ANCHORING

[Theis]

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.

[commanderpete]

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

[Theis]

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.

[SailorLiz]

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

[Theis]

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.

[ebb]

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.

[epiphany]

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.

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...

[Theis]

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.

[c_amos]

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

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.

[dasein668]

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?

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.

[ebb]

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.

[Theis]

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.

[craigsmith]

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.

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.

[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?

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! The recommended stainless setups from WASI would run close to US $500, not including shipping.

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...

[ebb]

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???