starcrafttom
Active member
I like that last commit
Anchor Rehash -- New Anchor – Vulcan
- Thread starter hardee
- Start date
journey on
New member
I promise this is my last comment (on this topic.) I've thought about the various anchors I have used: CQR plow, Danforth, Bruce claw and Manson spade. How does an anchor work, what's the impact of different bottoms, various types of earth and where should one use each?
First, lets think how an anchor works.
What makes an anchor hold is the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the pull from the anchor rode. The best that can be done is a flat plate, completely buried in the sand. As it's pulled, it's trying to shear a block of earth or if the earth is viscous (mud) force it to flow around the plate. To make the plate or any anchor work one uses chain or a weight to make sure the rode is along the ground and as parallel to the anchor stock as possible.
To get it buried, the anchor body needs to have a way to dig into the ground and a flat plate doesn't do that. A plow is designed to emulate a plow and dig into the earth at the point and as the anchor body digs in the cross section of the body that's perpendicular to the pull increases until the anchor holds. A Danforth has 2 ea plates which are at an angle to the stock. Under the pull of the rode these 2 plates dig in and down, again until the cross section is deep enough to hold. A Bruce type is a claw, with 3 prongs radiating from a central body. Again the claw digs in and buries the central body, though there is no sharp point to start and guide the set.
Each of the above type of anchors has a substantial cross section and some method of getting that cross section to dig in. Now lets discuss the spade anchor. If I'm right, that's a Manson or some variant. My Manson has a sharp point which spreads out to a cross section of the edge of a flat plate. The anchor stock is at a slight angle to the flat plate to ensure that it digs in. If one is counting on trying to pull a large cross section through the earth, the Manson's cross section is parallel to the rode's pull and the anchor doesn't offer the same resistance as those mentioned above. There is no cross section to shear the earth, sand or especially mud. The cross section perpendicular to the rode's pull is indeed the edge of a spade.
If that's my conclusion, why do I have one? First, I needed an anchor to penetrate kelp. The Bruce type certainly doesn't do it. And the testimonials in the forum and others are glowing. So I bought one and it works well in kelp. It doesn't hold in mud as I found out when I used it in the PNW. And neither the Manson or the plow do well in soft sand. I've got caught out with both. After all, a real plow is designed to slide through and turn the earth and a spade is designed to slide into the earth.
Now anchoring in rocks and coral is something else. Sharp point and strength to hold. Nothing better than a CQR. The Manson is good and has a sliding stock which helps unstick the darn thing. However, these days, I'm not anchoring in rock or coral.
So when I'm up north in the PNW, I use a Bruce up front. But for all around use, my opinion is that the Danforth digs in and holds better over a wider range of conditions than any other type. And it's one of the least expensive.
Finally, how about all of those anchoring tests? Please notice they're all done in hard sand and all anchors stick really well in that medium. So don't quote them to me. Even the rebar type used by the shrimpers in Mexico would look good.
Boris
First, lets think how an anchor works.
What makes an anchor hold is the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the pull from the anchor rode. The best that can be done is a flat plate, completely buried in the sand. As it's pulled, it's trying to shear a block of earth or if the earth is viscous (mud) force it to flow around the plate. To make the plate or any anchor work one uses chain or a weight to make sure the rode is along the ground and as parallel to the anchor stock as possible.
To get it buried, the anchor body needs to have a way to dig into the ground and a flat plate doesn't do that. A plow is designed to emulate a plow and dig into the earth at the point and as the anchor body digs in the cross section of the body that's perpendicular to the pull increases until the anchor holds. A Danforth has 2 ea plates which are at an angle to the stock. Under the pull of the rode these 2 plates dig in and down, again until the cross section is deep enough to hold. A Bruce type is a claw, with 3 prongs radiating from a central body. Again the claw digs in and buries the central body, though there is no sharp point to start and guide the set.
Each of the above type of anchors has a substantial cross section and some method of getting that cross section to dig in. Now lets discuss the spade anchor. If I'm right, that's a Manson or some variant. My Manson has a sharp point which spreads out to a cross section of the edge of a flat plate. The anchor stock is at a slight angle to the flat plate to ensure that it digs in. If one is counting on trying to pull a large cross section through the earth, the Manson's cross section is parallel to the rode's pull and the anchor doesn't offer the same resistance as those mentioned above. There is no cross section to shear the earth, sand or especially mud. The cross section perpendicular to the rode's pull is indeed the edge of a spade.
If that's my conclusion, why do I have one? First, I needed an anchor to penetrate kelp. The Bruce type certainly doesn't do it. And the testimonials in the forum and others are glowing. So I bought one and it works well in kelp. It doesn't hold in mud as I found out when I used it in the PNW. And neither the Manson or the plow do well in soft sand. I've got caught out with both. After all, a real plow is designed to slide through and turn the earth and a spade is designed to slide into the earth.
Now anchoring in rocks and coral is something else. Sharp point and strength to hold. Nothing better than a CQR. The Manson is good and has a sliding stock which helps unstick the darn thing. However, these days, I'm not anchoring in rock or coral.
So when I'm up north in the PNW, I use a Bruce up front. But for all around use, my opinion is that the Danforth digs in and holds better over a wider range of conditions than any other type. And it's one of the least expensive.
Finally, how about all of those anchoring tests? Please notice they're all done in hard sand and all anchors stick really well in that medium. So don't quote them to me. Even the rebar type used by the shrimpers in Mexico would look good.
Boris
Boris. Good description of how they work, why and what they are doing.
You are right about the anchor tests. And about the general anchoring substrate in the PNW.
And as to spending so much on an anchor that you might not want to cut it and run when safety demands; that is why I don't have a stainless anchor.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
You are right about the anchor tests. And about the general anchoring substrate in the PNW.
And as to spending so much on an anchor that you might not want to cut it and run when safety demands; that is why I don't have a stainless anchor.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
journey on
New member
OK, I lie, the above post was a lie. It's not my last post.
The reason of this post is that BOAT-US posted the results of an anchor test done by Fortress in Chesapeake Bay (mud.) Here's the test: Chesapeake Anchoring tests. And here are the results: Anchor test results.
Not surprising, the Fortress, with the larger fluke setting came in first. I allow you to read the rest.
Boris
The reason of this post is that BOAT-US posted the results of an anchor test done by Fortress in Chesapeake Bay (mud.) Here's the test: Chesapeake Anchoring tests. And here are the results: Anchor test results.
Not surprising, the Fortress, with the larger fluke setting came in first. I allow you to read the rest.
Boris
All this talk about anchors and rodes had me drop anchor in the driveway to see what I had. Seaweed has yet to touch water in my ownership. I only have 10' chain and 100" 3x nylon. though I do not think we will be anchoring in the deeps I have read some of you have, but it has me wondering, am I due for an upgrade? The anchor is a 22lb Delta. Much of what I have read suggests at least a boat length of chain?
Here it is again, time to be thinking about boating, and it's SBS time and what is there out there I can't live without.
That's why I'm bringing this line back up.
I'm curious if there are any changes in thoughts since the last time we looked at this. Also, I would like to hear from some who have changed anchors since this was around. I have heard comments about "tired of looking through the arch". Also wondered how the newer anchors, (Vulcan, or Boss or others) are working coming out of the launchers.
My Delta Fastset 14# has worked OK except one time, and that was probably my fault for not doing a good stern line. It has held in some pretty stiff breeze and some fair current swings.
Just looking for some updates from the group.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
That's why I'm bringing this line back up.
I'm curious if there are any changes in thoughts since the last time we looked at this. Also, I would like to hear from some who have changed anchors since this was around. I have heard comments about "tired of looking through the arch". Also wondered how the newer anchors, (Vulcan, or Boss or others) are working coming out of the launchers.
My Delta Fastset 14# has worked OK except one time, and that was probably my fault for not doing a good stern line. It has held in some pretty stiff breeze and some fair current swings.
Just looking for some updates from the group.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
I now have over 70 days/ nights anchoring with the "Boss". It did begin to drag at Powell once, and I put a #7 Fortress at about a 40 degree angle to it off the bow, and the fortress held. I suspect that a larger Boss (I was using the smallest 10#), would have held. We had the Boss hold in over 50 knots one night.,
The disadvantage of the Boss is that it can hit the bow gel coat, if you are not careful bringing it up.
It seems to set well in mud. I am going to test it in some mud/sand / shell in the next few days, where we will be applying several hundred horsepower in forward gear to the anchor, so it will be interesting to see how it performs in relation to a 35# HT Danforth.
I have stopped carrying the Delta--and carry the Boss 10#, plus the 3 Guardian/Fortress anchors all in the 6 to 7 sized
The disadvantage of the Boss is that it can hit the bow gel coat, if you are not careful bringing it up.
It seems to set well in mud. I am going to test it in some mud/sand / shell in the next few days, where we will be applying several hundred horsepower in forward gear to the anchor, so it will be interesting to see how it performs in relation to a 35# HT Danforth.
I have stopped carrying the Delta--and carry the Boss 10#, plus the 3 Guardian/Fortress anchors all in the 6 to 7 sized
Some of the drawbacks I see are:
the Boss: A very curved arm, allowing the point to get very close to the bow gel coat.
The Supreme: The Arch. How bothersome is it to have that up in the view field? AND does that bring up more bottom junk?
The Ultra: I love the action when turning 180 degrees. but Stailness and Shiney and $$$$
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
the Boss: A very curved arm, allowing the point to get very close to the bow gel coat.
The Supreme: The Arch. How bothersome is it to have that up in the view field? AND does that bring up more bottom junk?
The Ultra: I love the action when turning 180 degrees. but Stailness and Shiney and $$$$
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
Our little Rocna has the arch and until I read you comment about looking through the arch, I had never thought about it. I think we look largely to whichever side we are sitting and only drive from the center position when stretching our legs for a bit.
No complaints in 47 nights aboard (most of them anchored). I feel it set with my own foot or hand on the rode and it makes me feel even better each time.
Greg
No complaints in 47 nights aboard (most of them anchored). I feel it set with my own foot or hand on the rode and it makes me feel even better each time.
Greg
We're very pleased with our 25# Boss following last summers SE Alaska cruise. One of the reasons I switched from a 22# Claw was having it refuse to set at all in soft mud & many other times difficult to set other then in a harder mud & shell mix. When back in Gut bay, Baranof Island where the claw refused to set in the soft mud, the Boss set immediately & We couldn't budge it with full power reverse. The only non immediate set was when trying to anchor where I should not have even tried & that was in big leaf kelp, covering a very hard bottom. It would pierce a couple of leafs then just scoop up a massive ball of kelp, which wasn't fun getting back off, but happy to be using a windlass to bring the mess up instead of by hand like such was done on all our previous SE Alaska cruises.
The Manson Boss & Supreme both launch off the roller without hands on assistance. It isn't a concern with me due to having stainless protection on the bow, but I can see where the big Boss could possibly ding the gel coat on a rare occasion when retrieved, but our previous Claw caused dings & was the reason I had already added the protection long before the purchase of either the Manson Surpreme or Boss.
I'm one of those that are bugged by the Manson Supreme or Rocna bar causing view obstruction & prefer the way the Boss looks on the roller.
I too have used the Dansforth, but more because it makes such a good light weight spare & feel for all the reasons many have stated, they are a well proven good anchor, but feel these latest additions are a better choice for the main, where we have done most of our anchoring in SE Alaska.
Jay
The Manson Boss & Supreme both launch off the roller without hands on assistance. It isn't a concern with me due to having stainless protection on the bow, but I can see where the big Boss could possibly ding the gel coat on a rare occasion when retrieved, but our previous Claw caused dings & was the reason I had already added the protection long before the purchase of either the Manson Surpreme or Boss.
I'm one of those that are bugged by the Manson Supreme or Rocna bar causing view obstruction & prefer the way the Boss looks on the roller.
I too have used the Dansforth, but more because it makes such a good light weight spare & feel for all the reasons many have stated, they are a well proven good anchor, but feel these latest additions are a better choice for the main, where we have done most of our anchoring in SE Alaska.
Jay
Marco Flamingo
Active member
Ahhh, physics. What, no prejudice and hype? Okay.
One of the things that isn't discussed when it comes to anchors is the density of the anchor material. It's basically a choice between steel and aluminum, with aluminum (Fortress/Guardian) being popular because of the weight savings. But the weights are given when the anchor is weighed in air. They weigh different when in water. Picture a 10# steel anchor. Now picture a 10# Styrofoam anchor. They will obviously behave differently once in the water even though they "weigh the same."
The same is true to a lesser degree with the density difference between steel and aluminum. In rough numbers, a 10# steel anchor will weigh 8.5# in the water. A 10# aluminum anchor will weigh 6.5# in the water. A 10# Styrofoam anchor will have about 250# of buoyancy, so you could float on it. It's going to be hard to set. The Fortress style anchors are also sometimes claimed to be difficult to set because they are light and you can see that the weight "savings" is magnified underwater. An aluminum anchor might require special considerations.
The Anchor Buddy kellet is interesting. It's aluminum and weighs 30# when weighed in the air. The video says that it is "one size fits all" for vessels 65 foot "plus". Right away that makes me put on my skeptical spectacles. 68 foot? 78 foot? 178 foot? All anchor claims are guesstimates, but that one doesn't "set" well with me. I'm sure it would be fine for my CD 16, but I've got other plans.
The other claim that is a little odd is the statement that it takes 147# of force to lift it off of the bottom. No, it might take 147# when in the air depending on the leverage, i.e., depending on where it is placed on the rode. We know that it only weighs approximately 19# when underwater and that the closer to the anchor it lies the more force would be required to lift it off of the bottom. Claiming 147# (not 146.5?) also makes me skeptical.
Not that it doesn't have some benefit or that lifting a kellet off of the bottom is bad. What the kellet does is hopefully keep the angle of the rode shallow enough so that the anchor can dig in and stay in. On the West Coast, kellets are often called "Alaskan sleeping pills." Most of us know them as downrigger weights or cannon balls, although the Alaskan trollers use fairly large lead weights (20 and 30#). A 30# lead sleeping pill will weigh 28.5# under water. Since the fishermen already have them on board, they send a few down when it's nap time.
I was hoping to find a boat show special for the aluminum Guardian anchor (a Fortress anchor without the finish work). Light weight will have benefits on a CD 16 and I will try to work around it's shortcomings. From what I have seen, 5 minutes with an angle grinder would basically produce a functional Fortress (minus the ability to change the fluke angle, a feature that nobody has ever used). Since I intend to have a cannon ball or two on board, they could be sent down when needed to turn a 4# aluminum anchor into a 10-20# anchor. At least that's the theory.
Mark
One of the things that isn't discussed when it comes to anchors is the density of the anchor material. It's basically a choice between steel and aluminum, with aluminum (Fortress/Guardian) being popular because of the weight savings. But the weights are given when the anchor is weighed in air. They weigh different when in water. Picture a 10# steel anchor. Now picture a 10# Styrofoam anchor. They will obviously behave differently once in the water even though they "weigh the same."
The same is true to a lesser degree with the density difference between steel and aluminum. In rough numbers, a 10# steel anchor will weigh 8.5# in the water. A 10# aluminum anchor will weigh 6.5# in the water. A 10# Styrofoam anchor will have about 250# of buoyancy, so you could float on it. It's going to be hard to set. The Fortress style anchors are also sometimes claimed to be difficult to set because they are light and you can see that the weight "savings" is magnified underwater. An aluminum anchor might require special considerations.
The Anchor Buddy kellet is interesting. It's aluminum and weighs 30# when weighed in the air. The video says that it is "one size fits all" for vessels 65 foot "plus". Right away that makes me put on my skeptical spectacles. 68 foot? 78 foot? 178 foot? All anchor claims are guesstimates, but that one doesn't "set" well with me. I'm sure it would be fine for my CD 16, but I've got other plans.
The other claim that is a little odd is the statement that it takes 147# of force to lift it off of the bottom. No, it might take 147# when in the air depending on the leverage, i.e., depending on where it is placed on the rode. We know that it only weighs approximately 19# when underwater and that the closer to the anchor it lies the more force would be required to lift it off of the bottom. Claiming 147# (not 146.5?) also makes me skeptical.
Not that it doesn't have some benefit or that lifting a kellet off of the bottom is bad. What the kellet does is hopefully keep the angle of the rode shallow enough so that the anchor can dig in and stay in. On the West Coast, kellets are often called "Alaskan sleeping pills." Most of us know them as downrigger weights or cannon balls, although the Alaskan trollers use fairly large lead weights (20 and 30#). A 30# lead sleeping pill will weigh 28.5# under water. Since the fishermen already have them on board, they send a few down when it's nap time.
I was hoping to find a boat show special for the aluminum Guardian anchor (a Fortress anchor without the finish work). Light weight will have benefits on a CD 16 and I will try to work around it's shortcomings. From what I have seen, 5 minutes with an angle grinder would basically produce a functional Fortress (minus the ability to change the fluke angle, a feature that nobody has ever used). Since I intend to have a cannon ball or two on board, they could be sent down when needed to turn a 4# aluminum anchor into a 10-20# anchor. At least that's the theory.
Mark
journey on":jeaiqytw said:
I went back and watched the video results: Anchor test results of the testing and it was a good refresher. Still amazing that they have all that "dragging data" and yet don't have a diver or underwater camera to correlate the strain gauge info with what is actually going on. For trying to present that as being all "scientific", there is way too much "we think it is doing ....." stuff. JMHO though.
I am still looking at info and hoping for more use reports.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
gulfcoast john
New member
Unlike Conrad, my favorite bow jewelry is the genuine Lewmar Claw 11kg in polished stainless steel. It's gorgeous, which is of course one of the primary functions of a main anchor. A 25# Manson Supreme for the Keys, which looks like something evil you would use to impale a giant Zombie, and it's harder to step over one when boarding from the trailer ladder (the Supreme, not the giant Zombie). They come in satin stainless steel (the Supreme, not the....) but I can't justify the $1600 price. Yet. 120 ft G3 Hi Test genuine ACCO chain + 1/2" line. Rear 14# genuine Lewmar plough and 15 ft 3/8 stainless steel chain (pretty) + 1/2" line. All that has kept us secure and confident at sandy warm beaches in as much as 12 inch deep water and sustained winds to 7 knots with gusts to 15, or maybe a little more. The boat seems to take it all in stride.
We might be outliers here.
Cheers!
John
We might be outliers here.
Cheers!
John
The only company which I know of which did videos of setting and dragging, was Super Max (There have been some others in sand and out of the water). SuperMax is now being made again, and it has a reputation among cruising boats as one of the best anchors, in mud, as well as sand and rocks. They are awkward to store (what's new, with 3rd generation anchors). They now make one C Dory size.
http://maxmarineproducts.com/supermax-anchors/
As for diving--I have done a lot of diving on anchors, from just setting to holding in up to 80 knots, where the all chain rode is bar tight.
Kellets: Most cruising boats do not use them. As above when it really starts blowing the chain becomes bar tight, no matter what weight you put on the chain, or chain rode interface. The hassle of having to shackle on in place--especially if you have to move in the middle of the night, because of changing wind directions etc, can be down right difficult, if not dangerous. I tried and found it made no difference. (We did carry a 35# pig with an 5/16" eye bolt I molded in). The general consensus is it is better to have an anchor which weighs 30# more, which more fluke area, than the hunk of lead. An anchor does not hold by its weight--it holds by the action of the flukes. Even in digging in, the weight has little value in modern anchors--such as the Fortress, or the 10# Boss I am currently using.
Peter Smith and Ronca vs Manson. Peter bad mouthed Manson. There were tests done, and Manson showed that their anchors were as strong, if not stronger than Ronca. In practical tests they both seem to work equally, as well as in strain gauge tests. There was a bad bunch of Roncas, when first being made in China. I believe that is well in the past now. No reason for "Anchor Wars". They are both good anchors. One copies the other?
The Guardian Vs Fortress: Same high tensile strength alloy, the edges of the fluke are sharper, the finish is better because of anodizing. The second hole, with 45 degree fluke angle was tested well in the year or so ago Fortress test, and is definitely superior in the less cohesive mud.
One always have to remember that comparative anchor testing is difficult because of so many variants in the sea bed. Testers try and fine uniform areas, but that is difficult, and once an anchor has plowed thru the bed, it is not the same, for the next anchor. Most of us have had the experience of anchoring one place in a cove, and the anchor not holding--but moving a few feet and it works beautifully.
Anchoring is an art. There is no one perfect anchor. When we cruised we always had 3 anchors on the ready at the bow. One Fisherman, one plow, one Danforth.
Today, I would have one Ronca/Manson Supreme/Boss??? , one Fortress, and one Fisherman on the bow. Just because we have 3rd generation anchors, there still is no one perfect anchor. You have to know the sea bed, and what the anchor will do. For me, the 3 Guardian/Fortress, total weight maybe 12 to 14#, broken down under the dinette floor, plus one Boss, or Manson on the bow, seems good enough for anything I meet in our cruising. But, If I was going to the Bahamas, or some areas where there are extensive sea grasses, I would have a fisherman (or perhaps the SS Northie, Sea Plane Anchor , I just sold... in the kit....
http://maxmarineproducts.com/supermax-anchors/
As for diving--I have done a lot of diving on anchors, from just setting to holding in up to 80 knots, where the all chain rode is bar tight.
Kellets: Most cruising boats do not use them. As above when it really starts blowing the chain becomes bar tight, no matter what weight you put on the chain, or chain rode interface. The hassle of having to shackle on in place--especially if you have to move in the middle of the night, because of changing wind directions etc, can be down right difficult, if not dangerous. I tried and found it made no difference. (We did carry a 35# pig with an 5/16" eye bolt I molded in). The general consensus is it is better to have an anchor which weighs 30# more, which more fluke area, than the hunk of lead. An anchor does not hold by its weight--it holds by the action of the flukes. Even in digging in, the weight has little value in modern anchors--such as the Fortress, or the 10# Boss I am currently using.
Peter Smith and Ronca vs Manson. Peter bad mouthed Manson. There were tests done, and Manson showed that their anchors were as strong, if not stronger than Ronca. In practical tests they both seem to work equally, as well as in strain gauge tests. There was a bad bunch of Roncas, when first being made in China. I believe that is well in the past now. No reason for "Anchor Wars". They are both good anchors. One copies the other?
The Guardian Vs Fortress: Same high tensile strength alloy, the edges of the fluke are sharper, the finish is better because of anodizing. The second hole, with 45 degree fluke angle was tested well in the year or so ago Fortress test, and is definitely superior in the less cohesive mud.
One always have to remember that comparative anchor testing is difficult because of so many variants in the sea bed. Testers try and fine uniform areas, but that is difficult, and once an anchor has plowed thru the bed, it is not the same, for the next anchor. Most of us have had the experience of anchoring one place in a cove, and the anchor not holding--but moving a few feet and it works beautifully.
Anchoring is an art. There is no one perfect anchor. When we cruised we always had 3 anchors on the ready at the bow. One Fisherman, one plow, one Danforth.
Today, I would have one Ronca/Manson Supreme/Boss??? , one Fortress, and one Fisherman on the bow. Just because we have 3rd generation anchors, there still is no one perfect anchor. You have to know the sea bed, and what the anchor will do. For me, the 3 Guardian/Fortress, total weight maybe 12 to 14#, broken down under the dinette floor, plus one Boss, or Manson on the bow, seems good enough for anything I meet in our cruising. But, If I was going to the Bahamas, or some areas where there are extensive sea grasses, I would have a fisherman (or perhaps the SS Northie, Sea Plane Anchor , I just sold... in the kit....
John said:
"All that has kept us secure and confident at sandy warm beaches in as much as 12 inch deep water and sustained winds to 7 knots with gusts to 15, or maybe a little more. The boat seems to take it all in stride."
Someday I hope to be able to experience those kind of conditions. For now, a night like that would be considered "Almost" mirror flat :lol: That 12 inches of water is probably warm and clear too, right? Please, enjoy some of that for me.
AS to pretty anchors, I like the Ultra, as fine a high polish stainless as you can find, but I can find a lot of other places to put that boat unit, and I might hesitate for a second too long before cutting that one loose.
Bob, Thanks for the word on the Super Max. That's an interesting looking anchor for sure. Generous sizes.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
"All that has kept us secure and confident at sandy warm beaches in as much as 12 inch deep water and sustained winds to 7 knots with gusts to 15, or maybe a little more. The boat seems to take it all in stride."
Someday I hope to be able to experience those kind of conditions. For now, a night like that would be considered "Almost" mirror flat :lol: That 12 inches of water is probably warm and clear too, right? Please, enjoy some of that for me.
AS to pretty anchors, I like the Ultra, as fine a high polish stainless as you can find, but I can find a lot of other places to put that boat unit, and I might hesitate for a second too long before cutting that one loose.
Bob, Thanks for the word on the Super Max. That's an interesting looking anchor for sure. Generous sizes.
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
hardee":3r9fhet4 said:
Hello, Harvey.
Ask ad ye shall receive. Tests and videos.
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=169269&hl=
Chester":l492lvz9 said:
Thanks a bundle Steve, I just watched the whole set, yea everything on UTube on anchors setting I think, Some great video, but I wish they were pix that ran along with the time and stress gauge readings on the original tests. Good stuff to watch though. Show you need to get the anchor onto the bottom, and pay out some scope for it to help set the hook.
Also, on the UW videos, I think the float with the GoPro riding at 5 feet above the anchor probably helped to ensure that it always landed on the bottom, right side up.
Great find and fun watching, thanks again,
Harvey
SleepyC :moon
Good find, and Harvey makes a good point about the anchor landing fight side up--but they all roll and set no matter how they land. (Even the hoop-less boss.
There are no strain gauge data (since this is an amateur film). So we don't have any idea how much 3000 RPM in reverse on a small Sailboat engine, equates to the 5,000 lb bollard pull on the tug or RV vessel.
I came away with an affirmation of the Bruce/Claw as not being a good holder in some conditions (sand where all of the others seemed to be almost equal). I had a similar experience when I winched a 10 Kilo Bruce back to the boat (was going to use it for a spring in coral sand). Tried different places in the harbor, huge scope, little scope--did not work. But one place only..Danforths were working very well.
There are no strain gauge data (since this is an amateur film). So we don't have any idea how much 3000 RPM in reverse on a small Sailboat engine, equates to the 5,000 lb bollard pull on the tug or RV vessel.
I came away with an affirmation of the Bruce/Claw as not being a good holder in some conditions (sand where all of the others seemed to be almost equal). I had a similar experience when I winched a 10 Kilo Bruce back to the boat (was going to use it for a spring in coral sand). Tried different places in the harbor, huge scope, little scope--did not work. But one place only..Danforths were working very well.