Anchor setting Videos

[DavidM]

Fluke angle is a compromise for good performance in all bottoms. Fortress has a mud setting that increases the angle significantly.


So the Spade might work well in the conditions Steve has been testing but not so good in other bottoms.


David

 

[Nomad Willy]

Not so good at 3-1 in mud re Practical Sailor's test of 4/06.
Got bested by XYZ, HydroBubble, Bulwagga, and the Danforth. In descending order of performance.
At 7-1 scope got bested by XYZ, HydroBubble, Bulwagga and the Fortress.

See below the text re the Spade 80.

"The original bolt-together, two- piece Spade anchor is now avail- able in aluminum, galvanized steel, or stainless steel in six different sizes. We tested an all- aluminum Spade A80. It carries a lifetime warranty against break- age. In our long scope test it set immediately, earning an Excellent set rating. When we spun up the winch, it hit 500 pounds in just a few feet of pull and held steady at 460 pounds while dragging only two feet—very good, top-of- the-heap performance. It did not, however, like the short 3:1 scope. Though it set right away, it could not hit our target load and simply dragged through the slippery mud at 250 pounds."

I omitted the anchors that were much heavier. All these anchors were 23lbs or less .... the XYZ was only 13lbs. The Rocna was 28lbs and one of the anchors was 47lbs.

This is the aluminum Spade and it's good performance was almost certainly due to it's larger fluke area afforded by the aluminum material. Among other design features.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Following are the editors comments in another test for the Spade and Rocna. They both sound much the same but the Rocna had better holding numbers at 5-1 scope. Sand and mud mixed bottoms at four locations. Some of the structure of the Rocna part was scrambled in the pasting. The words are there though.

"The Spade, launched in 1999, was a revolution in anchor design, with French inventor Alain Poiraud pioneering the use of concave blade and surface area to give holding power rather than weight. It uses a wedge shaped ballast chamber to ensure weight is over the tip, so it digs in instead of ploughing a trench. For ease of stowage the Spade’s shank disconnects, but make sure you use the correct locking nut, as one boater lost his boat because of the wrong connector.
The Spade has proven itself in most tests and ours was no exception. At 5:1 scope it repeatedly held at the maximum 5000lb. On veering tests it held up to 5400lb. The beach pull tests showed how the weighted tip dug in instantly, with no drag-time. On shortened 3:1 scope, and at the third location, results were mediocre. Nevertheless, this was one of the top three performers on test."

TheRocnaincorporatescleverideasfromdifferentdesignsintoanextremelyeffectiveanchor.A long,angular Delta-esque shank meets a large concave surface blade area associated with the Spade, with a chisel-blade tip and ‘skids’onthebackofthebladesensuringrapidpenetration.LiketheDelta,ithasnomovingpartsandisself- launching. Designed by sailing veteran and New Zealand boat-builder Peter Smith, Rocnas are made from alloy steels with hot dip galvanised zinc finish. Weight is in the tip, not the heel.
The Rocna was a powerful, impressive performer in our tests, recording instant sets at multiple 5000lb maximum o near max) pulls at 5:1 scope. On the second 5:1 pull, it released suddenly at max tension when revs were reduced, only to reset instantly at 4300lb of resistance, which was astonishing for an instant set. It was less impressive at 3:1 scope and under veering tests, but remained a consistent top performer.

 

[Panope]

Here is a 40 lb. Luke (COPY). I am using an improved camera lash-up that puts the camera off to one side of the anchor. My preference is to not reveal the secret.

Steve

 

[Panope]

100 pound Fisherman.

 

[DavidM]

The last video of the big Fisherman on a nylon rode is interesting. Even when you kicked the power up, there was a noticeable angle between the rode and the shank of the anchor. The shank stayed horizontal (or a little below) to the sea bed. This was probably due to the levering moment of the fluke.


Your new camera bridle shows this clearly. Keep it coming.


David

 

[Nomad Willy]

Rumor has it that this type of anchor needs no chain.
History wise what came first .. the Kedge anchor or chain?
The early Kedges were partly made out of wood.

 

[Panope]

A decreasing scope shootout between the Manson and the Spade.

Steve

 

[angus99]

These are brilliant videos and, as the owner of an 80-lb. Manson Supreme, to my thinking they settle all questions about anchor setting/holding and the topic should henceforth be banished from the TF. (Unless somebody wants to argue that one of those crabs interfered with the Spade on short scope.)

 

[psneeld]

Not asking you to...but I wonder what the score would be after a 100 similar tests...

I am dying to see how a ROCNA and SARCA would do for all the diehards out there.

 

[MurrayM]

A big for the new side view!

 

[Panope]

Here is a synopsis of the tests videos that I have posted thus far:

Video #1 - 45 lb. Manson Supreme. 3.3 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - rotated and reset immediately.

Video #2 - 45 lb. Manson Supreme. 2.8 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 deg - rotated then released and did not re-set.

Video #3 - 45 lb. Manson Supreme Rock Slot. 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - rotated then reset immediately. No action of rock slot.

Video #4 - 25 lb. Danforth COPY. 3.8 to 1 and 5 to 1 scope. Failed to initially set.

Video #5 - 33 lb. GENUINE Bruce. 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - rotated then reset immediately.

Video #6 - 65 lb. Forfjord. 3.8 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - rotated then reset immediately.

Video #7 - 10 lb. Fortress FX16. 3.9 to scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - rotated then reset immediately.

Video #8 - 10 lb. Fortress FX16 emergency stop. 3 to 1 scope. Initial set (boat moving at 3.6 knots) - immediate.

Video #9 - 45 lb. Manson Supreme. 2.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - released and reset after long drag.

Video #10 - 45 lb. (50?) CQR COPY(?). 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set after long drag on side. 180 degree - released and re-set after long drag.

Video #11 - 45 lb. (50?) CQR COPY(?). 2.5 to 1 scope. Initial set after an upright drag. 180 degree - released and failed to fully re-set.

Video #12 - 44 lb. Spade. 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - rotated/released and re-set rapidly.

Video #13 - 44 lb. Spade. 2.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - released and re-set rapidly.

Video #14 - 33 lb. Bruce COPY. 3.5 to 1 scope. Failed to initially set.

Video #15 - 20 lb. GENUINE Danforth. 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - released and reset after long drag.

Video #16 - 12 lb. Northill. 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate (boat was able to drag set anchor). 180 degree - rotated then re-set (boat was able to drag set anchor).

Video #17 - 33 lb. GENUINE Bruce. 2.5 to 1 scope. Initial set after an upright drag. 180 degree - released and re-set after dragging.

Video #18 - 10 lb. fortress FX16. 2.5 to 1 scope. Initial set after long drag. 180 degree - released and then re-set after dragging

Video #19 - NO TEST. Commentary only.

Video #20 - 45 lb. Manson Supreme Rock Slot (sand/gravel). 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set after dragging due to rock slot engagement. 180 degree - released due to rock slot. Failed to re-set.

Video #21 - 45 lb. Manson Supreme (sand/gravel). 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - very rapid. 180 degree - rotated (multiple times) then re-set immediately.

Video #21 - 44lb. Spade (sand/gravel). 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate. 180 degree - rotated and remained completely set.

Video #22 - 40 lb. Luke COPY. 3.5 to 1 scope. Failed to initially set.

Video #23 - 100 lb. Fisherman. 3 to 1 scope. Initial set - rapid.

Video #24 - 45 lb. Manson Supreme. 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate.

Video #24 - 44 lb. Spade. 3.5 to 1 scope. Initial set - immediate.


Note the correlation between the word "COPY" and the phrase "Failed to initially set".

Steve

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve,

21. I seem to recall that on a PS anchor test.

20. You mean dragged backwards .. due to slot? Or in the normal way.

17. I suspected that. Looks like the Claws need a scope not short (2.5-1) and not long like 6-1. With a long scope set I think sometimes they drag sideways and plow on the center fluke. Would like to see this verified found not to be true.

16. Any chain? Was the stock above the bottom, half burried or not visable?

11. Not supprised at the upright drag. Like the Claw.

3. Looks like 3-1 is needed for dependable setting.

1,2 and 3 Did the Supreme often set in an upright position?

 

[Panope]

Eric:

Steve,

21. I seem to recall that on a PS anchor test.

20. You mean dragged backwards .. due to slot? Or in the normal way.

Best way for me to answer this question is to suggest that you re-watch the associated video.

17. I suspected that. Looks like the Claws need a scope not short (2.5-1) and not long like 6-1. With a long scope set I think sometimes they drag sideways and plow on the center fluke. Would like to see this verified found not to be true.

It does appear that the Bruce needs more than 2.5 to 1 for quick setting. I have no experience setting any anchor at more than 5 to 1. I'll add that test to the list.

16. Any chain? Was the stock above the bottom, half burried or not visable?

All chain. 3/8" BBB. Your assessment of the video will be as good as mine. I have no other information about the stock's position.

11. Not supprised at the upright drag. Like the Claw.

3. Looks like 3-1 is needed for dependable setting.

As noted above, on initial sets, the Manson set immediately at 2.8 to 1 and again at 2.5 to 1

1,2 and 3 Did the Supreme often set in an upright position?

A quick review of those videos will answer that question best.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve,
What attach point did you use for the "descending scope test" on the Supreme? Using the upper attach point (slot) would give the Supreme a further advantage at short scope.
I watched the vids. Previously my flash player was in need of help and wouldn't play. Soon I would like to bring you the following anchors.
My modified 15lb Supreme, My modified 18lb XYZ, My sharpened 33lb Lewmar Claw and possibly a SS Northill and my 35lb Dreadnought .. If you're interested in the latter two. Not quite done w the Supreme though.

 

[Panope]

Eric,

For the "Decreasing Scope" test, the rode was attached to the normal hole on the Manson (not the rock slot).

Your anchors will make interesting tests. If I remember correctly, you built a new toe for your XYZ. Do you still have the original toe? I think it is important to have both the "before modification" performance and "after modification" performance.

By all means, bring whatever anchors you can. The more the merrier.

Steve

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve,
"For the "Decreasing Scope" test, the rode was attached to the normal hole on the Manson (not the rock slot)." Well then it should get better using the slot. Perhaps in time it will come out.

Here is the before and after XYZ. The original has a blitzy look'in SS fluke tip. My wide chisel nosed tip should work very well in the bottoms in your vids. Would'nt be hard to pop off a dupe of the original in 5/16" .. my chisel nose is 1/4" mild steel and has survived 10 or 12 anchorings so 5/16" should mild steel should work fine for a working anchor.

I don't have the original tip .. it was sorta given away and I can't get a replacement.

 

[Panope]

I purchased a second hand, 44 pound GENUINE Bruce ($88) and got some good footage with the side-view cam.

This camera angle revealed something about the set of this anchor that is less than ideal. The anchor sets very rapidly but appears to mound material in-front of itself rather than bury completely into the sub-strait. The previous Bruce anchor tests were filmed with the "down shot" camera and was not able to show this "mounding up" action (if present).

Still, the anchor performed very well in the extreme decreasing scope test.

Steve

 

[DavidM]

This last video shows the good, bad and ugly of the true Bruce. It has a fluke shape that lets it set quickly, but because it has a wide broad point it will not set deeply. So it is a good light weather anchor, but I would not rely on it in a real blow.


The Bruce needs the point to be sharp to compensate for its bluntness to be able to set at all, which is why the Claw and other knock offs don't perform as well as others have noted here. Being cast iron rather than forged like the Bruce, the point isn't as sharp. There may be other geometry problems with the knock offs as well.


Keep it coming.


David

 

[Panope]

Here is the 44 lb. Bruce on rope rode only. I used 3 to 1 scope because that was what I used on the 100 lb. Fisherman rope rode test. I believe the Fisherman anchors were designed to be used in this fashion. The Bruce, not so much.

Steve

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve,
That sure shows the setting advantage of chain weight. I try to have enough chain to insure my anchors set consistently. Pull up on the shank and most any anchor possibly excluding the Kedge will just scoot along on the bottom. Of course on deck it's obvious what's going on. More chain or more scope or both will fix that but how much is the question.

David wrote;
"This last video shows the good, bad and ugly of the true Bruce. It has a fluke shape that lets it set quickly, but because it has a wide broad point it will not set deeply. So it is a good light weather anchor, but I would not rely on it in a real blow. But all things considered the Bruce didn't do too bad.

A lot of skippers do rely on it here on TF. But most are over sized. And almost all don't get into extreme weather. I know one that does though.
I agree w you about the blunt fluke tips on the Claws .. not so much so the Bruce. Here's what I did sharpening the flukes on my Lewmar 33. I actually took off more metal than it looks. Haven't tried it yet. And w the thinner/sharper flukes they will get damaged more easily. But it still may not be likely.
And I agree w you also re "there may be other geometry problems with the knock offs as well." And I may add that there may be advantages to the different geometry of other Claws. There may be a Claw that out performs the Bruce. The one that holds the most promise IMO is Manta Anchors , distributed by Lalizas USA Inc.

 

[Panope]

I have decided to re-test the anchors with the rode attached to the stern of the vessel. This will allow power setting of the anchors in forward gear. This should produce at least twice as much thrust as when in reverse gear.

I estimate that max power in forward gear for this boat will be roughly equivalent to 50 knots of wind (I have motored against 40 knots and the boat will make progress at less than max power).

Video # 27. Spade Anchor Deep Setting.

 

[BruceK]

I`m a lot more impressed than the crab which carried out an inspection.

 

[Capt.Bill11]

Nice! Now do the same test with a Bruce/claw so we can see what's it's like when an anchor drags.

 

[DavidM]

Good try, but the prop wash obscures everything. I would stick with reverse. It isn't as much pull as in forward, but it is a lot more interesting.


David

 

[Panope]

Good try, but the prop wash obscures everything. I would stick with reverse. It isn't as much pull as in forward, but it is a lot more interesting.


David

I disagree with your assessment of the Video.

Steve

 

[Nomad Willy]

David,
I couldn't see much either ... but what do you need to see? We saw that the Spade anchor set immediately and burried completely. Also it was obvious that there was no anchor movement up to and at full power. What more would you like to see?

However one could ask what the stern pull showed that the bow pull didn't? One would probably need several hundred hp to possibly pull this anchor out so like Steve said in the first place .. "anchor setting vids". And setting probably is more important information than holding power. Most all of us anchor in such benign conditions that it dosn't matter the holding power. But anchors that don't set is a concern for most everybody.

So even w limited power everything we need (or would like) to know about setting is clearly presented. However for anchors larger than 45lbs it would probably be netter to have more rode pull availible to fully set the anchors. I'm looking fwd to bringing several anchors to Steve to reveal what they actually do down there.

 

[Panope]

I tried to shoot the Forfjord using a ROPE ONLY rode as a follow up to the rope only tests done with the large Fisherman anchor and the 44 lb. Bruce.

Unfortunately, a major malfunction occurred with the camera mount. This resulted in most of the footage being unusable.

I did put together this edited video that might be interesting to watch. For maximum stimulation/minimum boredom, skip to the 2:00 minute mark to see about 25 seconds of anchor dragging.

The camera mount was severely damaged during this shoot. I will re-shoot this test after I construct a new and improved camera mount.

Steve

 

[DavidM]

Eric said: " Also it was obvious that there was no anchor movement up to and at full power."


It wasn't obvious to me at all. About 10-20 seconds after power was applied the whole field was obscured with silt blown back. The only thing you could see was the camera bridle and yes it was stationary relative to the anchor, but it always is. The anchor could easily have been dragging at a knot or so and the silt cloud blowing past would have obscured that.


But I totally agree that setting or not setting easily is one of the critical tests of an anchor and that is clearly shown with either forward or reverse thrust. Also the poorly performing anchors fail to hold with even reverse thrust.


This is not an ultimate holding power test. As you note that would take a lot more horsepower for the best anchors.


I am not trying to be critical. I like the original reverse thrust videos best.


David

 

[Nomad Willy]

David,
The end of the vid shows seaweed on the bottom in the same place as at the beginning. So the anchor did'nt drag. But near the end of the engine runup it did look like it was dragging. Perhaps testing at the same scopes and at deeper depths will deliver clearer water but no doubt less light.

I'm excited about comparing the old w the new or newer. Many (quite possibly a majority) here are using anchors designed before the 80's. And are not motivated to spend money on newer anchors because they find what they have works well enough. Little is known about how good these older anchors are. Many skippers w newer anchors from the Spade and Rocna to the Mantus and Boss give off airs that those w old anchors better get modern or their boat will wind up on the beach. So little is known one can't tell them their full of seaweed as nobody has tested the old anchors ... even though the majority of boaters are using them.

I have two modern anchors .. both modified (by me) and am anxious to see them in action. The one w the lesser mod I used on our 800 mi trip down from Alaska and it worked well. Once in a 50 knot gale. So I'm expecting it to do well. This anchor (XYZ) has not been tested as the man that markets them quit submitting his anchors in tests. So this model hasn't been tested.
The other modded anchor is a Supreme. I tried to use it once after doing little other than removing the roll bar and it didn't set. Should have experimented w it more but I finished the mod and I think it will work better than the standard Supreme. Manson probably would'nt be inclined to use my mod because the added appendages are made of 1/4" rod and may need to be straightened at times.

Anyway have a good Holiday and we'll see what January brings.