Anchor Depth/performance Reversals

[BruceK]

Fair comment Eric. I doubt the anchor knows or cares whether a load applied is from wind or prop. OTOH, if early operator loading is a nono, doesn`t matter if the load is from wind, prop,or the good fairy.
If I power set, it`s gentle,not heaps of power, just gentle reverse in the hope it helps the anchor digs in. I do like to power test it in reverse after a little while, much better finding out it`s not set while checking, than at some inopportune moment. But it`s a Super Sarca,and gives little trouble.
Nigel Calder had the right idea: drop it, set it,take bearings,make and enjoy a cup of tea, and check.
If there is no clear landmark, a flock of seagulls on the water will do.
Nothing to do with the tea, it just ensures a period of watchful observation after anchoring.

 

[psneeld]

I think you've absolutely hit the nail on the head there, as to why it is most of us with the new generation type anchors, tend to just drop, rest, and let them set themselves, with minimal if any, backdown. Their flukes are sharp, they weigh enough to penetrate well without a huge tug, and by allowing the slow set, you are not just jamming the fluke up with the bottom substrate. This is especially so with those still using concave flukes like the Rocna and Manson Supreme, which do tend to clog and not re-set so well, if sticky mud happens to get jammed onto the fluke by a 'hard' set.

It seems that a new urban myrh is starting about Manson Supremes...and posdibly the Rocna..... cloggling snd not resetting.

Mine doesnt...and the vast majority of other owners seem to have the same experience. The few times it has happened though seem to stick like mud when posted on the internet

 

[caltexflanc]

Single engine boaters might find the need for quick setting anchors in emergencies....

If paranoid about that (and that's not a bad thing by any means), have two anchors of different configurations ready to deploy, especially one that can freefall. You want to have all the weapons possible if it is that urgent. I kept a fully rigged and ready big Danforth ready to drop off the bow in an instance, not connected to a windlass. My windlass was able to freefall the Delta if need be but that still took a few more seconds to deploy.

 

[psneeld]

I have an anchor that hasn't failed in some bad situations where my engine has failed ....and in a variety of bottoms.

Plus it hasn't failed in hundreds of nights of anchoring...so my confidence level is high.

Danforth types to me in a blow when a known set has occurred are great...too many failures to hook first time in my personal experiences, stories related to me when teaching captains licensing and commercial work for me too hang one up front.

If the boat was set up for it.... different story, but not worth the effort just yet.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Drop and let it set itself is way different than settiing w/o much backdown. And after all what’s the anchor going to do down there .. get aquainted w the mud?

I back down w 1400rpm and of course that’s a lot more than what it takes to make my nylon rode very straight. One could argue that it was about ready to break out. But if I just let a gentle breeze set my anchor I would think very little of the anchor would be “in” the seabed.

HaHa but me in the old days usta just lower the anchor down and “more” line for what I knew was scope (buy likely I didn’t know the word scope) and go about my business. When I heard of setting I kinda thought it was stupid. After all what was going to happen when a breeze picked up? The obvious right? For the record I used used Dans then.

To me not setting the anchor isn’t much different than the above. And setting the anchor is in a big way testing the bottom. Even more so when you’re cruising. And speaking of testing every time you anchor it’s a test of the bottom and your anchor.

 

[caltexflanc]

But if I just let a gentle breeze set my anchor I would think very little of the anchor would be “in” the seabed.

So your anchor doesn't weigh much? Or nothing is pulling on it?

When things are dead calm with no current, we use very short bursts of reverse throttle to move the boat back a bit. But you would be amazed to see how much an anchor and chain will bury itself just "sitting" there. Again, as one angle of looking at it, consider what type of anchor and technique is used in setting moorings in lieu of the "miracle" anchors discussed here?

 

[jimisbell]

I have never backed down on an anchor.


I have never had an anchor drag with one exception. But I have had to cut one anchor, a small Bruce, loose because I could NOT retrieve it. I also bent the shank of a large Danforth that was so deep in the mud that a Chinaman had hold of it. Powering over it finally pulled it loose after bending the bow pulpit and the anchor shank.


The one that drug was in Antigua where I anchored on what looked like, from the surface, sand, with a Danforth, but must have been rock because it slid across the top.

 

[caltexflanc]

The one that drug was in Antigua where I anchored on what looked like, from the surface, sand, with a Danforth, but must have been rock because it slid across the top.

In a few inches of sand (or anything else) over rock, anything will drag. That's one reason I would hold the chain in my hand beyond the bow roller to get a feel of anchor/bottom interaction in a strange or notorious location. Sometimes, you just have to move to another spot, even in the same anchorage, to fins something acceptable. I've been places where 20 yards makes all the difference.

 

[foggysail]

It seems that a new urban myrh is starting about Manson Supremes...and posdibly the Rocna..... cloggling snd not resetting.

Mine doesnt...and the vast majority of other owners seem to have the same experience. The few times it has happened though seem to stick like mud when posted on the internet

Some myth! Many who have not suffered from the “myth” smugly brag to others about anchor nap time, gentle tugging, phase of the moon, in their esoteric pontifical preaching.

 

[markpierce]

A fake 15 kg Bruce jerks my 14-ton boat to a quick, sudden stop when relying on current or wind.

 

[psneeld]

Some myth! Many who have not suffered from the “myth” smugly brag to others about anchor nap time, gentle tugging, phase of the moon, in their esoteric pontifical preaching.

What's the percentage of failures compared to other anchors across the board? Failures in general? Enough to condemn s product? Nope....

Just going with the percentages, not the occasional failure posts.....

 

[foggysail]

What's the percentage of failures compared to other anchors across the board? Failures in general? Enough to condemn s product? Nope....

Just going with the percentages, not the occasional failure posts.....

Just do not tell me .....and others that the condition I described didn’t occur as you seem to imply

 

[BruceK]

Those who experience a serious failure of set, maybe more than once,are likely not to trust that anchor, in that place, or maybe anywhere. That is understandable.
The problem is, what caused the failure. With so many factors, it`s hard to select one, it can be a combination. But if the anchor which became unset is found on retrieval to be so caked with mud it could not function as an anchor, that might very well deter its continued use, based on experience. More so if a different type is used and sets well. Maybe that just a "horses for courses" lesson, but if someone gets peed off with an anchor after repeated failure to hold,expect them not to like it any more.

 

[foggysail]

Bruce—

Sure, you made some important points. And in my earlier discussion pertaining to my failure experience I tried to stress a couple of points. The first of course was the anchor was choked with thick sticky mud. It should be clear, at least I thought so that the anchor could not reset under that condition.

It should be considered a failure mode. Most likely other anchors would fail under those conditions that consisted of a 180 wind shift that resulted in the anchor pulling from the seabed. But this condition didn’t seem to bother other boats in the same anchorage by pulling. At the time of failure, yes I was upset the anchor did not quickly reset but I didn’t know the anchor was choked with mud until I retrieved it and subsequently cleaned it.

Another point I try to share is IMHO there is no ideal anchor for all conditions. Ideal maybe for MOST conditions. This experience caused me to spent more money for a different style anchor, the FX55 Fortress. But my Manson Supreme remains on my bowpulpit connected to my windlass.

And further I believe that others who have issues with particular anchors even under particular conditions should share their experiences in forums such as this. Not to condem a product but rather to make others aware the conditions where the product is not best suited. There is a lot at stake when one anchors that involves both personal safety along with potential property damage. Just my humble opinion.

Foggy

 

[psneeld]

Just do not tell me .....and others that the condition I described didn’t occur as you seem to imply

I was just saying that some anchors are getting a reputation for not resetting as a regular issue...which is not true....

Are there occasions where they don't reset?....sure....and I bet even SARCAs may have a few instances. It may be because of their sheer numbers, the word just hasn't spread as much as other anchors.

 

[tozz]

I’d like others to comment that know more or can correct my ramblings as a lot of the above is guessing from what I’ve read and seen in the past.

We have a 150lb forfjord on our 63’ Nordlund. Sets well at 6 or 7:1. I dragged at 5:1 in mud in a 18-20kt wind in Stuart island up in the San Juan’s. But at 7:1 I’ve have 3 boats rafted up and we don’t move.

 

[foggysail]

I was just saying that some anchors are getting a reputation for not resetting as a regular issue...which is not true....

Are there occasions where they don't reset?....sure....and I bet even SARCAs may have a few instances. It may be because of their sheer numbers, the word just hasn't spread as much as other anchors.

OK but they shouldn’t be getting a bad rep because the failure numbers are small at least to my understanding. Yes, I forgot who posted about a Rocna problem although I know the anchor we have just discussed. And another yes or at least I am in agreement that it is possible even SARCAs may have had a few instances. Nothing in life is perfect.

 

[Nomad Willy]

We have a 150lb forfjord on our 63’ Nordlund. Sets well at 6 or 7:1. I dragged at 5:1 in mud in a 18-20kt wind in Stuart island up in the San Juan’s. But at 7:1 I’ve have 3 boats rafted up and we don’t move.

Tozz,
Thanks for responding.
Looks like your bigger is better philosophy (like SE Ak fishermen) works well. Is a 150lb anchor big for a 63 foot boat? The one time I tried to set a Forfjord I probably was operating at less than 7-1. My mistake? I think any anchor should set at 4-1 to 6-1 dependably on a good seabed. And for fishermen the most popular option of a replacement is a Claw.

 

[Peter B]

Peter yes maybe the slow set helps an anchor not clog or clog less is a point that has merrit .. maybe not too.

But a Supreme set slowly may be the best of both worlds.

Peter can you actually say why slow setting is better or is it just “seems to work better” things. I’ve heard it from very knowledgable people in the industry. But if there’s something to it ..... what is it?

Eric, re-read your own post above. You answered your own question in your opening sentence. Need I say more..?

 

[Peter B]

It seems that a new urban myrh is starting about Manson Supremes...and posdibly the Rocna..... cloggling snd not resetting.
Mine doesnt...and the vast majority of other owners seem to have the same experience. The few times it has happened though seem to stick like mud when posted on the internet

Psn, all is well. No-one is saying your anchor is prone to re-setting failure, as clearly, as you say, it doesn't. Both the Manson Supreme and Rocna are great anchors, and no-one to my knowledge is spreading myths. I think from memory the failure to re-set at times, when admittedly subjected to more vigorous reversals of direction that would normally encountered, was in the anchor setting videos of Steve, on Panope.

What's the percentage of failures compared to other anchors across the board? Failures in general? Enough to condemn s product? Nope....Just going with the percentages, not the occasional failure posts.....

As Foggysail says - very small in comparison to successful sets. So no-one is condemning anything. But, my post was an attempt to explain why this might be likely to be more of an issue, if you anchor in soft sticky, (what I like to call, weapons grade), mud, and then do a power set, instead of letting it sink in slowly, like most of us have found works, with these later generation anchors.

I was just saying that some anchors are getting a reputation for not resetting as a regular issue...which is not true....
Are there occasions where they don't reset?....sure....and I bet even SARCAs may have a few instances. It may be because of their sheer numbers, the word just hasn't spread as much as other anchors.

Absolutely right. My S-Sarca has dragged on me precisely twice. fortunately noticed because daylight. Once it had a big rock stuck there on the fluke somehow in a way that seemed to defy the law of physics, seeing the fluke is convex. It fell off with a mere tap. The other was in anchorage of soft mud, but a lot of litter on the bottom. God only knows what fouled the fluke that time.

OK but they shouldn’t be getting a bad rep because the failure numbers are small at least to my understanding. Yes, I forgot who posted about a Rocna problem although I know the anchor we have just discussed. And another yes or at least I am in agreement that it is possible even SARCAs may have had a few instances. Nothing in life is perfect.

Ditto - see my comment above. Nothing in like is perfect. But I do want to draw the discussion back to what I said originally, and which Eric still has a slight problem with. The slow set, in my view, takes advantage of the trend to rapid set these newer anchors have, which adds another bonus, that not needing much, if any, powered set, probably decreases the likelihood of muck sticking to and filling the fluke, and impeding a tide reversed re-set. I do believe this might be something worth bearing in mind, that's all.

 

[BruceK]

FWIW,the 2 times my S/Sarca dragged were:
1. The day the Admiral, for reasons I cannot fathom,let out 1.5 scope without telling me. It held overnight,with a reversal,and dragged next day when the wind freshened. Yes, we discussed it.

2. In Farm Cove, Sydney, NYE. No boat could get a set in the area, us included. We watched and moved about 25M away, bingo, set! I suspect a sheet of polished granite down there.
In neither case do I blame the anchor. My experience is for the benefit of anyone interested, as foggysail suggested.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Things fail,
There’sa reason for everything.
Nothing is perfect.
That wasn’t what I had in mind starting the thread but better and more important stuff has emerged hanks to the wonderful posters we have here on TF.
Thanks to everybody including longtime poster psneeld and the newish guy Tozz.
psneeld pointed out how a bad thing said about a product tends give it an unshakeable and long lasting negative taint. And we mostly tend to adore our own so posting even a one in a thousand failure seems undoable.
But I don’t think Peter is right that most just “drop, rest and let the anchor set itself”. I’ll bet most back down a bit at least but it could be that I think others take anchoring seriously just because I do. But I need to play every card I have as I don’t have a ton of chain and a big anchor.

Again thanks all for your “making a difference” contributions. And I want to repeat the original motivation for this thread. Less weed is very likely deeper than 25’. At least when/where seawater isn’t clear as weed is very dependent on light. So in much of the world 30 to 35’ may be the ideal anchoring depth when reversals are likely.

 

[markpierce]

T... And for fishermen the most popular option of a replacement is a Claw.

Local Herring fishermen are upgrading from Northill to Bruce to secure nets.

 

[tozz]

Tozz,

Thanks for responding.

Looks like your bigger is better philosophy (like SE Ak fishermen) works well. Is a 150lb anchor big for a 63 foot boat? The one time I tried to set a Forfjord I probably was operating at less than 7-1. My mistake? I think any anchor should set at 4-1 to 6-1 dependably on a good seabed. And for fishermen the most popular option of a replacement is a Claw.

I do subscribe to bigger is better. We have 400' of chain and an FX-85 on board too as an alternate. I don't think it's considered big for those that anchor frequently up here in the PNW. i've seen 50-55' boats with 100-120lb anchors.

I used to back down and my previous boat with an ultra anchor and brought that approach to the bigger boat. but after a few sets with the forfjord I have moved to let it set itself and that seems to work just fine.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Tozz,
HaHa that’s an anchor pic. That Fjord looks visually like a 16” gun on a battleship.
The Fjord fits the bows of many boats. My friend in Alaska modified his bow so the Fjord’s shank laid flat on his foredeck. Slick .. I thought. He took the lead from the fishermen in Craig and bought a Fjord. He had the hydraulic windlass and all but last time I talked to him he talked of changing the anchor. If I had the hydraulics and for a reel windlass I’d make his bow mod and find a 55lb Dreadnought.

You wrote;
“but after a few sets with the forfjord I have moved to let it set itself and that seems to work just fine.”
Does work fine mean it’s held in strong winds after the “let it set itself” technique?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Local Herring fishermen are upgrading from Northill to Bruce to secure nets.

Mark,
Yes I remember.
Your last post had pics. But the Northills were rather crude as I recall. Home made by the look of it but mamy fishermen in BC make their own Northill or have them made. I suspect a fab shop makes Northills on the side. I’ll have to look and see if they all look the same.
I may take my aviation Northill out for a spin.

 

[Peter B]

But I don’t think Peter is right that most just “drop, rest and let the anchor set itself”.

Eric, please stop quoting me out of context. I never said "most just drop and let it set". I said, that his technique appears to work well with the newer generation type anchors, such as those we were discussing, (Rocnas, Manson Supremes, Sarcas, etc), and may, repeat may, help prevent sticking/jamming mud in the fluke, that might, repeat might, interfere with a reverse current re-set on occasion. The above certainly does not apply to most others.

I know for certain the CQR type need a hard set, or they don't set at all, and the same with a Danforth/Fortress or any others of that double fluked type of arrangement. I also suspect the spade types also need a firm drag to get them to bite in and dig down, as did your XYZ. Just sayin'

 

[jimisbell]

I know for certain the CQR type need a hard set, or they don't set at all, and the same with a Danforth/Fortress or any others of that double fluked type of arrangement. I also suspect the spade types also need a firm drag to get them to bite in and dig down, as did your XYZ. Just sayin'

I dont think this is true. I have used CQR, Danforth, and Bruce anchors over a 50+ year history in sailboats and now power boats and have only had ONE anchor drag. It was none of the above. AND I never set my anchors.I just drift back on them.....Unless I carry it ashore as I am known to do on occasion..

 

[Nomad Willy]

Eric, please stop quoting me out of context. I never said "most just drop and let it set". I said, that his technique appears to work well with the newer generation type anchors, such as those we were discussing, (Rocnas, Manson Supremes, Sarcas, etc), and may, repeat may, help prevent sticking/jamming mud in the fluke, that might, repeat might, interfere with a reverse current re-set on occasion. The above certainly does not apply to most others.

Peter,
What???
But you did say “tend to just drop, rest, and let them set”.
I don’t see enough difference to get rasty over.

I even think there’s a difference but just what is the difference? Jam the mud down the anchor throat or oose it down slowly. I have an idea but what’s yours?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter yes maybe the slow set helps an anchor not clog or clog less is a point that has merrit .. maybe not too.

The Supreme’s fluke is much flatter in the center than it is on the Rocna. It would seem the Rocna would pack in mud better and the turned up trailing edge should help pack in mud too. But I hear no complaints from Rocna users. ??? Perhaps the throat angle is wider on the Supreme and that’s the primary reason the Supreme has such great short scope performance. And the Mantus is or probably should be the worst of the worst as there’s bolts, nuts and protruding flanges to snag the substrate as it passes over the upper surface of the fluke. The cost of the breakdown feature. If I had one I’d cut all that stuff off and weld the shank on like most others.

But a Supreme set slowly may be the best of both worlds.

I’ve heard forever that a slow soak in set is better. Can’t imagine why though. An anchor is at such and such an altitude below the seabed. What’s the difference if it got there quickly or over more time? What’s different? An old wives tale? Could be. Is there a notion that if it takes more attention, care and time it’s got to be better. I suspect it may be something passed on over long periods of time having no credibility or factual function.

I’ve always set more or less fast but I take considerable time laying out the rode. I’ve had setting problems too. But most of those problems are because of my experimental anchors.

Peter can you actually say why slow setting is better or is it just “seems to work better” things. I’ve heard it from very knowledgable people in the industry. But if there’s something to it ..... what is it?

Peter,
Re the quoting out of context were you refering to this post?
I’ve gone back about 30 posts and don’t see what you’re refering to. Is it that “most” let is soak or most back down? I think most back down. Now I’m out on a limb ... go for it since you’re in a combative mood.