If you give it enough rode the pull is linear. That's why.


You'd need a LOT of rode and it still would never be truly linear, Bob.
Even then it would never cover the shock loading due to long swells
combined with high wind. Did the tugboat back off then charge forward?
The test with a tugboat defines the anchor's abilities to some extent
but does not in anyway equal real world tests in various conditions.
The fact that Jeff found the anchor deficient in real world use means a
lot more than Teddy the Tugboat pulling on a 50-1 rode.

RB
35s5
NY


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...
If you give it enough rode the pull is linear. That's why.


You'd need a LOT of rode and it still would never be truly linear, Bob.
Even then it would never cover the shock loading due to long swells
combined with high wind. Did the tugboat back off then charge forward?
The test with a tugboat defines the anchor's abilities to some extent
but does not in anyway equal real world tests in various conditions.
The fact that Jeff found the anchor deficient in real world use means a
lot more than Teddy the Tugboat pulling on a 50-1 rode.

RB
35s5
NY


RB
35s5
NY


50:1 rode, if the rope was straight gives an angle of arcsin .02 = 1.15
degrees. Since the rope is catenary/hyperbolic the angle is less, the shank
lays on the bottom. Rope stretch is usually 10% under full load. 20 feet
water depth, 1,000 foot road, 100 foot stretch.

The tugboat test is a good one for testing relative holding power. Testing
with a tugboat under various conditions is good real world testing. The
conditions must be the same for different anchors tested otherwise the tests
could mean very little.

Don't forget the sea bottom plays a role too.

Mushroom anchors work very well with 1:1 rode in mud.

The tugboat test is a good one for testing relative holding power.


Relative holding power using a tugboat in conditions on the day of the
test. Anchors build reputations based on years of service on a variety
of boats and conditions. The tugboat test is interesting, but
ultimatley laughable as a primary reason to buy an anchor.
And the sea bottom could allow one anchor to get a better set and so
on. The tugboat test is loaded with problems.


RB
35s5
NY

Seems like a reasonable test to me. It would cover all conditions and all
possible scenarios, but it would be enough to make a reasonable comparison.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
. ..

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...
If you give it enough rode the pull is linear. That's why.


You'd need a LOT of rode and it still would never be truly linear, Bob.
Even then it would never cover the shock loading due to long swells
combined with high wind. Did the tugboat back off then charge forward?
The test with a tugboat defines the anchor's abilities to some extent
but does not in anyway equal real world tests in various conditions.
The fact that Jeff found the anchor deficient in real world use means a
lot more than Teddy the Tugboat pulling on a 50-1 rode.

RB
35s5
NY


RB
35s5
NY


50:1 rode, if the rope was straight gives an angle of arcsin .02 = 1.15
degrees. Since the rope is catenary/hyperbolic the angle is less, the
shank lays on the bottom. Rope stretch is usually 10% under full load. 20
feet water depth, 1,000 foot road, 100 foot stretch.

The tugboat test is a good one for testing relative holding power. Testing
with a tugboat under various conditions is good real world testing. The
conditions must be the same for different anchors tested otherwise the
tests could mean very little.

Don't forget the sea bottom plays a role too.

Mushroom anchors work very well with 1:1 rode in mud.

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Stud...nchortest1.htm

http://www.ussailing.org/safety/Stud...nchor_test.htm

http://www.noteco.com/bulwagga/press.htm

These tests seem quite reasonable.

Seems like a reasonable test to me. It would cover all conditions and
all
possible scenarios, but it would be enough to make a reasonable
comparison.


I don't think you understand, Jon. The test was already done with one
tugboat in one set of conditions in one area. If you think this is even
remotely enough to guage anchor performance then perhaps you can
explain why so many people, including Jeff, don't count on the Fortress
in real world conditions....and yet it did oh so well in the tugboat
test.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...
Seems like a reasonable test to me. It would cover all conditions and
all
possible scenarios, but it would be enough to make a reasonable
comparison.


I don't think you understand, Jon. The test was already done with one
tugboat in one set of conditions in one area. If you think this is even
remotely enough to guage anchor performance then perhaps you can
explain why so many people, including Jeff, don't count on the Fortress
in real world conditions....and yet it did oh so well in the tugboat
test.


RB
35s5
NY

I use an FX-23 with my Catalina 30, and it has held very well under real
world conditions. (I anchor mostly at Catalina Island and the northern
channel islands.) My anchoring is in mud and sand bottoms. I've not dragged
with it yet, but I am careful to let out plenty of scope and then set it
well with the engine in reverse. It's a fine anchor that provides more
surface area for a given weight while maintaining the necessary strength.
Like any Danforth-style anchor it may not be the anchor of choice while on a
single hook in conditions prone to large shifts in current, but I'd have to
say that even in those conditions my own personal experience has been good
with it resetting itself. Of course, an FX-23 is larger than the
"recommended" size for my boat, but it only weighs 15 pounds or so, which is
plenty easy to handle.

Just my 2-cents based on my use in real-world conditions.

--Alan Gomes

Doesn't anybody here know why the Fortress exists? It is aimed at a
very
specific market for which it is the best anchor on the market for it's
intended
purpose.

And that's what I said. Doesn't mean I'd use one for cruising in the
Carib. But it works for me because it's lightweight, works in the
Chesapeake and has held my boat all night through some nasty
thunderstorms. It's a quality product.

In article ,
Alan Gomes wrote:
I use an FX-23 with my Catalina 30, and it has held very well under real
world conditions. (I anchor mostly at Catalina Island and the northern
channel islands.) My anchoring is in mud and sand bottoms. I've not dragged
with it yet, but I am careful to let out plenty of scope and then set it
well with the engine in reverse. It's a fine anchor that provides more
surface area for a given weight while maintaining the necessary strength.
Like any Danforth-style anchor it may not be the anchor of choice while on a
single hook in conditions prone to large shifts in current, but I'd have to
say that even in those conditions my own personal experience has been good
with it resetting itself. Of course, an FX-23 is larger than the
"recommended" size for my boat, but it only weighs 15 pounds or so, which is
plenty easy to handle.

Just my 2-cents based on my use in real-world conditions.

How do you like the Catalina? Any problems? We're considering adding
one to our fleet.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Alan Gomes wrote:
I use an FX-23 with my Catalina 30, and it has held very well under real
world conditions. (I anchor mostly at Catalina Island and the northern
channel islands.) My anchoring is in mud and sand bottoms. I've not
dragged
with it yet, but I am careful to let out plenty of scope and then set it
well with the engine in reverse. It's a fine anchor that provides more
surface area for a given weight while maintaining the necessary strength.
Like any Danforth-style anchor it may not be the anchor of choice while on
a
single hook in conditions prone to large shifts in current, but I'd have
to
say that even in those conditions my own personal experience has been good
with it resetting itself. Of course, an FX-23 is larger than the
"recommended" size for my boat, but it only weighs 15 pounds or so, which
is
plenty easy to handle.

Just my 2-cents based on my use in real-world conditions.

How do you like the Catalina? Any problems? We're considering adding
one to our fleet.


--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jon,

I do like the Catalina 30. It's a decent boat. There are some definite
plusses and minuses to the design, but at this point all of the common flaws
are well documented and in many instances have been addressed by the factory
in the more recent boats. www.catalina30.com has quite a bit of information
on the boat, including what upgrades and fixes are recommended.

I have a 1987 MK-II, which is the year they went to a "T" shaped cockpit and
changed the exterior design of the cabin somewhat. The interior is mostly
the same as the older boats, but they reoriented the nav station to face
aft, using the forward end of the quarter berth as the seat. It's fairly
useless, actually, so expect to use the main salon table for spreading out
your charts if you get this model.

I do like the later boats better. One problem with the older boats is that
they have plywood underneath the bilge in the keel stub that's encased in
glass. When that is compromised the plywood can/will rot and requires
removal. The fix is to replace it will solid glass. The repair is messy but
not technically that hard. At some point in the late 80's (I don't recall
exactly when) Catalina got rid of the plywood and went to all glass. Another
thing to check is the wooden block under the compression post. That, too,
can be prone to rot and require replacement. Fortunately, it's quite
accessible in the forward part of the bilge and so is easy to inspect.

Most of the systems are pretty easy to access, particularly the engine. That
makes maintenance much simpler than on many boats. Catalina put different
engines in the boat at different times, but many of them have the fresh
water cooled M25-series by Universal (Kubota). These are great engines. The
raw water cooled Universal 5411 used in some of the earlier boats is
significantly underpowered, and being raw water cooled is not a good
candidate for rebuilding. Try to find one with an M25XP and you'll be happy.

Build quality of the boat (hull, deck, rigging, etc.) is pretty good--not
exceptional but "decent." As I said, later models will have certain
structural upgrades already incorporated from the factory, such as improved
chainplates for the lowers. On older boats it's common for previous owners
to have made the mods themselves, and Catalina sells kits for some of these.

The boat sails pretty well. It doesn't seem to have any really bad habits
that I know of. I have a standard rig (the shorter one), but this works well
for where I sail (San Pedro, aka "Hurricane Gulch"). Where you are I think
either rig would be just fine. It's a big, fat, moderately heavy boat. It
has a lot of initial stability because of the significant beam. It's
reasonably well balanced if you sail it right. I'd definitely avoid the
models with a wing keel as they won't go to weather worth a darn. From my
experience with the boat I'd say that it has a pretty "active" helm; it's
not the kind of boat on which you can just lock the wheel and go below for
any period of time. It is not as sprightly as the Lapworth designs I've
sailed and owned from the same era. I'd say it's a good sailing boat but not
exceptional.

The interior is positively cavernous, which is the upside to all that beam.
It's a very sensible layout and quite comfortable at anchor. I'd give the
interior high marks.

Hope some of this helps. You might also want to check out the Catalina 30
list on Yahoo, which has many knowledgeable owners participating and is a
wealth of info.

Take care,
Alan Gomes