About NOT power setting the anchor

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Panope

I am in the process of conducting a gentle 180 degree "veer" test of all the anchors in my inventory.

I cannot yet draw a conclusive answer to this question. The answer may vary depending on type of anchor or how much pulling force is applied during the veer.

For example: A deeply buried FORTRESS tends to list during a "high pulling force" veer. However, a shallow buried FORTRESS tends to stay flat.

Conversely, A deeply buried EXCEL seems to remain upright during a "high pulling force" veer and tends to list readily when buried shallow.

Again, I am right in the middle of all this testing and the conclusions (if any) are not fully formed.

Steve

Awesome, Steve!
Though, it is reassuring that the Mantus does well resetting in your torture test after being set decently hard, even if it breaks out...

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But if clogging in a wind shift is a "thing" with roll bar anchors, then setting it poorly -- that is, shallowly -- to prevent clogging? That's perverted -- in that case, change the anchor.

My pet theory is that in a wind/current reversal, which would put the pull of the chain forward along the shank of the anchor, the anchor will not likely veer around, but rather the shank will lever up and over - so that the anchor would then be upside-down. The fluke angle would then serve to dig the anchor out of the ground, while the roll-bar would drag through the mud collecting reeds and roots. That fibre-reinforced ball of mud would be less-inclined to dislodge itself and ballast the top of the anchor thus discouraging a reset. If the anchor was initially set with the roll-bar proud of the bottom, I think it would be more likely to do it's job and reset the anchor on a reversal. Look forward to seeing Steve's experiments.

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

My pet theory is that in a wind/current reversal, which would put the pull of the chain forward along the shank of the anchor, the anchor will not likely veer around, but rather the shank will lever up and over - so that the anchor would then be upside-down. The fluke angle would then serve to dig the anchor out of the ground, while the roll-bar would drag through the mud collecting reeds and roots. That fibre-reinforced ball of mud would be less-inclined to dislodge itself and ballast the top of the anchor thus discouraging a reset. If the anchor was initially set with the roll-bar proud of the bottom, I think it would be more likely to do it's job and reset the anchor on a reversal. Look forward to seeing Steve's experiments.

This is one of those cases where a bigger anchor should do better, and a design like the Mantus with a large rollbar should do better. Basically, the larger the rollbar, the harder it will be to clog it.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

This is one of those cases where a bigger anchor should do better, and a design like the Mantus with a large rollbar should do better. Basically, the larger the rollbar, the harder it will be to clog it.

If we assume that the clog would be from a lump of clay plugging the hole made by the loop, then yes it would require a larger "ball" which should be less likely. But if we assume a buildup of a mud-plant matter composite on the rollbar itself, then a larger rollbar would offer no benefit. A larger anchor might be better insofar as it would be less likely than a smaller anchor to become completely submerged in the bottom, given the same amount of setting force. I don't see how that offers any advantage over using a more manageable anchor and just not setting it "vigorously."

[rslifkin]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

If we assume that the clog would be from a lump of clay plugging the hole made by the loop, then yes it would require a larger "ball" which should be less likely. But if we assume a buildup of a mud-plant matter composite on the rollbar itself, then a larger rollbar would offer no benefit. A larger anchor might be better insofar as it would be less likely than a smaller anchor to become completely submerged in the bottom, given the same amount of setting force. I don't see how that offers any advantage over using a more manageable anchor and just not setting it "vigorously."

My thought is that with a larger rollbar, the hole is bigger relative to the bits of plant matter, etc. So it would be harder to accumulate a collection of plant matter and mud that would plug the whole rollbar, rather than just being caught around the edges (which would still have some negative effect, but much less).

[Mike OReilly]

I've anchored with my 25kg Rocna for perhaps eight years now, and I've rarely seen the rollbar plugged with crap. A few times in heavy weeds, but never with mud or clay.

It will often bring up clay or mud on the flukes, and once brought up a big rock, but I've not seen the infamous plug that some speak of. Maybe the roll bar hole is large enough on the 25kg? I've certainly anchored in all sorts of substrates.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by malbert73

So for me, I think the engine isnt necessary for setting (agree with Chotu) and also think testing the substrate is the main reason to use the engine or sails to set anchor initially.

I’ll never forget my embarrassment last summer when I smugly dropped in a perfect location in middle of a crowded anchorage, executed a perfect backdown, and... instead of the usual jerk to indicate a set, slowly dragged backwards as I increased reverse. Everyone on other boats watching and chuckling. The Mantus didn’t set??!! Never before!
Then I raised it and the mantus pulled up a 15 foot old piling like a dog with a bone in her teeth. I was so relieved that everyone could see why my attempt failed. [emoji3]
Obvious moral of the story here. That anchor would have held just fine on the old piling until breeze came up

I'm confused.

You say power setting isn't needed but then give an excellent example of a situation where it likely saved you from dragging in the middle of the night.

I'd much prefer being embarrassed struggling to get a good set than have a totally non-embarrassing episode of dragging at 2am when no one is around to watch your boat run up on the rocks.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I've anchored with my 25kg Rocna for perhaps eight years now, and I've rarely seen the rollbar plugged with crap. A few times in heavy weeds, but never with mud or clay.

It will often bring up clay or mud on the flukes, and once brought up a big rock, but I've not seen the infamous plug that some speak of. Maybe the roll bar hole is large enough on the 25kg? I've certainly anchored in all sorts of substrates.

I believe a larger anchor (of any style) will "mud foul" to a lesser degree than small anchors.

I too have NOT brought a rollbar anchor to the surface that had a "plugged roll bar". Ever.

However, I have filmed several rollbar anchors that have dislodged from the seabed (from resets AND strait line pulls) with large blobs of seabed BRIEFLY covering the entire anchor.

I believe the rollbar's contribution the FLUKE becoming mud fouled may be "secondary" in nature.

I have filmed many many instances of anchors with only a "moderate amount" of mud adhered to the FLUKE, that were hopelessly unable to reset.

Steve

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by newhaul

There are proper ways to retrieve an anchor so well set just takes time .
Hoist as well as you can and let the incoming tide do the heavy lifting.
I don't " powerset" my anchors but have had to let the tide pull it up for me more times than I can recall.

I suppose you could wait on the tide but wave action or motoring is a lot quicker.

I wonder if this is an issue due to the proliferation power windlasses.

Never had a windlass (only 31-34ft boats), so even with a moderately set anchor, it was normal to pull up all the slack, using the motor if needed to drive up to the anchor...then snub off the line and let wave action or motoring break it free.

I wonder if people who have only had windlasses get surprised or frustrated when windlass can't just muscle it free without pause and then think something is wrong.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I suppose you could wait on the tide but wave action or motoring is a lot quicker.

I wonder if this is an issue due to the proliferation power windlasses.

Never had a windlass (only 31-34ft boats), so even with a moderately set anchor, it was normal to pull up all the slack, using the motor if needed to drive up to the anchor...then snub off the line and let wave action or motoring break it free.

I wonder if people who have only had windlasses get surprised or frustrated when windlass can't just muscle it free without pause and then think something is wrong.

I'm getting older so I'm installing a windlass on the bow . And no not power
Rc plath manual all bronze
Actually this one
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ual-83541.html

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Same here, again.

When things are particularly unsettled, I use a gps based anchor drag alarm because I’d never stop looking at my bearings otherwise and exhaust myself.

OpenCPN has a very easy to use anchor alarm.

I drop a mark when I drop the anchor, let out a bunch of chain, stretch it out and power set the anchor, then "Set Anchor Watch" on the mark. If you have "Track" on you can watch how the boat has been moving around the mark. I do it on a tablet so I can check it without getting out of my bunk during the night.

Pondering back in time I cannot recall having a stressful night since I took up the practice years ago and as a permanent live aboard and cruising about nine months of the year I do a lot of anchoring in lots of anchorages.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I'm getting older so I'm installing a windlass on the bow . And no not power
Rc plath manual all bronze
Actually this one
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ual-83541.html

Not suggesting a windlass is a bad thing. On bigger boats, it's really pretty much a necessity but a surprising number of cruisers jumped in with a large cruising boat as their first and never had to pull the anchor by hand. So it's just a possible explanation why some people don't understand how to let wave action or motoring break an anchor free.

I can see someone who has only ever had a windlass, get used to the windlass pulling the boat up to the anchor and popping it free without even pausing...then they think something is wrong with the anchoring if the windlass pulls the boat up to the anchor and the overload breaker pops before breaking the anchor free.

PS: I get you regarding getting older...next boat will most likely have a windlass...but I've already learned the lesson of letting waves or motor do the hard work.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Panope

I believe a larger anchor (of any style) will "mud foul" to a lesser degree than small anchors.

I too have NOT brought a rollbar anchor to the surface that had a "plugged roll bar". Ever.

However, I have filmed several rollbar anchors that have dislodged from the seabed (from resets AND strait line pulls) with large blobs of seabed BRIEFLY covering the entire anchor.

I believe the rollbar's contribution the FLUKE becoming mud fouled may be "secondary" in nature.

I have filmed many many instances of anchors with only a "moderate amount" of mud adhered to the FLUKE, that were hopelessly unable to reset.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I really appreciate your tests and your expertise in all these questions. I've watched a few of your vids and noted this as well. Your work has convinced me that when I buy a new anchor it will likely NOT have a roll bar. But I can't say it's been an issue for me -- yet .

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I'm getting older so I'm installing a windlass on the bow . And no not power
Rc plath manual all bronze
Actually this one
https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ual-83541.html

Beautiful. It's just like mine . It's been a great windlass for me.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...I don't see any reason why deeper and harder set would not always be better. If it's set more lightly it will just trip out faster -- how can that be better?...

First of all, this was just a hypothetical for discussion. It's winter.


In the first post I also said this:


"Another case is sticky mud and a very rapid wind change(violent squall), where the anchor was likely powerset in the wrong direction, and now will trip loaded with mud. Maybe letting the wind rotate it would have been better."


I should have added that certain anchors have troble resetting if loaded with mud (roll bars). Perhaps it would be more secure if they just rotated, than if they were forced to flip over backwards. This may be specifically more true of an oversized Mantus, for example, which is really good at rotating.


As I said, this is a hypothetical. I think there is a very good chance that an oversized Mantus would be better allowed to rotate than to flip over. That is the not "always" case. Usually better to power set? Yes, I think so. But I thought it would be a fun discussion. Many anchors behave very differently, and perhaps more reliably, in a gradual turn than in a violent flip. But the larger question is hypothetical only.