ANCHORING

That story is interesting. However, apparently he still doesn't realize his mistakes. I have seen people with chain put down a limited scope and wondered what they were doing.

1. The water he said was 10-12 feet deep and he put down 75 feet of chain. However, his bow is probably 3 feet above the water, so the effective water depth is 13 -- 15 feet giving him a scope of about 5 to 1, the minimum. Add to that the three, perhaps five foot waves, and the effective depth becomes 15 to 20 feet, and he was down to 3:1 ratio - too little scope. It might also have been that the water, being driven up the Hudson also went up a couple feet. Lasltly, he didn't allow for the possibility that the anchor was on a shelf, and that between where he was and the shore, when the anchor started dragging, the bottom might have dropped a couple feet - let us say to 13-14 feet of water, further reducing the scope.

2. People with chain figure they need less scope than with line (he said 3:1), the theory being that the weight of the chain causes it to sag, so that at the anchor, where the scope is relevant, the scope is greater than the scope if the line were straight. That theory is false. In a big blow, particularly when supplemented with the force of waves, the chain can be as taut and straight as a nylon line. The weight of the chain concept is only relevant when there is no major blow or seas.

3. The disadvantage of chain compared to line is that it has no give. With chain, when the waves and wind hit the boat, and the chain is pulled taut, the jerk to pull the anchor out is a multiple of what it is with line because nylon line stretches. With line, a boat does not get jerked. What makes the chain so particularly dangerous is that if it is taut when the boat is at the bottom of the trough, the bow rising with an oncoming wave becomes almost a vertical force on the anchor. The whole floatation of the boat is pulling the anchor up out, not just the force of the wind and waves.

4. A scope of 5:1 is not adequate for a severe storm. A safe scope is 8:1.

For all the years he had been sailing, his experience is a tough way to learn about the details of anchoring, but I have seen the same presumptions/attitude in anchorages I have visited. That does not mean to say that I have not also had my problems.

[NOTE: This thread was spun off another one. Here is the story Theis was referring to].

http://www.searoom.com/paramour.htm

Anchors are designed to work with the pull on the shank of no more than 8 degrees above horizontal.

If the rode becomes taut in storm conditions, this angle can only be maintained with a scope of 7 to 1 or more.

In calmer conditions, the weight of an all-chain rode keeps the chain on the bottom and the pull horizontal. This allows for a shorter scope.

As for the anchor issue, do all anchors, CQR, Danforth, Fortress, Bruce, mud, etc. have the same 8% angle? I had thought my Danforths were 15%. What makes that angle so critical, and relatively independent of the holding ground (sand, mud, gravel, etc.)?

In the West catalog, they too mention 7:1, although my word is that 5:1 is generally good enough - unless there is a hurricane coming down the pipe. But then the problem is that the bottom is frequently not flat. Sand can have ridges with an up side and a down side. If you're on the up side, I guess 5:1 might be OK. On the down side, 7:1 might still be inadequate.

Does the 7:1 include a safety factor and 5:1 what it should be on a flat bottom without a safety factor? 7:1 is a lot of line if you're in 30 feet of water.

I did notice that the West Catalog recommends a snubber for anchor chain so that there is some give when the chain pulls taut. I wonder if our friend had one. The catalog also mentions that the depth is the water depth PLUS the distance to the deck.

Here is the link where I got that 8 degree figure.

http://www.irbs.com/lists/trawlerworld/0102/0160.html

It also touches on the use of a "kellet" or "sentinel."

As for me, I don't anchor out very often. During the day I'll just toss out the lunch hook. On the other hand, I have had alot of experience kedging off sandbars. :rolleyes:

Still, there seems to be alot of discussion about the "best" type of anchor, and not enough attention paid to anchoring techniques such as properly setting the anchor and sufficient scope, etc.

Wow! Now I Understand why my confusion was not mine alone. The time I anchor out is overnight, generally. I do it because, as ageneral rule. it is either the only place to stay, or it is cheaper - But I guess it is sort of like wondering whether house doors should be locked. You roll over at night wondering if you reallly adequately checked to be sure the anchor had snugged up, have the wave patterns changed, are those waves coming from a different direction (where the the boat is fully exposed). and so forth. The only way to counter that and convince yourself to lighten up is to have some assurance, based on knowledge in the trade, that you are being conservative and have considered all the elements in setting an anchor.

With the Ariel's on one hand, our windage is minimal. The boat is low to the water. On the other hand, several hundred feet of line is very difficult handle or stow, and the weight of a couple hundred feet of chain impossible. Forget that. 6' of chain is about my maximum.

Thanks for the website.

AH grasshopper!

Now you understand the double edge sword of the shallow Chesapeake Bay . When sailing it is a curse , but when anchoring at night there is always a cozy cove with 10 to 20 feet of water with a soft bottom that sets quick and holds tight (unless you are sitting on an oyster bar , as opposed to in an oyster bar getting tight ) .

When cruising the Bay I carry 10' of chain and 300' of line and never have had to use more than 150' ( there are some deep areas that the 300' would be needed if forced to anchor there )

Mike:

What size line, and what size/type of anchor do you carry? Last year for the first time I went from 150' to 350' and am glad I did it. The line is in two sections with a swivel joining the two if I want to combine them, so I don't have to drag the weight of 350 feet of line. I thought 350 feet was preposterous, but I guess not - but then I was thinking 5:1 scope was adequate. I don't know of anyone out here that carries that much line - at least in the 30' and under league.

I have 3 strand nylon 1/2" ( which is one size larger than needed 3/8" [rule of thumb is 1/8" per 9' of boat LOA ] ) and 1/4" BBB chain .

For an anchor I have several "Danforth" style up to a 35H (major overkill for an Ariel ) , a 12H is more than enough for an Ariel and a 5H is a 'good weather or lunch hook ' for me .

Danforths are good for most of the Bay as we have not that much grass or rock , you may need a 20-30lb Bruce or CQR for the Lakes .

This is getting interesting. Where do you stor 300 ft. of line, 10ft. of chain and a 35 H (I assume that is 35#)? Do you always sail with a provisioning boat alongside with several young dudes to help you lift that to put in the water, and to take it out? Or do you do as others are want to do, have their wife raise the anchor?

This discussion has brought to my attention a real problem with my lunch anchor.

But before I discuss that, I have three "anchors": a 17# Danforth with 150' or 1/2" line, the bitter end having a thimble eye, a 9' para tech sea anchor with 200' or 1/2" line, and a 11# Danforth with 75' of 3/8", the bitter end also having a thimble eye. I carry 200 ' of 1/2: line which can be connected to either the 17# Danforth or to the sea anchor, using a stainless steel swivel shackle. I have anti chafing gear where the line passes through the chock.

The lunch anchor, has only 75 feet of 3/8" line. Figuring that the bow is 3' off the water, and 6' of line cross the deck and are tied to the cleat, and a 7:1 scope, that anchor is only good for 7' of water, without waves. So I'll be going to the XXX boat store, now combined with the XXXX boat store, when they have a sale, if they do any more, and getting 200' of that 3/8" stuff. The smaller anchor needs the scope more than the bigger anchor with the chain rode.

I use the lunch anchor for more than just a mid-day swim. At night I use it as a second anchor to control the swing of Solsken. With 350' of line out, the total swing of the boat can be over 1/10 mile. The lunch anchor limits the swing to half that, if it holds, and also serves as a second anchor to distribute the load.

Two questions:

1.Does the strength of nylon anchor line deteriorate with time? It is only minimallyexposed to the sun or light .

2. The end of the anchor line obviously goes to the cleat on the foredeck. However, where else is best for it be tied? The maststep? The shrouds? The stanchion bases? My concern is that the aluminum cleat, with both anchors attached, could break in a particularly viscious storm and then the ballgame would be over. But the problem with the maststep is that I would not like to see the anchor pull the mast step out. There are only two screws holding the wooden block mast step - certainly not built for forward stress.

1st, the 35H has never been on the Ariel , I just have it off my old 38' .
The 25 & 12 go cruising and just the 12 for daysails .
Chain and line fit the forepeak area , rarely carry the 300' , as I have never needed more than 150' and usually about 70' is enough .
In good weather with a soft bottom , I'll put out 10' of chain and 30 or 40' of line in 10 or 15' of water . At night I'll let out more line .

Put a cleat on the bulkhead at the chainlocker , the bitter end is always attached there .

I take it you run your line through the deck plate into the forepeak area through the screw cap in the bow. I have elected not to do that, because of several problems. First, I keep several of the sails in the forepeak. Secondly, I don't want the seaweed/muck often not adequately cleaned off for one reason or another to be migrating down there. Thirdly, it is too much work taking the cap off (and the potential to lose it), and lastly, I am not convinced that I can prevent water from entering through the hole in a bad rainstorm, or if the bow gets pulled under a wave.

Rather, I keep both anchors and line forward in the starboard cockpit lazarette. The additional 200' of line I keep either in the forepeak locker or in the stern of the port lazarette (better). In rougher situations, I throw the anchor over the side from the cockpit, the line being tied at the bow.

So the bulkhead is not an alternative for me for tying the anchor. Are the forces on an anchor line with the Ariel sufficient to pull the maststep forward, or am I conjuring up ghosts?

I installed a hawse in the foredeck for the anchor line . You're being too paranoid about burying the bow and shipping a bit of water .
With my setup , I hang the anchor aft on the stern rail with the line led outside the rails and just toss it over , "Emergency Brakes " .

My 300' of 1/2" nylon weighs about 15 lbs and fits in a 5 gallon bucket . I dont understand the weight/space issue .
I keep my sails in a sail bag , so only the bag gets dirty .

Mike, you got me going this morning. I read your messages, and found the weight thing difficult to comprehend. I didn't want to be accused of exaggerating - after all, we are sailors, not like those fishermen that don't know right from wrong.

So I put on my old chesterfield over my jamies , wearing my fedora, the one with the flaps to cover my ears and my polarfleece slippers, and went out through the snow to the garage carrying a super accurate bathroom scale.

It was cold, about 0 F, with a Force 18 wind. The wind chill had to be below 150 degrees, and that is Celsius. Nothing was stirring. The tea in my cup froze as it was being transferred to my lips. But knowing I had to get an answer back, I continued notwithstanding the clear and present danger I faced.

Here is what I came up with, checked and rechecked. The weight of the lines was taken when dry and cold.

The 200 ft of 1/2 inch line, with the galvanized (not stainless) shackle is about 20#. I don't understand how your line could be half the weight of mine.

The 17# Danforth, with 6 ft of chain and about 150 feet of 1/2" line is about 30#.

The total would be about 50# dry, perhaps 55# wet. Further, it is bulky. You are probably right that the 150 or 200' could be put in a dry wall bucket (I use a bag instead).

Anyway, for this wimp here, the 50# to 55#, could be overwhelming for my wife, and could be difficult for me as well when added to the weight of the beer consumed. It might result in my deciding to use a dock for $20 for the night, rather than anchor out and row ashore - expensive decisions.

Incidentally, our mutual lunch anchors are about the same, and that is why I now realize that the 70 ft. of line is not really adequate, although my experience is that under pleasant weather conditions, it has worked adequately, unless there are weeds.

I don't have anything to offer to this thread. But My God how appreciative am I that we live in California. We went sailing/racing yesterday. It was around 65 degrees with a twelve knot breeze and we were complaining that it was "cold" while we were just sitting and waiting for the race to get started. .....ed

65 degrees?

Not trying to change the subject or anything (it is fascinating), but the temperature here on Cape Cod is topping out at a balmy 34 degrees today.

Over the past week it has only made it into the teens during the day and single digits at night. We usually have mild winters here on the Cape (about 40 degrees and rain when the rest of New England is 30 degrees with snow), so this is unusual.

That said, I grew up in Maine, so I'm actually enjoying the cold; I prefer four seasons to three.

Well, that is not the worst of it. When I got back inside the house, I was shaking and trembling violently. I quickly sat down in front of the roaring hearth and wrapped myself in buffalo robes. My wife prepared hot chicken soup to revive me. I was going back and forth between being semi-conscious and conscious.

When semi-conscious, I envisioned the picture the vice commander had posted previously of a lovely thing on the foredeck, clad only in the three blue fabric samples, bending over to raise the heavy anchor while I cautioned her to take her time and hopefully take the whole day.

When I became conscious again, two things happened. The first was that the weight figures regarding anchors and line could have been gotten from the West catalog, and the second was that I wanted to slip back into the semi conscious state.

There are some offsets to being in the bitter cold north.

1 Attachment(s)

This will have to do

This photo more clearly shows the proper technique your crew should employ in retrieving the anchor.

[WARNING: Racy photo attached]

http://extremeboatsmag.com/photos/da...entshappen.jpg

1 Attachment(s)

To be fair, I should post something for the ladies

That first one was more as I recalled the way it was when I went into semi consciousness and told the lady to take her time, but I don't recall the details.

This has allowed me to drift away from reality...My snowblower won't start but we have a day's warning here on Cape Ann. More snow and sub zero temps early this coming week

I am reminded of anchoring in the BVI. It is better entertainment than you find at Foxy's. The best way is to nose into a convenient cove, and when the boat stops moving, gun it for 5 minutes and then throw the anchor over, and tie it to the pulpit so it easily accessible...Must be time to light barbie anyway.

I have also seen similar techniques at Isle of Shoals. There is some sand in the Harbor at Star, but finding it is the issue.

More coffee! the water looks cold fom here.

Reluctantly, I am bringing this back to the technical/sailing subject matter (as opposed to the technical/halucinating) :

I just rebuilt my "lunch anchor", an old #9 or #10 Danforth (I haven't found the exact same size in the catalogs). I added 4 feet of chain, and 230' of 3/8" line (replacing 75' 3/8" line) in a canvas tote bag. The new setup is a nice combination, and medium to lightweight. It is a very substantial contrast to my larger anchor, what I think is now called a #13, with 150' or 1/2" line, and 6' of chain. The latter is a a bear (heavy and bulky, but it does work) It is possible that the reason I have had trouble with the lunch anchor holding on occasion, even for lunch, was that the line simply was not long enough coupled with the lack of a chain. A bit too lightweight and too casual.

One thing, for those that replace old anchor line and are trying to match line sizes, is that the old line is bigger than the new replacement. Apparently anchor line expands as it gets older, contrary to what I would believe conventional wisdom would hold, that it would be compressed from usage and stretching.

Is it the line expanding or the mfg reducing?

Interesting question. I braved the cold morning air, in my stocking feet and pajamas, and went the quarter mile to get my micrometer and measure the lines (hoping I would go back to semi-consciousness to clarify those blurred images I had had earlier. But it didn't work). The new line is right on the button: .375 (3/8"). The old line is .390. I could be that the old line (40 years) was built a bit oversized, but I don't think so. And the old line is very dry. However, the old line is very stiff in the sense that when I try to separate the strands to pull out the depth markers, it is almost impossible and requires a spike. Perhaps whatever reaction it is that causes nylon line to stiffen as it ages apparently also causes it to expand 3% or 4%.

Incidentally, as I was revelling in the light weight of the new anchor line, a "daah" occurred to me. The 3/8" line has almost a quarter of the cross-sectional area as the 1/2", so obviously the same amount of line would take up one quarter the space and weight 1/4 as much (Of course, it is only 1/4 as strong as well, which is irrelevant for a lunch anchor, and perhaps any anchor for the Ariel with its low to the water profile (which lowers the wind and wave forces on it while at anchor).

In this video clip, professional mariners demonstrate how to deploy an anchor.

http://www.dockwalk.com/videos/letgo/letgofwd.mpeg

Hmmmm

commanderpete,

I do not know how you got a picture of my ex-girl friend, but since we are split up I'll let it slide

Quote:

Originally posted by commanderpete
This photo more clearly shows the proper technique your crew should employ in retrieving the anchor.

[WARNING: Racy photo attached]

http://extremeboatsmag.com/photos/da...entshappen.jpg

Congrats Peter!

So I am reading the magazine that Boat US publishes every month to detail the errors that it's claimaints have made and educate the rest of us so we are less likely to grace the pages of future issues and I see a familure name.....

Peter Theis!

They passed along some wisdom related to scope calculation with changing winds and steep bottoms like one sees in the Great Lakes.

Congrats on being cited by BOAT US in their mag. I wonder if you might be able to share here more of what they were talking about in the article?

Boat US published an article about the anchors that held in the hurricanes last year and those that didn't, and about proper anchoring technique. I questioned some of their wisdom and sent them the article I had written about anchoring. They selected the part that relates to anchoring on a sloping bottom for inclusion in their letters (space being limited). I have been guilty of anchoring with a 10:1 scope on a sloping bottom, and the anchor not holding - so I don't make that mistake any more - but I have seen others do that when they anchor offshore on a sloping beach, for example. The article may have been published in the A/C Newsletter. However, I fyou want a copy, let me have your email address and I'll email the whole thing to you.

Are there any tricks to coiling and storing anchor line so it doesn't get tangled up when you pay it out?

Voila! Yes there is. Get an anchor bag. The bitter end end perhaps ten feet of line goes through a hole in the bottom and the anchor rode itself is laid in in that bag with the anchor end coming out of the top. It comes out in the same fashion it goes in and doesn't get kinked. I lay the line in a circular fashion as I lay the line in the bag. There are two carrying handles at the top of the bag, so the line is carried by the bag, and not the coiled line.

Incidentally, there is an excellent article about anchor rode in the most recent issue of Seaworthy (The Line on Hurricanes) which I will be posting later as a separate thread. Read the section "Five Critical Facgtors that Predict How Rope will Fare in a Storm.

Found a couple

This one is too small (3/8 line max)

http://camdenboatstore.com/product_i...oducts_id/1287

Here's a nice one, but spendy

http://www.foreandaftmarine.com/PL-AB-14-BLU.htm

Found one made by a local company--$28.

http://www.canyonproducts.com/catalog/catsailacces.htm

I've been using a milk crate with a round tube in the middle. Kinda cumbersome

They are also in the West Catalog, and I assume Defenders and sailnet. But the product is pricey. Go look at one, and copy it would be the cheapest alternative using a large retail bag as your starting point.

Anchor Bag

We purchased and use the West Marine Anchor bag. Works great! (I'm not endorsing, just a satisified customer). :D

I have the West bag for my main anchor and it holds 200' or 1/2 line without a problem. for the light "lunch" anchor, I use a generic cloth canvas bag (The type you get for contributing to an organization) with a hold in the bottom, and a ring around top to hold it open while the line is being coiled.

Anchor Tests

Think everybody should take a look over to

www.creativemarine.com

at their soft mud and dry sand tests.

It is frightening what they have discovered if you agree with the methodology. I do. There are time lapse photos showing what happens to your favorite anchors (not all are tested) and why you better say a salty prayer to get a real bite on the bottom.

I notice that in the mud test that their anchor, which had the highest holding of all tested, also happened to weigh 6.5#'s more than the next largest anchor ( which is over 10% more than that one, and over 3X more than the Spade they tested!) . Seeing how more weight in an anchor usually means more surface area - which would seem to be a prime requirement in soft mud - I don't think their test results were too surprising. :)

I'm not saying that theirs is a bad anchor, I'm just "questioning the methodology", as you put it. I don't think it shows that certain anchors suck, it just shows that most anchor companies recommendations based on boat size should be viewed with a jaundiced eye and a bit of experience, especially in soft bottoms. The fact that this company recommends such a larger anchor for a particular size boat I think says good things for them.

I do also question their assumption that most boaters only use a 5:1 rode, so they conducted all tests at 6:1 - I always shoot for at least a 7:1 at high tide, which usually means I'm out there over 10:1 at mid tide, and even more at low (I tend to go to shallows to anchor). I might use a 5:1 for a lunch hook, but it's plain dumb to use a short rode in mud, and you'll learn that fast if you anchor in it much. :)

I had a Bulwagga on my last boat, and frequently anchored in the soft mud - "plough" (pronounced "pluff") mud, one of the vilest, stinkiest, softest materials produced by Ma Nature, which is so prevalent in our area. The Bulwagga worked great over the 2+ year timespan I had it (it went with the old boat), and I plan on getting another for Katie before I do any serious traveling with her. The Bulwagga sets *really* fast, it never drug on me - not once - and I don't think I've ever anchored somewhere that didn't have a tide which made for a 180 degree swing at some point in time while I was there. The reason I bought it was because my Danforths had drug on me a few times, and I like to sleep well without waking if I don't have to. :D

Katie Marie came with a 4# lightweight Fortress, which I've used 3 times. I have been really impressed with it - it is really hard to break out when set. That said, I haven't used it enough to consider myself a Fortress proponent just yet.

There was a huge, long discussion about anchors over on the Cruising Sailors Bulletin Board this past week or so - here's a link if you want to read a *bunch* of anchor material. The designers of the Spade and the Rocna anchors were a part of the discussion.

Link: Anchor Discussion

PS - Did you notice the 21Ah/day cold plate reefer that they were advertising on their site? That figure was for a 6cu/ft box, which is rather large. My icebox will be 1/2 that, or less. I didn't see a price. Always makes me wonder when they don't show a price up front... :)

They may have something, and perhaps not. On the Ariel/Commander there is the problem with space and weight - which leaves the Danforth and Fortress the best alternatives, IMO. I can attest that the former (either an 11 pound or the 17 pound) does work - and you don't need a big one to be effective. The Danforth does work in sand, gravel, rocks, etc. under strained conditions. In mud, the biggest problem is weeds, which can foul the flukes and cause the anchor to drag. But on the other hand, if the anchor bites, the weeds keep it from moving - to a point.

I would think the super anchor would be a bear to store, if you didn't want to have the thing hanging off the bow, and pay additional charges because of the added length for docking, insurance, storage, etc.

7 to 1 scope?

I noticed that they tested at 5 to 1, I read back through and found the explination as to why;

Quote:

Boaters however seldom extend their anchor rode's scopes to as much as 7 to 1, let alone 100 to 1. More likely it is 5 to t or less. The Max and Super Max anchors were designed to set and penetrate deeper and deeper as more strain is applied. When they are set with a 100 to I scope as in the cases of the PS/PBR tests, they will not perform as they were designed to do. That is why the ABS tests from an actual tugboat showed the true characteristics and capabilities of the anchors tested. The scopes of 6 to I were used for anchors whose manufacturers recommended 7 to 1, since it was the medium between what boaters normally would use, 5 to 1.

Now, I know that there are times when you just do not have the room, but when setting the hook to sleep I normally throw out MORE then 7 to 1...... Maybe it is just me.

Quote:

Quote:
Boaters however seldom extend their anchor rode's scopes to as much as 7 to 1, let alone 100 to 1. <<snip>>

100:1? :p

I used to religiously run out 7:1 scope. But that usually leads to swinging wildly through all the other boats in the anchorage, many of whom are probably on 3:1 scope with all chain.

In settled weather in a protected anchorage, I usually go with 4 or 5:1, which with my 25lb CQR on 20 feet of 3/8 chain hasn't yet dragged in any Maine anchorage I've been in. If the anchorage is relatively empty, or if the weather/protection is not good I'll run out more— 7 to 10:1.

FWIW, which isn't much. But its worked for me.

search for the one anchor that does it all

You anchoring type guys (I plan never to anchor) are right on with your experiences. That is what counts.

But what got me was the assumptions I always had made about the anchors that LOOKED like they were designed to always right themselves abd dig in. I have a Brit CQR and a nice USNavy danforth - both are now "out of style".
Dry sand seems like an excellent test medium, tho there is nothing like the real thing of course, but to see anchor after anchor pull along on their SIDES is frightening. A fair test pull might be more upward? Seems like we could go round and round on this.

The first entry on the SSCA discussion board on anchors/anchoring is a guy who says he's had trouble with his BigMax setting if it lands on its side!

Testing is testing. Can't recall why right now but Practical Sailor's anchor test was also rather unconvincing to me. I think they pulled up on land with anchors buried in a slough.

One anchor not tested, designed by a cruiser, is the Buegel anchor which if dragged looks like a good bet it would turn and dig in. It has a bow that looks like it would not allow it to be dragged without the plow-style point digging in. Some have said it doesn't have enough weight for the 'plow' point to dig. Seems like it's made only in stainless but it's lightness does make it a choice for the A/Cs. Any opinions on this one?

Remember one inventor at the boat show years ago who was showing off an anchor that was essentially a ball shaped mace of long sharp spikes. May have had something there.

Anything said about anchoring has to be taken with a grain of sand. :rolleyes:

1 Attachment(s)

On the issue of scope, assuming the bottom is flat and horizontal, it makes virtually no difference whether the scope is 5:1 or 10:1 with regard to holding power. As you get below 5:1, the problem becomes increasingly critical. 4:1 is questionable and 3:1 is dangerous. 2:1 is useless.

The qualification about the horizontal bottom concerns the slope of the bottom. If the bottom is sloping up in the direction of the pull, 2:1 may be adequate. If sloping down, 10:1 may be inadequate.

I have written an article about of bottom slope which might be of interest to some of you. I have attached a couple charts in this regard.

Keep in mind that "scope" is not measured based on the amount of line to the depth of water at the location of the anchor, but, and this is very important, by the amount of line to the distance from the bow chock to the bottom where the anchor is located. For the Commander Ariel add three feet to the water depth. This is particularly important when anchoring in shallower waters.

Testing and Buegel

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb

But what got me was the assumptions I always had made about the anchors that LOOKED like they were designed to always right themselves abd dig in. I have a Brit CQR and a nice USNavy danforth - both are now "out of style".

Dry sand seems like an excellent test medium, tho there is nothing like the real thing of course, but to see anchor after anchor pull along on their SIDES is frightening. A fair test pull might be more upward? Seems like we could go round and round on this.

Yes it is a little scary isn't it?

We have a demonstration video which includes footage of our own testing. Yes it's biased and the main point is to contrast the Rocna with the older generation styles, but you should find it interesting in any case. Go to our website and select "watch the video".

Dry sand, if it really is dry, is a bit of a no-no for testing. Wet sand and mud behaves very differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb

One anchor not tested, designed by a cruiser, is the Buegel anchor which if dragged looks like a good bet it would turn and dig in. It has a bow that looks like it would not allow it to be dragged without the plow-style point digging in. Some have said it doesn't have enough weight for the 'plow' point to dig. Seems like it's made only in stainless but it's lightness does make it a choice for the A/Cs. Any opinions on this one?

We initially had a section in our video showing the Buegel, but removed it because of time constraints.

The Buegel does have issues with setting on a hard seabed, but it is not because of its lack of tip-weight. It is because of other things it is missing. However, it sets perfectly well in the majority of substrates.

The WASI is only available in stainless. The Buegel is available in conventional steel.

In short not a bad anchor but you can do better. More about the newer generation of anchors here.

I went to the WASI/Buegel sites to look at their products - looks a *lot* like a Rocna, Craig. Out of simple curiosity: Were you attempting to improve their product, or they yours? Or did the 2 anchors develop in parallel, unbeknown to the designers?

Being somewhat in the market, I checked the recommended size anchors price, and have come to a conclusion:

I think I could fill a safe with money, and use it for an anchor; that would almost be cheaper than a WASI anchor! :D The recommended stainless setups from WASI would run close to US $500, not including shipping. :eek:

The galvanized product is significantly cheaper, Thank {Deity}. I checked prices for the Buegel, Bulwagga (which I've had and liked a *lot*, and so which is always included in my personal comparisons), and Rocna anchors, sized for our vessles, galvanized. The Bulwagga runs US $250, the Buegel about US $8 more than that, and - sadly - the price for the Rocna is only in CDN $ (365 of them), and I don't have the conversion rate handy for that (Hey, Craig - you oughta have those guys post an approximate price for the US boaters on their site, in approximate US $ or something...).

For us small boat sailors, thats still no small chunk of change, especially for a 1) new, relatively unproven product, 2) that we cannot test before buying. A "Try Before You Buy" program through marine retailers would probably help manufacturers sell more product. Another possible idea: A manufacturer could amass a list of willing owners and their locations who would be willing to demonstrate their anchor locally for prospective buyers.

A last difference: Bulwagga is the only company to offer any solution to this "dilemma" on their site - in the form of a 100% satisfaction guarantee (Cut and pasted, it says this: Refund of purchase price, less shipping, offered unconditionally to original owners purchasing anchor directly from the Bulwagga Anchor online store for a period of one year from date of purchase. ). I saw no mention of a similar guarantee on the websites of WASI, Buegel, or Rocna. If such a guarantee is offered, it should be given a place of prominence on the respective website. It is reassuring to know that the designer/manufacturer has that kind of faith in their product before spending ones hard-earned cash, and in fact was a major factor when I did purchase, unseen and untried, the Bulwagga I had. :)

Both the WASI/Buegel design and the Rocna look like they would be good anchor solutions. They both seem to have improved on older designs. I can easily imagine one of them up on Katie's bow next to a Bulwagga, eventually.

Craig - one last question, again born of simple curiosity: I'm sure you've seen the bubble-anchor that is out there (it has a plastic bubble at the aft upper edge of the shank, which is intended to *make* the anchor sit upright prior to digging in). Did you try or test having a place on your shank or rollbar where a similar flotation device could be affixed to a piece of line/leader, in order to facilitate having the Rocna land fluke-down always? The float line could also serve as a trip/retrieval line. If I had one, I'd have to try it, it would be so simple to do. :) I've seen your video and demonstrations on your site already, so I know your anchor is supposed to set in a short distance no matter which way it lands, this was just an idle thought I had while writing...

Anchors = serious business

Dragging along on my learning curve, thanks to you guys. QUickly:

The best holding in the P.S. tests was the Spade 80, with the Bul coming in second.

The Rocna was not tested at that time. To me the Rocna is a Spade with a roll bar. Not a bad idea. We don't see it, a Spade being dragged along not digging in like the CQR eg. So there must be something to the shaping of the shaft that will pull the blade down into the bed. But still, the roll bar looks like an improvement leading to more sure setting, especially if any grass is involved.

I'm OK with the new phrase 'New Generation Anchors.' And OK with ANY improvement to an anchor. Think of all the shapes a kedge has gone thru over the decades. The N.G. anchor is a good lighter anchor for a small sailboat. My articulating CQR weighs in at 35#. Nix that. My pretty Danforth is too heavy for a lunch hook. So I'm also in the market for a couple of cruising anchors.

Of the three we now might agree have the greatest holding power: Bulwagga, Rocna, Spade 80 - the spade is the most expensive, probably a function of its holding power.

What I would like to see is ACTUAL videos of anchors setting in the four or five different bottoms we are concerned with. Mud, sand, weed, shale, rock.
I really appreciate what Practical Sailor is doing, primarily because it is impartial. I could be persuaded by a munufacturer video of his product outperforming others. Don't know that I've been convinced yet.

I thought dry sand would more approximate a sand bottom under water because of the stirring-up of the bottom that an anchor might cause. Assume the anchor breaking in under water would 'fluff' up the sand around the hole it makes. Therefor dry sand, a lighter medium, perhaps.

A cruiser should carry more than two anchors. The Bulwagga seems to be a good choice. It's a lot of sheet metal that I guess gains strength by being buried. Would more trust a hook in rocks. Would like to hear what we have to say about this. An oversize Spade migth be carried as the ultimate storm anchor. And the Rocna as the primary for new unknown bottoms. That's a bunch of cash,
BUT, it's also cheap up close and personal insurance. NO???

I've heard it said

I've heard it said that one can not spend too much money on ground tackle.

Thanks Craig, for coming here to discuss your anchor. Good web site, lots of info.

As for me, I currently have a danforth on the bow, and a smaller one in the lazy rat, with 75' of rode as an 'emergency brake'. ;)

I also carry a #25 CQR which makes it's home in the port cockpit locker. This is what I put down when the wind is blowing and I want to rest. I have drug the danforth, but the CQR has not ever moved on me. (just my experience).

The problem with the #25 CQR is that it somehow weighs about #300 when I am handling it. :confused: Not sure how that works, but the thing is really hard to mess with, guess it is the hinge that makes it tough to use. I have a bow roller that I 'intend' to mount it on, which will keep me from lugging it back and forth, but I am thinking that anchor with 50' of chain are more then I want to deal with on a regular basis.

What about that Fortress (aluminum) anchor? I have heard good things about them, what does the panel think?

Epiphany

Quote:

Originally Posted by epiphany

I went to the WASI/Buegel sites to look at their products - looks a *lot* like a Rocna, Craig. Out of simple curiosity: Were you attempting to improve their product, or they yours? Or did the 2 anchors develop in parallel, unbeknown to the designers?

Hi Epiphany. The WASI and Buegel are the same thing before you get confused. The "Buegel" is a German design which has been around for quite a while now, and has become something of a generic design. You can find many (very cheap) copies, especially in the Mediterranean, where it enjoys a good reputation for use in weed. WASI is a German steel company that also produces the original, and I suspect they just changed the name for the US market. I do not know why they only produce the WASI in stainless - perhaps they intend to only target the top-end.

Secondly, they do appear similar on account of the roll-bar, but the similarity really ends there. The major differences are the concave blade on the Rocna (greater holding power per unit of fluke area), the skids on the heel (to direct setting), an increase in tip-weight, and obviously the shank. Even the roll-bar is technically different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epiphany

I think I could fill a safe with money, and use it for an anchor; that would almost be cheaper than a WASI anchor! :D The recommended stainless setups from WASI would run close to US $500, not including shipping. :eek:

Stainless is always expensive. We are doing costing now for producing the Rocna in stainless, and they will not be cheap :D.

Essentially there are only two possible reasons for wanting an anchor in stainless: 1) it looks good, and 2) there is supposedly less maintenance (no worrying about re-galvanizing). Unfortunately it is impossible to make an anchor in stainless that is as strong as galvanized steel, and it is very expensive. These are unwanted compromises for most people.

The 0.2% yield stress (proof stress) on 316 stainless (which is what every stainless anchor manufacturer I know of uses) is something just over 200MPa. For the high tensile steel we use on the shank of the Rocna, this figure is about 700Mpa. You see the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epiphany

The galvanized product is significantly cheaper, Thank {Deity}. I checked prices for the Buegel, Bulwagga (which I've had and liked a *lot*, and so which is always included in my personal comparisons), and Rocna anchors, sized for our vessles, galvanized. The Bulwagga runs US $250, the Buegel about US $8 more than that, and - sadly - the price for the Rocna is only in CDN $ (365 of them), and I don't have the conversion rate handy for that (Hey, Craig - you oughta have those guys post an approximate price for the US boaters on their site, in approximate US $ or something...).

If you go to the main website (rocna.com), and select a country other than one in North America, you will find there is a currency conversion facility on the pricing page. The original NZ dollar prices can be changed to whatever you want. This is for anchors bought from New Zealand not Canada but will give you an idea. Unfortunately our North American people like to keep their pricing seperate. Here is a good FEX converter.

As far as pricing in general: I am not aware of any anchor that is a "rip-off". In other words, all prices generally reflect production costs. You get what you pay for. You must decide if the extra cost is buying you things you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epiphany

For us small boat sailors, thats still no small chunk of change, especially for a 1) new, relatively unproven product, 2) that we cannot test before buying. A "Try Before You Buy" program through marine retailers would probably help manufacturers sell more product. Another possible idea: A manufacturer could amass a list of willing owners and their locations who would be willing to demonstrate their anchor locally for prospective buyers.

A last difference: Bulwagga is the only company to offer any solution to this "dilemma" on their site - in the form of a 100% satisfaction guarantee (Cut and pasted, it says this: Refund of purchase price, less shipping, offered unconditionally to original owners purchasing anchor directly from the Bulwagga Anchor online store for a period of one year from date of purchase. ). I saw no mention of a similar guarantee on the websites of WASI, Buegel, or Rocna. If such a guarantee is offered, it should be given a place of prominence on the respective website. It is reassuring to know that the designer/manufacturer has that kind of faith in their product before spending ones hard-earned cash, and in fact was a major factor when I did purchase, unseen and untried, the Bulwagga I had. :)

We (and Canada) will do a similar thing on a case by case basis. We don't advertise it as we don't want people "borrowing" anchors for 12 months at a time. We have never had anyone return an anchor under such an agreement, except in the case where the anchor for some reason would not fit on their boats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epiphany

Craig - one last question, again born of simple curiosity: I'm sure you've seen the bubble-anchor that is out there (it has a plastic bubble at the aft upper edge of the shank, which is intended to *make* the anchor sit upright prior to digging in). Did you try or test having a place on your shank or rollbar where a similar flotation device could be affixed to a piece of line/leader, in order to facilitate having the Rocna land fluke-down always? The float line could also serve as a trip/retrieval line. If I had one, I'd have to try it, it would be so simple to do. :) I've seen your video and demonstrations on your site already, so I know your anchor is supposed to set in a short distance no matter which way it lands, this was just an idle thought I had while writing...

Not a practical solution. What testing we've studied of that idea does not like it. It does not work reliably. Then there are production issues, together with getting a plastic to last when exposed day-in-day-out to UV etc.

The Rocna always ends up fluke-down in the correct position. It is impossible to get it any other way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb

The best holding in the P.S. tests was the Spade 80, with the Bul coming in second.

The Rocna was not tested at that time. To me the Rocna is a Spade with a roll bar. Not a bad idea. We don't see it, a Spade being dragged along not digging in like the CQR eg. So there must be something to the shaping of the shaft that will pull the blade down into the bed. But still, the roll bar looks like an improvement leading to more sure setting, especially if any grass is involved.

Of the three we now might agree have the greatest holding power: Bulwagga, Rocna, Spade 80 - the spade is the most expensive, probably a function of its holding power.

Be careful with any testing, even Practical Sailor's. Their size selection methodology is very questionable, and some of their recent tests have been rather less impressive than their earlier ones. Aside from that, most testing that magazines do only consider several factors such as setting performance and holding power. There are many other factors which can be just as important.

The Spade is the most expensive because of its costs of production. The shank is demountable and hollow. This creates a stowable anchor and one with an increased percentage weight-on-tip (lighter shank). This also creates an anchor designed to come apart and one with a weaker shank. Again you must decide if this arrangement of cost and function is what you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb

What I would like to see is ACTUAL videos of anchors setting in the four or five different bottoms we are concerned with. Mud, sand, weed, shale, rock.
I really appreciate what Practical Sailor is doing, primarily because it is impartial. I could be persuaded by a munufacturer video of his product outperforming others. Don't know that I've been convinced yet.

That is fair. Our video is intended to be primarily a demonstration of the Rocna, and we show the two stalwarts of the "old generation" - i.e. the claw and plow - to show what we're improving on. It is not intended to be an exhaustive and impartial documentary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb

I thought dry sand would more approximate a sand bottom under water because of the stirring-up of the bottom that an anchor might cause. Assume the anchor breaking in under water would 'fluff' up the sand around the hole it makes. Therefor dry sand, a lighter medium, perhaps.

No. Anchors have much more trouble setting in dry sand. They behave so differently to the point that such a test would be worse than useless. You would design an anchor differently for use in dry sand or soil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebb

A cruiser should carry more than two anchors. The Bulwagga seems to be a good choice. It's a lot of sheet metal that I guess gains strength by being buried. Would more trust a hook in rocks. Would like to hear what we have to say about this. An oversize Spade migth be carried as the ultimate storm anchor. And the Rocna as the primary for new unknown bottoms. That's a bunch of cash,
BUT, it's also cheap up close and personal insurance. NO???

YES!!! :D

The Bulwagga we would recommend as a superior alternative to a Danforth or Fortress style anchor. Similar "values", i.e. good holding power for light-weight.

And between the Spade and Rocna, well that is up to the individual :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_amos

I've heard it said that one can not spend too much money on ground tackle.

Thanks Craig, for coming here to discuss your anchor. Good web site, lots of info.

Thank you for your comments and you're welcome. :o

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_amos

The problem with the #25 CQR is that it somehow weighs about #300 when I am handling it. :confused: Not sure how that works, but the thing is really hard to mess with, guess it is the hinge that makes it tough to use. I have a bow roller that I 'intend' to mount it on, which will keep me from lugging it back and forth, but I am thinking that anchor with 50' of chain are more then I want to deal with on a regular basis.

It's kind of an "unbalanced" anchor. All that lead weight in the tip combined with its articulation... makes it hard to handle. We like to advertise the fact that you can't lose a finger with the Rocna... :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by c_amos

What about that Fortress (aluminum) anchor? I have heard good things about them, what does the panel think?

1) Any aluminium anchor is automatically less strong than the steel equivalent. Consider this carefully before choosing one.
2) Danforth style anchors are now part of the "old generation". As above we would recommend a Bulwagga as a superior alternative.
3) Danforth style anchors in general give decent holding power but are not good primary anchors. They do not set reliably, and are not roll-stable. For this reason they're a good second anchor, as you can set them manually, then keep a watch on them. Your primary anchor needs to be a good holder plus able to reset itself should it come out, be reversed, etc. It also needs to be strong and durable if you're going to give it the abuse most cruisers will.

Right enough posting from me... :rolleyes:

An Anchor For All Occasions....

"Faith,"

Go ahead and mount that anchor roller. At the VERY least, you'll be making the pull mostly horizontal rather than the directly vertical pull that gives us all lumbago. Being able to sit and pull makes a big difference, provided that you pull with your ARMS and ABS and not your back. I'm no expert but I spent many, many years in ballet class learning the mechanics and anatomy of the human body. Your lower back should only be used when perfectly upright such as standing or walking. Those muscles are T-I-N-Y and not at all designed to take a strain. Just as we've all heard "lift with your legs, not with your back," so it should be "weigh anchor with your biceps (and abs), not with your back."

Regarding spending "too much" on ground tackle, you don't need to spend too much, just "enough" to make sure that you're covered in all possible cases. WHERE you sail and the bottoms of those locales determine that. Having briefly reviewed this entire thread, I see that many people refer to the Practical Sailor test, but there is also a test that was done on Puget Sound by the American Sailing Assoc. in 1995. ("On June 17 and 18, 1995 the Safety at Sea Committee of the Sailing Foundation conducted anchor tests on five selected sites on Puget Sound. The tests were co-sponsored by West Marine Products and attended by their representative, Chuck Hawley. Also in attendance were Portland naval architect Robert Smith who has written and tested anchor behavior extensively1, and Andy Peabody of Creative Marine who markets the MAX anchor. Diving services and underwater video were donated by Dwayne Montgomery of Emerald City Diving.")

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Anchor/anchor_study.htm

(Other studies are available on this website as well, and I recommend them as good reading to all.)

Other sources include the Pardeys and Nigel Calder. Both have tables in their books relating wind strength to anchor size and holding power. Being a firm believer in the laws of physics, I feel that these are definitely worth reading.

Despite the Puget Sound study confirming that the bruce has the LEAST holding power of the "mainstream" anchors, I opted for a 22-lb (oversized) bruce as my working anchor. The wind-pressure/holding-power tables will show that this anchor is OK up to about 750lbs of pull. On an Ariel, this means a sustained 70- to 80-knot wind. I can say with all honesty, that if I ever encounter a sustained 80-knot wind, I hope I'm at sea as far from land as humanly possible! Additionally, the Puget Sound study "confirms" (as much as is possible) that you just can't beat a bruce's SETTING record: 97% on the first try. Plus, 22lbs just isn't THAT much to be hauling on compared to a 45-lb fisherman. :) Lastly, I had a 22-lb bruce on my first cruising boat, a Paceship 26, which NEVER ONCE let me down despite that boat's infinitely greated windage.

On other boats, the couple that introduced me to sailing used as their working anchor (on their 57-foot gaff-rigged schooner) a 65-lb fisherman. They have cruised the Bahamas every winter for the last 20+ years and claim that it has never once let them down, unlike their CQR which they claim has dragged on numerous occasions. Given the rocky/coral bottom of most Bahamian Islands, I am not at all surprised.

In short, the money spent on ground tackle (I feel) should not be spent so much on EVERYTHING as it should on THE RIGHT THINGS. If you've never seen a rock on the bottom, no need to have a bruce or fisherman and all-chain rode. Get a danforth and some 1/2-inch nylon and sleep well! Contrarywise, if you intend to spend half your time in the tropics, 1/4-inch all-chain rode and a bruce or fisherman should be the mainstays of your repertoire.

And there, for what they're worth, are my opinions. :)

Jeremy