Anchor Depth/performance Reversals

[Nomad Willy]

DD,
Excellent followup IMO,
Good analogy on the scope range. I use only anchors good at short scope. That adds to my range considerably. Many will say “why dosn’t he just have one anchor like mine that anchors in all bottoms?” I’m the experimenter remember?

And good point about the Bruce getting on the map w it’s ability to set. I still think they only partially set at times though as in one fluke down, one fluke horizontal like a bulldozer and one vertical (sorta) in the water above the others. Probably 98-99 % don’t know it’s doing that .. me included. I’m working (sorta) on a modified Claw that may address the fluke area problem. But when the Claw is set well the flukes are deeper than most. As you may suspect I think the Claw has possibilities.

I’ve always thought the Spade is an anchor that seems to have all the spades. PI. Only thing I have against it is the big ballast chamber, the long shank and the concave fluke that seems it should pack in mud. That’s all. A good anchor to study .. or even buy.
I actually like the Vulcan but why buy a product from the mild steel company when one can buy a Manson Boss. Great company and w no ballast a bigger fluke. More than a few very knowledgable anchor people have said holding power is directly proportional to fluke area. Obviously there are other variables though. It’s a mystery to me why more people don’t buy the Boss.

Yes one can’t get away from the need to have an anchor for short scope unless you boat in Perfect Bay and never venture out. But this statement “almost any anchor will perform well at long scope” says one should pay attention to short scope mostly. There are wide differences there.

 

[caltexflanc]

Hi Bruce-

No, I still have the Manson on the bow pulpit. My poor experience with it was I believe entirely due to the muck that clung to it. But that does not mean I love the anchor its just that I have cycled a 44 Bruce, a 55 Delta, 88 Delta and as of now the 80 Manson Supreme. And yes the Fortress FX55 remains in the bilge.

I had high hopes for the Delta but both plowed slowly across the ocean bottom. My boat has a great deal of wind loading with it being entirely enclosed with canvas which could aggravate anchoring. This I do know, after all my expensive attempts to reliably anchor as we did with our old sailboat, my Wife now almost demands that I get a mooring rather than anchor.

I mentioned in a different post how I would like to reconstruct my bow pulpit to accommodate two different styles of anchors. I will have to see how much time I have to do so next winter.

I'll try to be gentle here, but I strongly suspect a technique, not a hardware issue here. Anchoring is 80% technique, and I am being kind to hardware when I say that.

An 88# Delta held our much bigger, much higher windage boat (Hatteras 56MY) in a wide variety of bottoms and conditions along the entire eastern seaboard. Not to mention any number of other Deltas, CQRs and Danforth styles on various charters on both coasts. Patience was the key to getting a good set in sketchy bottoms with clocking wind or current. Any time I felt I wasn't getting a good set, it was because I had taken a shortcut, and ended up spending more time going back and doing it right. Perhaps powering down too soon, would be one guess as to what ails you.

 

[Nomad Willy]

George,
I can relate to this to a significant extent.
I’ve had good (acceptable anyway) performance from all my anchors usually quite small for the boat. And my “technique” is much different than most here. Due more to my equipment than my philosophy. I don’t have chain or the winch/gypsy to deploy and retrive the rode. Hence I lower the anchor by hand and can feel the moment it contacts the seafloor. I then lift the anchor up 6” (or so) and when the boat starts to move back I lower it back down smoothly, very slowly at first. The idea is that the anchor will be aligned w the fluke tips pointing toward the boat. Then I attempt to keep a bit of tension (not much) on the line to insure it gets laid out in a more or less straight line. I know the depth of deployment so when I get out about enough line to result in approximately a 4-1 scope I have Chris go to nuetral gear and when the tension slacks off enough to tie off I do that to the big dedicated cleat. Then I back down slowly to 1400rpm typical. Secure the boat.

Having said all this I disagree w you George. The Supreme is about as bullit proof as they come. I think it’s the greatest variable in anchoring .... the bottom or seafloor. The Supreme has a mud packing problem. See how Steve G fixed it w holes in the fluke. If you have a mud packing problem frill it.

This way the rode can’t fowl w the anchor and the anchor orients itself toward the boat after it makes contact w the bottom. Kinda like an anchor setting diagram. Foolproof? No. But fairly close to it.

But due to my modified and other expermental anchors and anchoring I’ve had many set failures. But never a dragging anchor. One I get it set per above they seem to stay put. Two 50 knot gales to our credit on a relatively unknown anchor. The XYZ.

To test an anchor for the general public one would be tempted to just dump the anchor and rode on the bottom drift fwd or wherever and back down. Many do it that way w winches equipped w a gypsy and chain rode. From what I’ve read on TF I’m thinking a lot of haphazzard anchoring happens. Some anchors are much better at coping w sloppy technique than others. Some of the lowest performing anchors like the Navy stockless are better at this.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Speaking of the Navy anchor here's a pic of a boat that goes to SE Alaska every summer. She's a 50' vessel and he anchors w the Navy anchor you see in the pic.

I see a lot of big boats (bigger than this one) w Navy anchors. I have a 35lb Dreadnought (2nd pic) and used it once just for fun. No setting pull at all (that I could tell) and it held against my usual (maybe more) pull of 1400rpm. The line was tight right from the start.
Has anybody used a Navy anchor and if so how does your experience compare w my Dreadnought?
#rd pic is another of the Dreadnought that shows it's extremely long but round shank. The Navy's shank is short and square.

 

[jimisbell]

I am surprised at thoughts of 5:1 and 3:1 Maybe sailors are more cautious but I would never anchor without 7:1 If I cant do 7:1 I will move to an anchorage where I can. But this my first Trawler and I have had sailboats for the past 40 years. Is it different for trawlers?? I always try to anchor in 6 to 8 feet of water



With the sailboat it was not unknown for me to drive the bow ashore and throw the anchor as far as I could or carry it in on foot, having dropped an anchor off the stern on the way to the beach. Here on the gulf we have 1 to 2 foot tides.

 

[BruceK]

jimisbell, it might be instructive to access the SV Panope/Steve`s short scope tests. It won`t alter your practice, but might be interesting to access information, both surprising and comforting, which may be relied on by others when anchoring.

 

[jimisbell]

Well, it confirms my long scope preference but it also makes me wonder about carrying my Bruce. Just couldnt believe the poor performance of the Bruce. It didnt fit with my experience, but then I have never been in a position to really test its drag.

I didnt see any of the roll bars earn their keep. Didnt see an upside down deployment so maybe roll bars are worth it in rare cases. My large Fortress will remain my main anchor on the mud and sand bottoms we have on the gulf.



The Danforth/Fortress is awesome in mud. Sometimes too awesome. I bent the shank on a 35 pound Danforth (not Fortress) getting a it out of the mud after anchoring in a 5 knot current overnight. Lucky for me, I lost my Bruce in some Hurricane debris near New Orleans the night before so was using the Danforth. The Bruce might not have held in that 5 knot current.

 

[psneeld]

Steve's tests showed at least the Manson Supreme with roll bar to be a top performer.

As do many of the anchor tests rate the Supreme and I believe other roll bar anchors pretty well.

His tests slso spoke well for short scopes for some anchors.

My personal experience shows the Supreme to live up to its namesake.

Smaller danforth types however can be challenging in grass, shells, rocks, hard sand for initial dig...if they do dig, then they are great

 

[Nomad Willy]

Grass, shells, rocks and hard sand are not the usual bottoms.

In defense of those that use the Danforth anchor. I have that high performance Dan and have never gotten it wet. Just saw it used in a store and bought it. I knew what I was getting .. the best anchor that Danforth ever made. Only $30. too. Highest quality materials and a higher aspect ratio to up the anti. That’s something that needs a discussion ... aspect ratio and anchors.

 

[psneeld]

Grass, shells, rocks and hard sand are not the usual bottoms.

they are in a lot of the world....

all it takes is one shell, rock or lump of grass to disable an anchor....

 

[DDW]

Two 50 knot gales to our credit on a relatively unknown anchor. The XYZ.

I have a stainless XYZ and have never used it. What are your other experiences with it? Setting? Veering? Bought it as a spare because is stores easily, but never even put it on the boat. It got some bad reviews in a few tests. I also have a folding stainless Northill I've never used. Those used to be prized but you rarely hear about them anymore.

I am surprised at thoughts of 5:1 and 3:1 Maybe sailors are more cautious but I would never anchor without 7:1 If I cant do 7:1 I will move to an anchorage where I can.

In 6' depths, why not go with 7:1? In other areas, with 60' depths and a crowd, different ideas are called for.

In defense of those that use the Danforth anchor.

The problem with the Danforth type has never been holding power. Once set in sand or mud they are second to none. The problem is setting them in weed, rocks, coral, etc. And veering and resetting in same.

 

[psneeld]

there a lot of ACIW anchorages in tidal creeks you arent going to use 7 to 1 and the next anchorage may be full or too far.

for winds under 20 knots or currents under 2 knots, 5 to 1 is plenty for all chain, and if you have an oversized anchor, 3 to 1 has never been a problem for me.

one advantage of all chain.

 

[jimisbell]

Steve's tests showed at least the Manson Supreme with roll bar to be a top performer.

As do many of the anchor tests rate the Supreme and I believe other roll bar anchors pretty well.

His tests slso spoke well for short scopes for some anchors.

My personal experience shows the Supreme to live up to its namesake.

Smaller danforth types however can be challenging in grass, shells, rocks, hard sand for initial dig...if they do dig, then they are great

Well, yes and no. The anchors performed well, But not BECAUSE of the roll bar. I saw no evidence that the anchor was aided by the roll bar. None of them landed roll bar down. Take it off and you still have a top notch anchor.


Smaller ANYTHING anchors can be problematic. Anchor needs to be sized to the boat. My MS-34 has a Fortress FX 23



Since chain and nylon line are cheap, I see no need for short scope. Compare a $300 dollar addition to the rode to the $50,000 you paid for the boat. Its cheap.

 

[DDW]

Every anchor has a method to ensure that it rights itself if upside down or on its side. Stocks on old style anchors, the joint on a CQR, the shape and shank on a Bruce or Spade, and the roll bar on a Rocna. It may not happen every time or even often, but if you remove the roll bar on a Rocna and it lands on its back (or it flips on a reversal), you can tow that thing all over the anchorage. They didn't put it there for decoration. Once it bites, it would still be a top notch anchor - the roll bar does nothing for holding, once the fluke bites it's job is finished.

 

[psneeld]

and the beat goes on.......

and some still never understand the song....

 

[caltexflanc]

and the beat goes on.......

and some still never understand the song....

Exactly. Reminds me of the classic Nike/Spike Lee/Michael Jordan ads: "It's gotta be the shoes!" .... "No, Mars"... "its gotta be the shoes!" ... "NO Mars!'

 

[jimisbell]

and the beat goes on.......

and some still never understand the song....

What you say is absolutely true.

 

[psneeld]

I am not the one who is limiting what others deem normal.

Saying short scope anchoring is never needed doesnt ring a bell in my world of boating experience.

Sure one can choose not to, but saying that there is no need for others to short scope anchor seems a little...well... something....

 

[jimisbell]

I am not the one who is limiting what others deem normal.

Saying short scope anchoring is never needed doesnt ring a bell in my world of boating experience.

Sure one can choose not to, but saying that there is no need for others to short scope anchor seems a little...well... something....

I said I saw no need.

NO WHERE did I say "for other people" I live where 90 miles off shore it can be less than 100' deep.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Every anchor has a method to ensure that it rights itself if upside down or on its side. Stocks on old style anchors, the joint on a CQR, the shape and shank on a Bruce or Spade, and the roll bar on a Rocna. It may not happen every time or even often, but if you remove the roll bar on a Rocna and it lands on its back (or it flips on a reversal), you can tow that thing all over the anchorage. They didn't put it there for decoration. Once it bites, it would still be a top notch anchor - the roll bar does nothing for holding, once the fluke bites it's job is finished.

Re what you said;
“the roll bar does nothing for holding, once the fluke bites it's job is finished.”

Good points but I don’t think it’s true.
I have a very modified Supreme w the roll bar removed. Holding power is the sum of the drag the anchor generates as it moves or resists movement. A roll bar is a sizable pice of resistance being almost 90 degrees to the obvious travel or force. The stocks (outboard tubes/bars on Danforth type anchors) resist in the same way. Far less than the fluke of course. On my modded Supreme I intended to sacrifice the small amount of drag for deeper penetration.
And the first time I tried my Supreme w/o it’s roll bar it failed to set. However it may sorta been a fluke. I thought it would set if I laid it out right. I’ll have another go at it soon.

 

[Nomad Willy]

and the beat goes on.......

and some still never understand the song....

And you do?

 

[DDW]

Holding power is the sum of the drag the anchor generates as it moves or resists movement. A roll bar is a sizable pice of resistance being almost 90 degrees to the obvious travel or force. The stocks (outboard tubes/bars on Danforth type anchors) resist in the same way. Far less than the fluke of course.

The same amount of steel added to the fluke would do more for holding than a round bar half way out of the seabed. Of course it does something. The chain and shackle do something. The reason the roll bar exists is to flip the anchor.

 

[BruceK]

....the first time I tried my Supreme w/o it’s roll bar it failed to set. However it may sorta been a fluke. I thought it would set if I laid it out right. I’ll have another go at it soon.

You could restore the roll bar and see what happens. I think/hope it`s there for better reasons than looking pretty.
Of course, every anchoring is pretty much a one off unique event, so it may not prove much either way.

 

[Peter B]

You could restore the roll bar and see what happens. I think/hope it`s there for better reasons than looking pretty.
Of course, every anchoring is pretty much a one off unique event, so it may not prove much either way.

Bruce males a good point there Eric. Why don't you use it several more times, during which I suspect it might well prove a bit flukey to set, then weld the roll bar back on and try again. I suspect you will find it sets much quicker and reliably, and then you may well be convinced and become a roll bar devotee like us.

 

[ranger58sb]

And the first time I tried my Supreme w/o it’s roll bar it failed to set. However it may sorta been a fluke.

I see what you did there...



-Chris

 

[Nomad Willy]

Ranger I don’t understand. You must have looked at some pic I posted.

Peter I plugged the holes where the RB attached w JBWeld. Prolly be a stinky mess if I tried to weld to that. That lattice work I had on top of the shank worked but setting was very slow. Seemed dependable though. So I agree w you Peter except I’d be more inclined to use or buy another anchor. My lightweight aviation anchor like the Canadian fishermen use (Northill design) but it’s big and awkward but only 18lbs (I think). Or my 22lb HP Danforth. I could use that until I bent something. Or just use my 18lb XYZ regularly. And I haven’t tried my modded 24lb Claw yet either. Lots of posibilities.

Bruce I always thought every roll bar was ugly like a farm tractor .. or worse. Appearance wise it changes anchors from anchors to impliments. No the RB stays off. You said re the mod Supreme’s failure “Of course, every anchoring is pretty much a one off unique event, so it may not prove much either way.” yes. The wind was blowing 18 or so, was having trouble keeping the boat on station, it was late after a long run and there was a small spot in a rather large bay to anchor due to other boats, mooring buoys and a grass bottom. Just wanted to hook up and have dinner. Just wanted to get it over with. So I hucked out my go-to anchor for such occasions, that’s what else .. my 13lb Danforth that came w the boat in 1974. Hooked right up as always. Never leave home w/o it.

 

[ranger58sb]

And the first time I tried my Supreme w/o it’s roll bar it failed to set. However it may sorta been a fluke.

I see what you did there...



-Chris

Ranger I don’t understand. You must have looked at some pic I posted.

Fluke!

-Chris

 

[Delfin]

Bruce males a good point there Eric. Why don't you use it several more times, during which I suspect it might well prove a bit flukey to set, then weld the roll bar back on and try again. I suspect you will find it sets much quicker and reliably, and then you may well be convinced and become a roll bar devotee like us.

The roll bar on a Rocna may well be needed, but only because of the overall design of the fluke, shape of shaft, weight balance, etc. Rocna always made exclusive claims about how roll bar anchors were the only way to go, how their roll bar anchor was the ultimate hook, while Manson's wasn't as good. The tests don't validate that, and the Rocna is basically a rip off of the Manson in any case.

Then Rocna came out with the Vulcan, which is a rip off of the Ultra, as least in terms of fluke design if not performance, and suddenly there was a non roll bar anchor that was the ultimate hook.

Eric's point that the roll bar provides resistance certainly must be true, but the trade off is that it also prevents the anchor from digging in as deeply as it would without.

Pretty happy with my Ultra. About 90% of the total weight is in the tip of the fluke because the rest of the anchor is hollow. The stainless steel presents little resistance to it burying itself, and we've anchored while crabbing in 1.5 to 1 scope in 25 knots of wind without moving.

Proponents of 7:1 scope must anchor in shallow water with few other boats around. We spent the 4th at Roche Harbor, where around 50 boats co-mingled in 30 - 40' depths. If anyone laid out 7:1 scope they would have been boarded and locked up in the brig. In the PacNW, if I can find water as shallow as 30' I'm thrilled. Lay out 2.5:1 on 1/2" chain, add a snubber to get maybe 3.5:1 and I'm good.

 

[jimisbell]

Yes, on the South Coast of Texas the usual depth is 10 feet, seldom more, and as I said in a previous post, the Continental shelf is only about 100' down at 90 miles from shore. that would only take 300 feet of rode two days from shore. I rarely see any other boats in an anchorage and there are many anchorages so one can be picky.

 

[DDW]

Pics of my aviation SS sheet metal Northill design. The rather sharp fluke tips could possibly even penetrate bad weed. Another one of my never used anchors.

That one looks like galvanized steel to me. I didn't know they made them in steel. Mine is shiny SS. I might put mine on the trawler and see if it works. They were made to temporarily anchor flying boats, and it looks like you could bend them in more extreme use.

The tests don't validate that, and the Rocna is basically a rip off of the Manson in any case.

Then Rocna came out with the Vulcan, which is a rip off of the Ultra, as least in terms of fluke design if not performance, and suddenly there was a non roll bar anchor that was the ultimate hook.

Actually I think Manson ripped off Rocna, as the Rocna roll bar seems to predate the Manson by several years. The Vulcan is a rip off of the Spade, which predates it by 15 years or more. The Ultra has been around awhile, a little newer than the Spade to which it owes something, but it does have some original thinking in it.