Anchor setting Videos

[BruceK]

In a conversation I had with Rex he seemed to regard 3:1 as short scope, I regard it as minimum, but all chain, with Super Sarca, it normally works for us in normal conditions. We get a characteristic wind reversal from onshore to offshore overnight, never had a problem with that.
We always clean off on retrieval, our strong washdown pump is mains(240v) powered via the genset.

 

[Peter B]

.........I think anchors in general perform better at short scope than most think.

That is an absolutely crucial point. The customary scope length recommendations were originally based on the performance of much older style anchors, so can nowadays be regarded as traditional wisdom, certainly worth bearing in mind, but are unnecessarily conservative in anything less than fairly extreme conditions with these modern super high holding anchors. That's my take on it and experience anyway. I never use more than 5:1, (blowy weather), and usually only 3:1 scope, with my Super Sarca.

 

[READY2GO]

Sorry but I do not understand people wanting to use as short a scope as they can get away with. I always use a minimum of 5 to 1 and if I have the room 10 to 1. It is only a matter of how long I hold the button down. Might be different if I had no windlass, but I do. Ground tackle and it's proper use is to me the greatest piece of safety equipment on a boat.

 

[MurrayM]

Sorry but I do not understand people wanting to use as short a scope as they can get away with.

Channels over 300' deep, small bays with steep shores along their length going at a steep angle to 100' or more in depth, sediment outwash fans from rivers or creeks at the head of bays, intertidal water from river sediment extending over 100' feet from shore then dropping in off in steep steps to deep water, and finally, 20' tides. Sometimes there is not very much room to swing.

 

[Nomad Willy]

In short .. When you're forced to use short scope you learn how well it works.

3-1 isn't short scope to me ... It's the norm. Short scope is 2-1 and I've anchored at 2-1. In a gale though I use 5-1.

Now that I think about it if you enter an anchorage in benine weather and anchor at 5-1 it may be rude. One shouldn't take up more space than one needs.

 

[READY2GO]

Channels over 300' deep, small bays with steep shores along their length going at a steep angle to 100' or more in depth, sediment outwash fans from rivers or creeks at the head of bays, intertidal water from river sediment extending over 100' feet from shore then dropping in off in steep steps to deep water, and finally, 20' tides. Sometimes there is not very much room to swing.

That is understandable, but not the norm for gulf coast, Florida or Bahamas. If you are anchoring in !00' of water at 3 to 1 you have 300' of chain which is a lot of weight besides the anchor. I think a short scope would work better in deep water than shallow water.

 

[Nomad Willy]

READY2GO,
Most people don't have all chain. And for good reason .. mainly the one you just mentioned .. weight.

 

[psneeld]

Sorry but I do not understand people wanting to use as short a scope as they can get away with. I always use a minimum of 5 to 1 and if I have the room 10 to 1. It is only a matter of how long I hold the button down. Might be different if I had no windlass, but I do. Ground tackle and it's proper use is to me the greatest piece of safety equipment on a boat.

I think MainSail/Compass Marine did a rough test that showed where more than 7:1 really did little to improve anchoring...I tend to agree....unless riding out a hurricane....95% of my anchoring is in protected waters and winds less than 20 knots. The East Coast of the US isn't exactly Patagonia.

http://www.pbase.com/mainecruising/anchor_scope&page=2

 

[Panope]

Here is the Excel undergoing my "Decreasing Scope" test.

I have already executed this test with the Manson Supreme, Spade, and Genuine Bruce. All did very well but the Manson reined supreme for this test. As you may recall from video #24, the Manson somehow held the boat at 3000 RPM with a scope of only 1.3 to 1.

The Excel takes second place. It held 2750 RPM with a scope of 1.5 to 1. The Excel got an unlucky break at the 1:35 minute mark of the test when the boat drifted about 15 or 20 degrees out of alignment with the anchor. This caused a small pivoting of the anchor that may have worked against it's final outcome.

The Bruce comes in third as it also held the boat at 1.5 to 1. (video #25) However, it got a lucky break when I cut the power just as it was releasing at 1.7 to 1 scope.

The Spade held 2500 RPM at 1.7 to 1 scope. (video #24, second half).

The reality is that there are no "losers" here. All these scopes are ridiculously short and in no way represent any sort of normal anchoring.

Steve

Video #32 Excel Reducing Scope:

 

[Panope]

Engine thrust tested.

Panope has a Yanmar 3JH3E, 40 HP engine. The propeller is a fixed, 18 inch diameter X 10.5 inch pitch. The gear reduction box has a ratio of 2.61 in forward gear and a ratio of 3.16 in reverse.

The boat makes 3 times more thrust in forward as it does in reverse at the same ENGINE rpm. I believe that much of this discrepancy is due to the propeller being much less efficient in reverse. Another factor is the higher gear reduction ratio of the reverse gear compared to forward.

Here is a table showing the results:

And here is the video:

 

[Panope]

Today I tested the Excel at the Sand/Gravel site (Point Hudson). A fair amount of current was running and somehow this has once again resulted in the camera becoming fouled for portions of the videos. Fortunately, the new camera mounts is basically indestructible so no damage to it or the camera.

Steve

Video #33

 

[Panope]

Here is the Excel at the same Sand/gravel site but this time with 2.5 to 1 scope.

Steve

Video #34

 

[Panope]

45 pound Mantus Anchor.

The anchor has the largest physical dimensions of this group of 45 pound anchors. When stowed, the toe does extend aft of Panope's stem. However, the small hull guard (that was custom made for the Manson Supreme) works perfectly to protect the hull paint.

First test is at the "normal" test area of "sandy mud". 3.5 to 1 scope.

Steve

Video #35

 

[MurrayM]

45 pound Mantus Anchor

Boy, did that Mantus ever dig in fast and looks like it didn't want to come up at all!

 

[Panope]

Murry, The Mantus really is a great performer.

Here is the Mantus at 2.5 to 1 scope.

Steve

Video #36

 

[MurrayM]

Hi Steve,

I don't remember...did any other anchor almost bury its shaft at 2.5:1 like the Mantus did?

 

[Panope]

Murray, The Mantus does seem to bury it's shank very easily but keep in mind that this is not necessarily an indication of how well the fluke is buried. Note that when viewing the Mantus from the side, that the shank is nearly a strait line between the chain attach point and the fluke whereas some of the other anchors have shanks that are in a pronounced "L" or "Arc" shape.

Just a theory, but I think that the Mantus shank shape and its tendency to bury may contribute to the anchor's very strong tendency to remain upright during the 180 degree res-set pulls.

Steve

 

[Panope]

Here is the Mantus performing in the usual manner over at the "Point Hudson" sand/gravel site at 3.5 to 1 scope.

Steve

Video #37

 

[eyschulman]

Your boat is more a trawler whatever that may be, than many so labeled. Great tests.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Great showing for an anchor that's only half set. Most of the roll bar is still visable. Now that I look at the anchor again it could be that just over half of the roll bar is submerged. I suppose w only half the Roll bar submerged it could be "set". What think?

No hesitation setting or coming around to a new heading.

 

[Panope]

Thanks eyshulman,

Re: Panope as a Trawler. I hear what you are saying but perhaps the skippers attitude has as much to do with "trawlerism" than the configuration of ones boat. I personally enjoying motoring just as much as sailing and certainly see no shame in that.

healhustler graciously worked his photoshop magic on Panope. To my eye, without the rig, the handrail overpowers the rest of the boat. I have since removed the netting form the handrails (my daughter is growing up) so perhaps things would be more balanced looking now.

I reckon that even if I were to grow too old and frail to enjoy sailing, I would always have some kind of mast - even if it was just some short thing for hoisting stuff or to fly a steadying sail.

Steve

 

[Panope]

Great showing for an anchor that's only half set. Most of the roll bar is still visable. Now that I look at the anchor again it could be that just over half of the roll bar is submerged. I suppose w only half the Roll bar submerged it could be "set". What think?

No hesitation setting or coming around to a new heading.

Eric, It looks set to me. I feel that the anchor will bury deeper if more pulling force is applied. Will the anchor be capable of continuing to dive even after the rollbar is buried? I don't know.

Keep in mind that the roll-bar on the Mantus is HUMONGOUS compared to other roll-bar anchors. Certainly, if one did manage to make the Mantus roll bar disappear, the fluke would be deeply buried.

Stay tuned for a Mantus "deep set" test. That is the one where I pull from the stern with 3 times the force. I really need a tugboat to answer some of these questions.


Steve

 

[Panope]

Here is the requisite 2.5 to 1 test at the "Point Hudson", sand/gravel site.

I noticed the anchor did not set as "hard" at this short scope. Also, the anchor seemed to not bury quite as deeply and had much less resistance when retrieving.

Video #38

 

[Panope]

Mantus Anchor. Reducing scope test. This is the test where I first set the anchor in the normal fashion at 3.5 to 1 scope. Scope is then reduced incrementally until the anchor releases.

The performance of the Mantus in this test was impressive. Of all the anchors I have tested, only the Manson Supreme did better.

Steve

Video # 39

 

[Panope]

Mantus Anchor. Deep Setting. This is the test where I set the anchor in the normal spot at 3.5 to 1 scope. I then move the anchor rode and belay at the stern of the vessel. This allows maximum pulling thrust by using forward engine power (Max forward thrust = 910 pounds).

The anchor performed very well. However, I stopped the test prior to the anchor achieving it's maximum penetration. The anchor was still moving horizontally and downward (unbeknownst to me) at a very slow rate when I reduced power. My feeling is that if I had kept the power on longer, the anchor would have eventually buried deep enough and stopped moving.

Steve

Video #40

 

[Peter B]

Hey Steve, Readty2Go on here has a Super Sarca #7 55lb anchor for sale, unless sold by now. My evil thought is that if not sold, you might be able to come to an arrangement to test it. Of course that depends on your relative positions and distance apart, and I confess I don't know that at present....Looked you both up. He's in Florida, you're in WA, I gather that's not West Australia, (our WA), so is that Washington..? Possibly impractical...pity...

Actually, even if you bought it you wouldn't be disappointed. I could be so bold as to predict it might even displace your current favourite for your main go-to anchor...

 

[Panope]

Pete, Rex (of Anchor Right) is one step ahead of you. As I write this, a Super Sarca #5 is enroute to me.

Yep, I am in Washington State, USA. A drive to Florida is a bit longer than I am willing to make!

Cheers,

Steve

 

[Panope]

Here is the Bruce 44 (Genuine) being subjected to my "Deep Set" test. This is the test where I set the anchor at my normal spot at 3.5 to 1 scope with the rode belayed at the stern of the vessel. This allows maximum pulling thrust by using forward engine power (Max thrust = 910 pounds).

As you will see, the anchor was unable to remain engaged to the seabed even after increasing scope to 5 to 1.

Steve

Video #41

 

[DavidM]

Your Bruce anchor setting tests matches what others have said: it sets well but lacks holding power.


I think that the reason it lacks holding power are too fold: less fluke area and a wide penetrating blade that limits penetration. Also maybe the sharpness of the blade is another factor which may be why cast knockoffs don't do as well as the real Bruce which is forged and may have a sharper blade.


The best anchors have a sharp angular point, weight in the point to get it started and lots of fluke area.


That makes me wonder how the roll bar anchors will do when the bar starts impeding burial under heavy pulling. Their large fluke area lets them hold well even when partially buried. But except for lack of a roll bar to help with initial setting, the Spade, Rocna Vulcan or the Manson Boss might do better in heavy pull tests.


David

 

[Nomad Willy]

Re the Bruce shall we have a wake?

David,
Weight on the tip and sharp fluke tips are found on may very good anchors. But many other good anchors do very well w/o same.
You're right the Bruce has considerably sharper fluke edges.

I agree w you're last paragraph. I will be taking a small Supreme to Steve in the near future that has had it's roll bar removed.