Anchor setting Videos

[Nomad Willy]

Don'
Gotta be married to do that in OZ as I recall ....
But perhaps they are ....

 

[BruceK]

....there is something I love about looking out through the murk in a bit of nasty seaway and seeing that businesslike roll bar, proudly up the front, looking a bit like a large gun-sight, or a metal figurehead, and one that says, "don't mess with me, you'll come off second best". Not that I ram people...

For enhanced threat effect, find a way to mount the Super Sarca (or any "similar" type anchor) with the triangular "blade" pointing forward.
We could be getting a tad off course here. Time to drop anchor? One that holds well, of course.

 

[Peter B]

Pete, I think you and your Sarca need to get a room!

You mean join Mark and his Coot, Don..?

 

[Moonstruck]

You mean join Mark and his Coot, Don..?

Something like that.

 

[Panope]

 

[MurrayM]

You da Man!

Are you thinking about giving the Manson a 'down turned' toe? I bet that might be enough to get the tip to start engaging with the bottom when its being dragged on its side.

How far north are you planning on going this summer?

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve,
Now you're really having fun.

Cutting off the upper slot material was my next mod. Beat me to it. But I didn't know the strength of the metal so assumed I could make the shank weaker. And I've got too many other projects ... working on my Wabasto fuel system now. Stupid me I picked the wrong jug and poured some anti-freeze in the tank .. then (still in the dark) ran the heater. Taking the whole fuel system apart and cleaning. Got the tank spotless and going to the boat to deal w the rest.

A month or two ago I cut of about 80% of the heart shaped thing on the fluke tip. See pics. Manson (I decided) thought they needed a bit extra surface area at the tip and I thought that's one of the reasons they scored so high on short scope. The Same thinking led me to the wide chisel tip on my ex XYZ. Also wanted to get the fluke tip edge at a more advantageous angle to penetrate the bottom more aggressively.

Now I'll cut the upper slot part off my Supreme/Hogback shank. Thanks for the research help.

I think your next mod should be to flatten the fluke curvature. I suspect that Manson put more curvature in the fluke to accommodate the mounting points for the roll bar. At this time I believe that to be mistake. The substrate compacts itself between the turned up fluke and the shank .. not the RB and the shank .. as your post implies. But That would take some time to do as the RB will be involved.

Steve,
Notice the heart shaped tip in pic #1 and it's near absence in pic #2.
As to pic #3 it shows the extreme (appropriate for this anchor) hollow area below the greater part of the shank and the "sharpness" of the corner of the tip when the anchor is on it's side. I suspect (as I did w the SARCA) that the anchor usually set sitting straight up .. not on it's side like a Rocna ect. However I suspect that the XYZ sets typically on it's fluke bottom.

 

[sunchaser]

Our newly installed 40 kg Vulcan has performed superbly as compared to the Bruce it replaced.
- dropped without having to manually nudge it
- retrieved effortlessly especially when coming over non pulpit bow roller
- set quickly in Ganges Harbour mud
- when doing a backing down test it dug in and held well
- in changing direction 180 degrees at least 6 times it did not budge
- I'm sold

Priced right, fits, everybody looks at it and no ugly roll bar.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Murray,
I personally think a turned down fluke tip is not an asset for an anchor setting on it's side. The fluke tip bent/turned up not down would be best for on it's side performance. However the Excel dos'nt seem to suffer from the down turned tip. Can't explain that except that ARA may have started w the turned down tip and noticed it worked good anyway and retained the feature sort of a brand identity thing.

 

[Panope]

Murry:

Since the anchor drags with a severe list, down turning the toe will not point it 'down' much. If/when I continue, I might try and create a tip that has a horizontal chisel shape (horizontal when the anchor is tipped on it's side).

So far, I have a just a one week trip planned in June. Probably won't make it past the gulf islands. Later in the summer or fall I would like to go further - we'll see how it turns out.

Eric:

Flattening the fluke might be taking things a little too far. I do not want to turn the anchor into a cobbled mess.

Steve

 

[dhays]

Good to hear about how well the Vulcan has been working for you. The price of the Vulcan is sure good, compared to the Spade. I am kind of waiting to see what the cost of the Sarca Excel might be if they get a NA Distributor.

I will need an anchor without a roll bar.

 

[Rebel112r]

Dhay. Get a big enough anchor and it will fit over the sprit.

 

[sean9c]

Have you thought about filling in the hollow on the sides of the blade? Basically making it a straight line from the tip back to the widest point where the roll bar attaches. The blade looks narrow forward. When the anchor is on it's side, (3 points, shank tip, blade tip and roll bar end) this hollow is really reducing the blade area forward. Filling in that hollow would increase tip weight and blade area forward. Also noticed how long the shank is (front to back) where it attaches to the blade. When the anchor is upright you don't care, when the anchor is on it's side the shank is more parallel the bottom. You wonder if sometimes when the anchor is on it's side that the shank is sort of skidding along the bottom making it harder to get penetration. I wonder in filling in that hollow and just getting that area down into the bottom when the anchor is on it's side would help the anchor get upright quicker

 

[Panope]

Sean, I believe the purpose of the 'hollow' in the side of the fluke is to place MORE weight on the tip. Filling in the hollow would possibly make matters worse, not better.

Also (and I should have made this clear initially), I do not want to substantially change the Manson Supreme. The anchor is an excellent design that performs brilliantly in many ways. I wish to ONLY make small 'tweaks' that do not negatively affect the great properties of the anchor.

Rather than make large modifications to the Manson Supreme, I would prefer to develop an entirely new anchor.

Steve

 

[Nomad Willy]

Dave,
When people use an anchor they usually only find out how well it works for them. Basically under benign conditions. Tom (you seem to be adressing him however you didn't say so) has used a Bruce for many years in Canada and SE Alaska. And has recently expressed his satisfaction w the Bruce. The Vulcan performing well for Tom on a few occasions is not much of a test of performance ... Other than the ability to set and his Bruce did well at that for years.

That said I like the Vulcan a lot and could possibly buy one if I liked the company more but these are the guys that gave us mild steel shanks a short time ago. If Manson's, Excel's ect ect were not availible it would be different but a company w an honesty record that bad is to be avoided in my book. But lots of people are still buying Exon gas.

So Steve,
When are we going to see the new Panope anchor? BruceK has been telling me for years to quit modifying others products and design my own anchor. I actlally am leaning a bit that way now but have several more mods planed for the Supreme and XYZ.

 

[dhays]

Dave,
When people use an anchor they usually only find out how well it works for them. Basically under benign conditions. Tom (you seem to be adressing him however you didn't say so) has used a Bruce for many years in Canada and SE Alaska. And has recently expressed his satisfaction w the Bruce. The Vulcan performing well for Tom on a few occasions is not much of a test of performance ... Other than the ability to set and his Bruce did well at that for years.

Good points of course, but even well done tests are a limited representation of how the anchors will be used. Steve's tests are great, but still only representative of those sea bed and water conditions. Having said that, even though testing is not perfect, it is better than anecdotal reports.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Dave ...... A lot better.

 

[psneeld]

Goes to show you anyone with a welder is an anchor maker...

Why worry about certs and all that...

 

[Panope]

Eric, Do not hold your breath!

My motivation to make an anchor is for my own personal hobby interest. Since there is no (ok, not much) desire to mass produce or to make money, the design could use 'inefficient' construction technique (only need to make one). This means I could potentially come up with something substantially different than what is currently massed produced.

The problem is, I have not yet dreamed up a new or novel concept (believe me, I am trying). I have little motivation to simply re-create an existing design.

The ultimate goal would be to design an anchor that is better than ALL of the anchors that I currently possess. A very tall and arrogant ambition, I would say. Certainly, the makers of the best anchors have devoted great portions of their lives to their craft and I am just an anchor 'newbie' by comparison.

I do realize that I am in the somewhat unique position of being able to quickly test (and compare) prototype anchor setting performance. To me, that is half the battle of anchor development.

Steve

 

[Nomad Willy]

Steve,
The designers of the 1952 Buick could have said "hey, they've been building Buicks for fifty years so how can we improve of that?" ......

But indeed a lot of good minds came before us. The designer of the XYZ is/was on the right track by minimizing the parts not directly involved holding the boat. Like the shank. The first XYZ I had (the first on the market (that I know of)) had a very serious setting problem that the current Extreme does not. My next mod for that anchor is to widen the center of the fluke and make my chisel point narrower.
As to the Supreme .. flatening it out some would be good but I need to go into the think tank and see if I can figure out if that would be likely to jeopardize the setting performance. And I intend to re-do the fabrication on top of the shank .. making it shorter .. Not as tall. But if I cut out the upper slot bar as you did (and I intend to) I'll just have to do it twice. My Supreme is already light on the top because of the RB removal. Taking weight out of the upper shank will do that as well of course. Fun stuff.

 

[BruceK]

Can I sound a note of hesitation on the mixing of testing and modifying, of anchors. I see that modifying one that has performed badly might be worth doing to see why, akin to a post mortem, but it seems to me that to date the manufacturers have bowled them up, and they got tested, objectively. Introducing another aspect is questionable,imo.
Once you effectively start telling manufacturers how they should design their anchors after modifying and retesting, in a way you are competing with them or arguing with them. If that happens the pure objectivity of repeated as identical as possible standardized testing can get lost, and to my mind that could have negative effects on the so far impressive objective nature of what has been so well and generously presented on TF.
I would not like to see that placed at risk.

 

[Mako]

Can anyone here rate their homemade anchors? I have a Danforth-type anchor made by a local shop and it is tough to dig into the hard stuff here. However the blades are really blunt so I'm thinking of grinding them sharp so see how that helps. Once it's dug in however it holds extremely well.

 

[Panope]

Can I sound a note of hesitation on the mixing of testing and modifying, of anchors. I see that modifying one that has performed badly might be worth doing to see why, akin to a post mortem, but it seems to me that to date the manufacturers have bowled them up, and they got tested, objectively. Introducing another aspect is questionable,imo.
Once you effectively start telling manufacturers how they should design their anchors after modifying and retesting, in a way you are competing with them or arguing with them. If that happens the pure objectivity of repeated as identical as possible standardized testing can get lost, and to my mind that could have negative effects on the so far impressive objective nature of what has been so well and generously presented on TF.
I would not like to see that placed at risk.

Bruce,

Your concerns are completely valid.

I'll add that my posting the Modification video just about guarantees that no manufacturer will send me another anchor. And that is just fine.

Because deep down, I am not an anchor tester. I am just some dude that is looking for answers to MY questions.

Steve

 

[psneeld]

Most experienced folk I know have ground their tips on Danforth style anchors.


The good news is they set better in weed. The bad is they impale larger shells more easily and wont set at all then.


As far as modifying anchors and worrying about manufacturers.


I stopped believing standardized testing years ago. I started dealing with long distance, frequent anchoring cruisers and got a better feeling about anchors than any test ever gave me. With the internet only backing what these real cruisers had said...my mind was pretty well made up and not surprisingly so loosly verified by some tests, and now clearly seen on our very own setting videos.


While not everyone is the "Wright Brothers" turning bicycles into airplanes...I say modify away...test however you can prove to me your designs/mods are better and we are all better off.


I highly doubt what I have seen and read so far (other than manufacturer interest is the anchoring videos for good reason) will change much in the anchoring world.

 

[Art]

Can I sound a note of hesitation on the mixing of testing and modifying, of anchors. I see that modifying one that has performed badly might be worth doing to see why, akin to a post mortem, but it seems to me that to date the manufacturers have bowled them up, and they got tested, objectively. Introducing another aspect is questionable,imo.
Once you effectively start telling manufacturers how they should design their anchors after modifying and retesting, in a way you are competing with them or arguing with them. If that happens the pure objectivity of repeated as identical as possible standardized testing can get lost, and to my mind that could have negative effects on the so far impressive objective nature of what has been so well and generously presented on TF.
I would not like to see that placed at risk.

Bruce - I see your point and agree with you... to a point.

In that:

1. It seems relevant the testing of already manufactured, retail marketed, generally accepted boating industry anchors should be performed on a per design objective basis comparing one to another's setting, holding, resetting, re-holding capabilities, at various rode scopes and in similar sea bottom conditions... until all have had chance to perform as best they can. Such as Steve has amply (thankfully) preformed.

2. Once most if not all generally available and publically accepted anchors have undergone Steve's test procedures (which I believe most have) I sort of feel it incumbent upon the tester to see if he can improve the best of the lot for setting and other capabilities. With Steve being so deeply immersed (pun intended) into his anchor test sequences and anchor design profiles there is probably no better hands-on boater who could offer suggestions for maybe even better design on what were found to be "best" anchors.

3. I do not feel that it is worth time to try and perform design improvements on what have already proven to be not too good anchor
designs. Horses to finishing last in a big race usually get put to pasture.

4. IMO it is up to Steve, a consummate anchor capability researcher, as to whether or not he feels (sees) ways to improve any anchor's designs. And, I feel he maybe should keep his design improvement attempts and failures and successes out of public knowledge... at least until he has truly improved the design basis in some measurably important way. Then I believe that Steve (if he desires) may like to contact the anchor manufacturer (possibly travel for face time) regarding his ("under-wraps") video documented improved design on that anchor... i.e., to have a private "powwow" with the manufacturer; if you get my drift (yup - another pun!). Of course, if Steve simply wants to altruistically provide his researched and recommended anchor design improvements for all to see and ponder in open forum such as TF - that too is just fine!

 

[Nomad Willy]

I just think about them and modify them because I like to.

 

[sean9c]

Seems to me that Steve is testing anchors just because he's curious to discover how and why they work and he's been generous enough to post his results to benefit the community. The same thing in modifying an anchor, he's curious to see if it works. I'm surprised at some of the responses to his modifying anchors. It's Steve's program, he gets to do what he wants. Please just keep posting videos so we can all learn.
Also, if I was in the anchor designing business I'd be watching these videos and gathering info anywhere I could to help with my designs, You can always learn something.

 

[Old deckhand]

I have enjoyed this thread very much. The anchor design appears to headed in the direction of an anchor that can penetrate most bottoms, stay upright, greatly reduces the risk of the "Bruce rock" by attaching the shank closer to the tip and has a wide fluke for holding in soft bottoms. These are the same reasons I like the Boss.

 

[Old deckhand]

I might add that the Boss has no roll bar for easy roller storage and is weighted for easy deployment.

 

[Anchor Brian]

I'll add that my posting the Modification video just about guarantees that no manufacturer will send me another anchor. And that is just fine.

Because deep down, I am not an anchor tester. I am just some dude that is looking for answers to MY questions.

Steve

Steve,

I would be glad to send you any of our anchor models for further testing or other means of torture and possible modification.

Years ago a US Navy guy called us with some questions about using Fortress anchors with the "port security barrier system" which is basically a fence that can be deployed around a Navy ship while in a foreign harbor to prevent another USS Cole-type of terrorist attack.

Per their calculations, the anchors which secured this fence had to be able to withstand an immediate shock load from stopping an 8,000 lb boat traveling at 60 mph.

During the conversation, he mentioned that they were familiar with our largest anchor, the FX-125 (I know it is on their LCAC), which he said was a "$1,000 anchor that we made into a $10,000 anchor," but he would not elaborate on what they were doing to it or how it was being used.

The point being is that anchors can be all modified for improvements, but as Psneeld alluded to, there are going to be compromises / trade-offs, such as a sharper anchor might result in it being structurally weaker, or less weight distribution can result in an unbalanced, more unstable anchor on the sea bottom.

Best of success with your ongoing research,
Brian