.

The setting procedure used on most yachts of something like 30+ seconds of full reverse only produces the equivalent depth of bury of the anchor as around 25-30 knots of wind will induce. You can therefore expect (hope ) the anchor will be able to bury significantly deeper should strong wind conditions develop.

So power setting only provides a test that the substrate and anchor is capable of reasonably modest holding power, but I still think it is useful confirmation that the anchor has not landed on top of debris or that the substrate is not exceptionally poor.

Below is an example of a substrate that is relatively smooth rock. You can see the long scrape mark made by the toe of the Delta anchor. For anyone competent in anchoring the lack of holding would (or at should) have been apparent with a power setting test:

Completely agree with this. Recently anchoring in Forward Habour on the way the Broughtons and it wasn’t until the anchor broke out at about the 30 second mark of full power and I hauled it up that learned it was fouled by a ball of logging debris (bark strips) that required the boat pole to clean off and realized it was not a great spot. Later that night it blew a near gale so I was really glad I had tested the set.

[Mike OReilly]

I've always thought (and described) the anchoring process as including BOTH the setting AND the digging in stages. They are separate in my mind.

Setting to me is the initial arrangement of the anchor and rode such that both are in position to function. It is the initial step. The anchor is not holding at this point, it's hopefully ready to do so.

Digging in is exactly that; the phase where the anchor begins to descend into the substrate. This is where the application of force, either through the engine, sails, or wind and current, will force the anchor down. Only a properly set anchor will do this, which is why most of us advocate use of engine. This tests the set.

It's absolutely true that without a massive engine it's impossible to have an anchor fully dug in. But again, that's not the main point here. If you don't test the set, you can't know the anchor is able to dig. And if it doesn't dig, it's just a not-so-heavy lump of pointy metal. Besides, some level of digging in better than nothing. And if you've laid this out correctly, the expected forces of wind, wave and current, will carry on the job.

Of course nothing is 100% perfect. At some force level ALL of our little anchors will disengage, or fail in some way. That's not much of a reason NOT to attempt to do as good a job as you can given whatever capabilities and limitations one has.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've always thought (and described) the anchoring process as including BOTH the setting AND the digging in stages. They are separate in my mind.

Setting to me is the initial arrangement of the anchor and rode such that both are in position to function. It is the initial step. The anchor is not holding at this point, it's hopefully ready to do so.

Digging in is exactly that; the phase where the anchor begins to descend into the substrate. This is where the application of force, either through the engine, sails, or wind and current, will force the anchor down. Only a properly set anchor will do this, which is why most of us advocate use of engine. This tests the set.

It's absolutely true that without a massive engine it's impossible to have an anchor fully dug in. But again, that's not the main point here. If you don't test the set, you can't know the anchor is able to dig. And if it doesn't dig, it's just a not-so-heavy lump of pointy metal. Besides, some level of digging in better than nothing. And if you've laid this out correctly, the expected forces of wind, wave and current, will carry on the job.

Of course nothing is 100% perfect. At some force level ALL of our little anchors will disengage, or fail in some way. That's not much of a reason NOT to attempt to do as good a job as you can given whatever capabilities and limitations one has.

As the wind/ water force goes up so does my scope. At worst one time I must have had 250 ft of chain and rode out in 10 ft of water . As conditions relax i reduce scope.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Unless my understanding of it is mistaken, we can characterize an anchor as being "un-set", "set" or "power-set" - the difference between the last two being that "set" implies the anchor is starting to dig in, having been put under some tension during the laying of the chain, either by momentum, wind, current or combination thereof; and "power-set" implies that the anchor is well dug-in through the application of greater force through use of engine, sails up and backwinded, or dropping the anchor with some way on greater than drift alone. Some suggest this is to ensure the anchor is well-dug-in, but others suggest this is to test the ability of the anchor to hold if conditions worsen. I think Noelex pointed out on the first page, that most of us saily-types can only produce enough thrust to mimic the equivalent wind of about 25kts give or take. Someone else pointed out that just because you've tested the anchor to X amount of pull, doesn't mean it will hold at X+Y amount of pull, so power-setting doesn't produce the desired result of ensuring the anchor will hold if conditions suddenly change.

I'm of the mind that we should try to minimize our effect on nature. Same as when I'm hiking or camping - leave nothing behind, take nothing but pictures. All to say that I believe in disturbing the seabed as minimally as is necessary to get the job done. The more the anchor is dug-in, the greater the divot it will produce, and the more sea-bed is disturbed. So I tend to opt for the just set. If the wind comes up suddenly, the anchor should set more deeply, but if it doesn't, I'll leave having made a smaller footprint.

I think regardless of how much you choose to "set" the anchor you have to be prepared for the eventuality that it could drag, so you should have an anchor watch or anchor alarms set, which is also contributing to your due diligence requirements for your neighbours' piece-of-mind. My 2 cents.

I would say we are looking at two categories with one having a subset that is mostly a distraction from the point.
- Toss & Hope with no idea if it's set/will set or not until mother nature at some indeterminate time decides to test it.
- Apply a force to test the set. This could be the motor, sails, momentum, or even wind/current if they are strong at the time of anchoring.
- The subset would be specifically using the ICE motor to back down on it.

As far as being environmentally minded a good set (assuming you don't do something stupid like anchor in coral or endangered sea grass) is relatively harmless. A divot in the sand will fill in quickly.

On the other hand a poorly or non-set anchor can easily result in a boat that drags into coral possibly sinking and releasing a tank full of diesel among other undesirable consequences.

[Chotu]

Toss and Hope isn’t even a category. It’s a derogatory comment toward people who understand an anchor secures itself to the sea bed.

It’s not even possible in 99% of all conditions.

A boat is always moving. How else would you be paying out your chain otherwise?

Toss and hope may work on a rubber duckie in a bathtub with no windows open or fan on, but in real life a very heavy boat always has the momentum to dig an anchor in. It just digs more as conditions increase

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As the wind/ water force goes up so does my scope. At worst one time I must have had 250 ft of chain and rode out in 10 ft of water . As conditions relax i reduce scope.

Yes indeed, this is my first line of defence as well if I feel things might get out of hand. I usually start with maxing my bridle snubber length if it's not already all-out. Then I'll increase scope as much as possible.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes indeed, this is my first line of defence as well if I feel things might get out of hand. I usually start with maxing my bridle snubber length if it's not already all-out. Then I'll increase scope as much as possible.

If I put all my chain and rode on one anchor I could anchor in 100 ft of water with a 10 to 1
Some say I carry to much rode. Only 300 ft 5/16 chain for cqr