Ultra anchor issues

[Hardship]

Anyone else come across serious issues in attempting to set an Ultra anchor in hard sand? Scenario is on a 25m, 85tonne boat with 13mm chain and two Ultra anchors on bow. 80kg anchor refuses repeatedly to set in hard sand, meanwhile 60kg anchor sets fine - first time. Only difference apart from size, being the connector, which are both Ultra but the lighter anchor has the current version with the saddle across top of the shank whereas the heavier anchor does not. The issue has on several occasions, forced us to move on to alternative anchorages before we discovered the lighter anchor actually works much better. Interested to hear opinions. I find it strange that an anchor should be highly reliant on the connector to set properly? Not my boat, I’m more used to a Rocna.

 

[Mako]

What’s a saddle - are you referring to the bar that helps it to flip over?

 

[BruceK]

Can you post pics of the 2 connectors? You could be describing a connector design difference or an anchor design difference, or both.
We had trouble setting another brand with a sliding slot chain attachment, where the shackles connecting chain to anchor were getting tied up and preventing setting. Resolved by adding some hardware, ie a swivel, to the connecting shackle. So it could be the connector differences.

 

[Peter B]

Definitely sounds weird, as normally the heavier anchor should set more quickly, whatever the connecting part. It is in retrieval those connectors tend to come into play. Is it possible the heavier anchor just has a more blunt tip..? It is interesting this is apparently only an issue in hard sand. We need more info, as Bruce suggests, but if it's not the OP's boat, that might be hard to obtain..?

 

[Hardship]

Here is a link to the connector on the smaller anchor

https://www.ultramarine-anchors.com...00-h1200-547584cc8009a5276771437b4ff3572c.png

The larger anchor connector is same except for the saddle / bar at the anchor end of the swivel

 

[BruceK]

Here is a link to the connector on the smaller anchor

https://www.ultramarine-anchors.com...00-h1200-547584cc8009a5276771437b4ff3572c.png

The larger anchor connector is same except for the saddle / bar at the anchor end of the swivel

Maybe "small thing big difference" is no idle boast this time. I see why you had trouble describing it.The addition may be cure the setting problem experienced, but what it was, and why, no idea. Try swapping the connectors to see if the bigger anchor suddenly works, and the smaller stops working.

 

[Pete Meisinger]

I have not seen an anchor discussion here in a long time. I'm sure it has been discussed before, check the archives.

pete

 

[Panope]

Forum member MVWEEBLES contacted me and asked for my thoughts regarding this Ultra anchor mystery. Rather than answer him privately, I will share my thoughts with all of you.

In no particular order of importance-

1 - The "saddle" of the Ultra Swivel produces a "side effect" of effectively lengthening the shank. This will SLIGHTLY change the geometry of the anchor and could have an effect on setting characteristics. Again, this effect will be very small and I would be surprised if this alone would make such a drastic change.

----------------------------

2 - In a prefect world, each size of anchor should be made of material that has just the right thickness based on the size of the anchor. The reality is that manufacturers have limited available plate thicknesses to choose from.

What could be happening here, is that the 60kg version was built from plate that tended toward the "thin side" of what provides the needed strength, while the 80kg version needed thicker material which ended up being a little thicker than necessary (the assumption is that an "intermediate" plate thickness was not available).

The final weight of the Ultra anchor is determined by how much LEAD ballast is added after the anchor is fabricated.

The result, is that the 80kg version might have a lower ratio of ballast-to-total weight and a corresponding reduction of "tip-to-total weight ratio", which is an important factor for penetrating ability.

------------------------------

3 - Assuming that both of these anchors (60kg, 80kg) were using absolutely identical rodes, and with fairly short scopes, the smaller anchor would be at an advantage due to the chain weight being a higher percentage of the entire system weight.

In other words, because less force is required to drag/set the smaller anchor, chain catenary will be greater, with the result of the smaller anchor being pulled closer to horizonal than the larger anchor.

Again this is only applicable if scope is short (for the depth).
---------------------------

4 - Because the anchors/vessel in question is not owned by the OP, I have to ask the question: Are you certain that the chain marking system is the same for both anchors and are you absolutely certain that both anchors were receiving the same scope?

--------------------------

I do not consider any of the above ideas to be a "smoking gun". All of these would normally have barely noticeable effects. But, if this particular seabed is "on the ragged edge" of what an Ultra anchor can penetrate, then I could easily believe that several of the above factors COMBINED might explain the situation.

Steve

 

[mvweebles]

Forum member MVWEEBLES contacted me and asked for my thoughts regarding this Ultra anchor mystery. Rather than answer him privately, I will share my thoughts with all of you.

In no particular order of importance-

1 - The "saddle" of the Ultra Swivel produces a "side effect" of effectively lengthening the shank. This will SLIGHTLY change the geometry of the anchor and could have an effect on setting characteristics. Again, this effect will be very small and I would be surprised if this alone would make such a drastic change.

----------------------------

2 - In a prefect world, each size of anchor should be made of material that has just the right thickness based on the size of the anchor. The reality is that manufacturers have limited available plate thicknesses to choose from.

What could be happening here, is that the 60kg version was built from plate that tended toward the "thin side" of what provides the needed strength, while the 80kg version needed thicker material which ended up being a little thicker than necessary (the assumption is that an "intermediate" plate thickness was not available).

The final weight of the Ultra anchor is determined by how much LEAD ballast is added after the anchor is fabricated.

The result, is that the 80kg version might have a lower ratio of ballast-to-total weight and a corresponding reduction of "tip-to-total weight ratio", which is an important factor for penetrating ability.

------------------------------

3 - Assuming that both of these anchors (60kg, 80kg) were using absolutely identical rodes, and with fairly short scopes, the smaller anchor would be at an advantage due to the chain weight being a higher percentage of the entire system weight.

In other words, because less force is required to drag/set the smaller anchor, chain catenary will be greater, with the result of the smaller anchor being pulled closer to horizonal than the larger anchor.

Again this is only applicable if scope is short (for the depth).
---------------------------

4 - Because the anchors/vessel in question is not owned by the OP, I have to ask the question: Are you certain that the chain marking system is the same for both anchors and are you absolutely certain that both anchors were receiving the same scope?

--------------------------

I do not consider any of the above ideas to be a "smoking gun". All of these would normally have barely noticeable effects. But, if this particular seabed is "on the ragged edge" of what an Ultra anchor can penetrate, then I could easily believe that several of the above factors COMBINED might explain the situation.

Steve

Experience really shows here - all plausible and sensible explanations. I noticed that the list of small anchors is different than your list of larger (20kg-ish) anchors is different - from memory, Vulcan is at or near top in 20kg category, but middling in the smaller anchor category. Guessing the above offers insight? Attached are screenshots from your stack-rank videos (NOTE to others - in top-left box, the anchor size category, and compilation date is noted 20lb and 45lb groups). The Viking seems to be very strong in your tests, but interesting that the smaller Viking is noted as "3" for galvanizing vs "5" for the larger Viking.

Many thanks for this and all your contributions. Trusted source for a very important topic.

Peter


View attachment 138771View attachment 138772

 

[backinblue]

Here is a link to the connector on the smaller anchor

https://www.ultramarine-anchors.com...00-h1200-547584cc8009a5276771437b4ff3572c.png

The larger anchor connector is same except for the saddle / bar at the anchor end of the swivel

I have an Ultra with that same swivel and saddle. I can't see how that should have any effect on setting. It does say it helps "allow the anchor shank to rotate", but I assumed that is for retrieval not setting. I can't say that I've ever anchored in very hard sand, but I've yet to see it not set immediately, including on grassy bottoms.

 

[Panope]

........ I noticed that the list of small anchors is different than your list of larger (20kg-ish) anchors is different - from memory, Vulcan is at or near top in 20kg category, but middling in the smaller anchor category. Guessing the above offers insight? ..........

Actually, the main reason for the discrepancy in overall rankings between the large and smaller groups, is because the smaller anchors have now been tested in 3 additional seabeds (10kg = 7 seabeds, 20kg = 4 seabeds). Also, a new protocol in the "soft mud" has been added.

The addition of these new tests has tended to favor the rollbar anchors. Hence, the smaller Vulcan not ranking as high as the larger.

As of now, I will probably NOT be adding the new seabeds/protocol to the 20 kg group (I can't afford it), and as a result, I 'almost' consider this group of testing to be obsolete or at least superceded by the 10 kg testing.

Steve

 

[Panope]

.........The Viking seems to be very strong in your tests, but interesting that the smaller Viking is noted as "3" for galvanizing vs "5" for the larger Viking............

I do not recall ranking either Viking anchor's "galvanizing" as a 5. If I did, that was a mistake on my part. Note: I am unable to view your attachments.

Initially, I ranked both Viking anchors as a "3" due to a galvanizing flaw that resulted in the outer layer of material to "flake off" very easily. Sometimes, just a fingernail was capable of dislodging a flake of galvanizing. I have more recently "upgraded" the rank to a "3.5" because, in spite of the flaking, the anchors are not rusting at a greater rate than other anchors. The assumption is that underneath the outer "flaking" layer, lies another later of protective material.

Steve

 

[bowball]

Steve, thanks for the thoughtful post. And all your labor of love with the anchor reviews

I had not thought about the weight of the chain being an aid in setting an anchor but that makes sense. So good effort should go in to slowly laying the chain out as you back down

Does this make an argument for upsizing the chain for additional weight?

And have you ever tested the effect of a kettle weight on anchors?

 

[mvweebles]

I do not recall ranking either Viking anchor's "galvanizing" as a 5. If I did, that was a mistake on my part. Note: I am unable to view your attachments.



Initially, I ranked both Viking anchors as a "3" due to a galvanizing flaw that resulted in the outer layer of material to "flake off" very easily. Sometimes, just a fingernail was capable of dislodging a flake of galvanizing. I have more recently "upgraded" the rank to a "3.5" because, in spite of the flaking, the anchors are not rusting at a greater rate than other anchors. The assumption is that underneath the outer "flaking" layer, lies another later of protective material.



Steve

You are correct. I'm a victim of viewing on my phone. You rated galvanizing on Viking 3 and 3.5.

Here are the attachments again. 20 lb group and 45 lb group.

Peter

 

[mvweebles]

BTW - I happily made a modest donation to Steve/Panope. Anchors are dang expensive and even more important. His work has been a "north star" for me amidst a sea of self-serving puffery from the anchor manufacturers. I'm also pretty sure his work has caused several of the major anchor makers to improve their products (I have a hunch Viking will improve their galvanizing before too long....).

If anyone feels similarly about Panope's work, you can buy him a drink or two at

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/svpanope

Thanks again Steve.

Peter

 

[rslifkin]

Steve, thanks for the thoughtful post. And all your labor of love with the anchor reviews

I had not thought about the weight of the chain being an aid in setting an anchor but that makes sense. So good effort should go in to slowly laying the chain out as you back down

Does this make an argument for upsizing the chain for additional weight?

And have you ever tested the effect of a kettle weight on anchors?

I don't think it would be worth carrying bigger chain just for setting behavior. But a gentle setting technique may help, especially at shorter scopes. Instead of flying backwards and letting the anchor stop the boat, take up the slack gently and then start to bring up tension on the rode. That will get the anchor to start setting before you start to pull the catenary out of the chain.

 

[FWT]

I do not recall ranking either Viking anchor's "galvanizing" as a 5. If I did, that was a mistake on my part. Note: I am unable to view your attachments.

Initially, I ranked both Viking anchors as a "3" due to a galvanizing flaw that resulted in the outer layer of material to "flake off" very easily. Sometimes, just a fingernail was capable of dislodging a flake of galvanizing. I have more recently "upgraded" the rank to a "3.5" because, in spite of the flaking, the anchors are not rusting at a greater rate than other anchors. The assumption is that underneath the outer "flaking" layer, lies another later of protective material.

Steve

Steve:

Kudos for the testing you do.

There is an aspect of the results you show that has puzzled me. There can be a significant difference in the scores for an anchor at different sizes.

One example is the Vulcan, in soft mud. At the 55 lb size you show in soft mud two 5's and a 4, as recently as video # 137. Ignoring cobblestone ratings are all 4's and 5's.

Drop down to the 20 lb tests and you show a 3 for holding and 2 for reset in soft mud, in video #144. Overall test scores just do not hold up as well.

Any thoughts?

My far less informed mind has wondered: a seabed is the same seabed, presenting the same resistance to deep penetration regardless of what anchor is dropped onto it. But can it be the sheer weight of the anchors causes a difference in performance as they react to the resistance?

Or, something else is going on? Did your location for "soft mud" change, so that the comparison isn't apples to apples?

I have a 55 lb Vulcan sitting in my garage, waiting to be installed on a new boat to be delivered shortly. To be used primarily on the Chesapeake and ICW. Purchased in large part on the basis of your 55 lb tests. (You are due a commission from Rocna!)

 

[Mako]

Wondering if the tip of the bigger one had been severely blunted or even bent by use

 

[BruceK]

To Panope/Steve, welcome back, thanks for contributing.
The role if any of the "mark2" swivel is easily tested/excluded by swapping them between rodes and trying again.

 

[Hydraulicjump]

Steve, thanks for your input on this. As an earlier post noted, things have been quiet on the eternal anchor argument. Frankly, that is because of your outstanding YouTube series on testing. I too, like Weebles, have made a small contribution to your cause. I encourage other TF folks to do same, if they have used your advice.

And I am upgrading my very beautiful stainless Bruce on my Helmsman 38e to a more utilitarian Vulcan after many hours listening to your tests.

The Helmsman cult is having their rendezvous in your backyard next weekend at Port Townsend. Come down and I will be happy to supply the central nervous system depressant of your choice.

Your fan,

Jeff

 

[Panope]

Steve, thanks for the thoughtful post. And all your labor of love with the anchor reviews

I had not thought about the weight of the chain being an aid in setting an anchor but that makes sense. So good effort should go in to slowly laying the chain out as you back down

Does this make an argument for upsizing the chain for additional weight?

And have you ever tested the effect of a kettle weight on anchors?

Yes, heavier chain will help setting at very short scopes. However, at normal scopes, you will get more overall performance if you put extra weight into the anchor rather than the chain.

As far as kellets are concerned, because I already have generous chain weight, the small amount or additional catenary that a kellet would provide is not worth the hassle of rigging the kellet.

I think a kellet could be very useful for a system that is using a mostly rope rode that is forced to anchor at very short scope.

I have not yet tested a kellet.

Steve

 

[Panope]

Steve:

Kudos for the testing you do.

There is an aspect of the results you show that has puzzled me. There can be a significant difference in the scores for an anchor at different sizes.

One example is the Vulcan, in soft mud. At the 55 lb size you show in soft mud two 5's and a 4, as recently as video # 137. Ignoring cobblestone ratings are all 4's and 5's.

Drop down to the 20 lb tests and you show a 3 for holding and 2 for reset in soft mud, in video #144. Overall test scores just do not hold up as well.

Any thoughts?

My far less informed mind has wondered: a seabed is the same seabed, presenting the same resistance to deep penetration regardless of what anchor is dropped onto it. But can it be the sheer weight of the anchors causes a difference in performance as they react to the resistance?

Or, something else is going on? Did your location for "soft mud" change, so that the comparison isn't apples to apples?

I have a 55 lb Vulcan sitting in my garage, waiting to be installed on a new boat to be delivered shortly. To be used primarily on the Chesapeake and ICW. Purchased in large part on the basis of your 55 lb tests. (You are due a commission from Rocna!)

A couple thoughts-

First, the Soft Mud "reset" test for the 20lb anchors is a "180 degree reset", while the "reset" test for the 45lb anchors is a "straight line reset". So, those two tests are apples and oranges.

For the Soft Mud Holding test, part of the reason that the smaller Vulcan ranks lower than the large Vulcan has to do with the other anchors in the groups (not all anchors are represented in both groups). Also, both groups were using the same rode with "80' of 5/16" chain". This means that the smaller anchors had greater catenary throughout the tests - again, apples and oranges.

The ranking charts have limitations when viewed alone. I highly recommend studying the performance graphs (along with watching all the videos

 

[Hippocampus]

Have come to believe after a decade full time anchoring with a Rocna my prior anchoring technique was wrong for soft mud. In the past I’d let out chain and at 50-70’ give it slight tension or let the wind do it. Then let out enough for 5:1. In soft mud that isn’t the best. Rather went to laying out all the chain and just wait and wait and wait. That consistently worked better. Think that’s true for any anchor with a roll bar.
Think the roll bar slows penetration and slows the anchor in getting to its best orientation. Think they all set slower and backing down on them prematurely means you’ll never get a good set. Also think the roll bar interferes with resetting with a 180 degree shift.
On the current boat the Vulcan does much better with both of those.
Any validity to my thinking Steve?

 

[Panope]

Have come to believe after a decade full time anchoring with a Rocna my prior anchoring technique was wrong for soft mud. In the past I’d let out chain and at 50-70’ give it slight tension or let the wind do it. Then let out enough for 5:1. In soft mud that isn’t the best. Rather went to laying out all the chain and just wait and wait and wait. That consistently worked better. Think that’s true for any anchor with a roll bar.
Think the roll bar slows penetration and slows the anchor in getting to its best orientation. Think they all set slower and backing down on them prematurely means you’ll never get a good set. Also think the roll bar interferes with resetting with a 180 degree shift.
On the current boat the Vulcan does much better with both of those.
Any validity to my thinking Steve?

For the "initial set at short scope" I see no advantage to this with a Rocna anchor. The more "horizontal" the pull - the better.

As for the delay in setting or letting the anchor "soak", I have not detected any change in behavior between immediate setting and waiting up to 15 minutes. Note that the "Soft Mud" in which I test is not nearly as "soft" as other seabeds that are often described as "soup" with no defined transition between water and seafloor

Other credible test personnel have proven that letting an anchor "soak" does offer an improvement in some seabed types.

Note: Although I have now executed tests in Seven different seabed types, my gut feeling is that the world probably has many dozens of seabed types, each with unique anchoring properties.

 

[bowball]

And the problem I have is generally I’m not sure what seabed type my anchor is on.

 

[rslifkin]

I've never found something so soft that my Vulcan needed to soak. Even in seabeds where idle reverse will bury it far enough to have the entire shank and some chain caked in mud it sets fine without soaking. I do always get the full scope deployed and bring up tension gently though.

 

[mvweebles]

Other credible test personnel have proven that letting an anchor "soak" does offer an improvement in some seabed types.

Note: Although I have now executed tests in Seven different seabed types, my gut feeling is that the world probably has many dozens of seabed types, each with unique anchoring properties.

Guessing you've seen many more anchor-technique threads than I have. After watching a few devolve by a few diehard "soak but don't set" types, I've come to a rough conclusion that Chesapeake Bay is a unique seabed with some soupy mud. I've never anchored there so have no direct knowledge but it's the only explanation I can think of for letting an anchor soak instead of setting it.

The new generation anchors haven't been around too very long. I wonder if this soak-don't-set guidance predates these newer style anchors.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

Good pick up Peter. Yes I was talking about the chessie. And yes Steve I misspoke and should have said soup.

 

[ranger58sb]

Soup, ooze, slime... holes of it scattered variously all over the Bay. Usually mud, ranging from hard to soft but usually on the softer side...

And then you find one of those snotty holes.



I know a Pivoting SuperMAX 15 and 17 works well here, as does a Fortress (at least FX-23 and FX-37.

I know a 35-lb Delta on a Mainship III is marginal at best. A smaller steel Danforth, ~14-lbs or so, worked pretty well.

One of these days we hope to get our new Vulcan 40 (88-lbs) wet.

-Chris

 

[Hardship]

Thanks all for responses, I will clarify a couple of things: when I say hard sand I mean sand with very little silt. The setting problems were encountered with the larger anchor in at least 20 separate locations over with a clean sand bottom. Anchor chains are both 13mm and marked at 10m intervals. Both anchors were attempted to set in the same conditions usually in 7 to 10 m depth, with 40m chain laid out going slow astern, then a gentle tug to get an initial set, then more laid if necessary. There is one other factor which may be relevant, the larger anchor has at some time been sideloaded as there is a slight sideways bend on the shank, which I previously did not think would be relevant, but after this discussion maybe the issue. The anchor connectors are different sizes for different anchors so it is not possible to swap over for testing.