Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Demonstration footage of boat anchors
Mic wrote:
The Bulwagga has three flukes mounted in an equilateral arrangement. This means there is no right way up Which would mean that is a good thing? Yes, of course. This would tend to support the statement that there is no one anchor for all conditions. Well, how many anchors do you want to carry onboard. Our ideal is a general purpose anchor that addresses the failings of the old traditional plows and claws, provides excellent performance in everything from very soft mud to very hard sand (all extremes), cuts through weed and grass, is strong enough to deal with being fouled or used with rock or coral, and so on. The argument of carrying a claw, plow, Danforth, and fisherman's, each to address the problems of the others, is nonsense nowadays, because it is possible to consolidate the weight into perhaps two anchors that will more reliably and safely meet all requirements. More may be carried as required, but are not needed to compensate for the poor aspects of the others. We know from experience that a Rocna will be happy in ALL conditions (except rock, for which this is no ideal anchor - use a grapnel and be prepared to lose it). But we are biased and you may choose not to believe us A kellet ought not be a substitute for scope but under certain conditions and reasons an anchors performance can be enhanced. So what? Of course it can, no-one is debating the fact that weight can provide a bit of shock-absorption and also decrease the rode angle - but not by enough to make it worthwhile. http://alain.fraysse.free.fr/sail/rode/dynam/dynam.htm and study the whole page, particularly sections 2 and 6. Gord May who you are aware of and is probably one of the most helpful and respected persons in the internet sailing community: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...read.php?t=276 "In heavy weather, I always deploy 15 Lb "Sentinal" (Kedge) weights, suspended a few feet above bottom." Gord May GordATBoatpro.zznDOTcom ~ (Requires Decription) I have read much of Gord May's ideas about anchoring, and much of it is very misleading and some of it just plain wrong. He is absolutely not an authority on this topic. http://www.anchorbuddy.co.nz/ "They... So the claim that Anchor Buddy makes "They almost double the holding power of the anchor and reduce the working load of the anchor by up to 50%." is false? It's an exaggeration. The ultimate holding power of the anchor cannot be increased by the use of a kellet, UNLESS it is really big enough in relation to the rest of the system. You have to understand you are talking about absolutes; i.e. fixed weights and scale. For example a 10Kg Rocna, well set, may hold up to a tonne of force. This is realistic. Assume you have appropriate rode. The anchor will cope with this, assuming the pull angle is reasonably low. Now the appropriate Anchor Buddy would be their 8Kg model. Do you honestly think that 8Kg is going to make the slightest bit of difference to said pull angle, when there is a 1000Kg strain on the rode? As you say it will make a bit of difference when the storm has passed, and there's only 100Kg strain on the rode. So what, you're not worried about dragging anymore. Hence, a kellet makes next to no difference to ultimate holding power. Now consider how much extra holding power an 18Kg anchor would provide, compared to the 10Kg. Or, if you have the area, add 8Kg more chain to the system, so increasing the scope. This faq reasonably addresses the issue of using a larger anchor and the practical aspects of a kellet. Thats not to say that a bigger anchor is not better, and how big is big enough isnt always a consenus. And I have read time and again that its not the weight of the anchor but its geometric design, but this too is often contradicted. It's both, and the focus depends on the anchor. Really weight is, or should be, less of an issue, hence why the newer designs such as ours put more emphasis on fluke area and dynamic performance. Consider how 10Kg weight- force (a little less underwater anyway) compares with 1000Kg rode-force, as in my example above, and you will see what I mean. And certainly there is no consenus on what the best anchor is, probably because there is no one best anchor for all conditions. So for the ultimate holding power the anchor has to match the bottom conditions. Consensus should not be the basis for any kind of scientific decision, especially not in a field where there are so many misconceptions and almost dogmatic beliefs. Get to the bottom of the theory, do your own research, get some experience, and make your own decisions. -- Craig Smith Rocna Anchors www.rocna.com Message posted via BoatKB.com http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cruising/200605/1 |
#22
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Demonstration footage of boat anchors
On Tue, 30 May 2006 03:52:55 GMT, "craigsmith via BoatKB.com"
u22396@uwe wrote: Mic wrote: The Bulwagga has three flukes mounted in an equilateral arrangement. This means there is no right way up Which would mean that is a good thing? Yes, of course. This would tend to support the statement that there is no one anchor for all conditions. Well, how many anchors do you want to carry onboard. Our ideal is a general purpose anchor that addresses the failings of the old traditional plows and claws, provides excellent performance in everything from very soft mud to very hard sand (all extremes), cuts through weed and grass, is strong enough to deal with being fouled or used with rock or coral, and so on. The argument of carrying a claw, plow, Danforth, and fisherman's, each to address the problems of the others, is nonsense nowadays, because it is possible to consolidate the weight into perhaps two anchors that will more reliably and safely meet all requirements. More may be carried as required, but are not needed to compensate for the poor aspects of the others. We know from experience that a Rocna will be happy in ALL conditions (except rock, for which this is no ideal anchor - use a grapnel and be prepared to lose it). But we are biased and you may choose not to believe us A kellet ought not be a substitute for scope but under certain conditions and reasons an anchors performance can be enhanced. So what? Of course it can, no-one is debating the fact that weight can provide a bit of shock-absorption and also decrease the rode angle - but not by enough to make it worthwhile. http://alain.fraysse.free.fr/sail/rode/dynam/dynam.htm and study the whole page, particularly sections 2 and 6. Gord May who you are aware of and is probably one of the most helpful and respected persons in the internet sailing community: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...read.php?t=276 "In heavy weather, I always deploy 15 Lb "Sentinal" (Kedge) weights, suspended a few feet above bottom." Gord May GordATBoatpro.zznDOTcom ~ (Requires Decription) I have read much of Gord May's ideas about anchoring, and much of it is very misleading and some of it just plain wrong. He is absolutely not an authority on this topic. http://www.anchorbuddy.co.nz/ "They... So the claim that Anchor Buddy makes "They almost double the holding power of the anchor and reduce the working load of the anchor by up to 50%." is false? It's an exaggeration. The ultimate holding power of the anchor cannot be increased by the use of a kellet, UNLESS it is really big enough in relation to the rest of the system. You have to understand you are talking about absolutes; i.e. fixed weights and scale. For example a 10Kg Rocna, well set, may hold up to a tonne of force. This is realistic. Assume you have appropriate rode. The anchor will cope with this, assuming the pull angle is reasonably low. Now the appropriate Anchor Buddy would be their 8Kg model. Do you honestly think that 8Kg is going to make the slightest bit of difference to said pull angle, when there is a 1000Kg strain on the rode? As you say it will make a bit of difference when the storm has passed, and there's only 100Kg strain on the rode. So what, you're not worried about dragging anymore. Hence, a kellet makes next to no difference to ultimate holding power. Now consider how much extra holding power an 18Kg anchor would provide, compared to the 10Kg. Or, if you have the area, add 8Kg more chain to the system, so increasing the scope. This faq reasonably addresses the issue of using a larger anchor and the practical aspects of a kellet. Thats not to say that a bigger anchor is not better, and how big is big enough isnt always a consenus. And I have read time and again that its not the weight of the anchor but its geometric design, but this too is often contradicted. It's both, and the focus depends on the anchor. Really weight is, or should be, less of an issue, hence why the newer designs such as ours put more emphasis on fluke area and dynamic performance. Consider how 10Kg weight- force (a little less underwater anyway) compares with 1000Kg rode-force, as in my example above, and you will see what I mean. And certainly there is no consenus on what the best anchor is, probably because there is no one best anchor for all conditions. So for the ultimate holding power the anchor has to match the bottom conditions. Consensus should not be the basis for any kind of scientific decision, especially not in a field where there are so many misconceptions and almost dogmatic beliefs. Get to the bottom of the theory, do your own research, get some experience, and make your own decisions. I appreciate the fact that you have participated in this discussion as the representative of an anchor company. And I have read many of your items in different forums. I think it was a good business decision to give one of your anchors to Dashew for his new boat to keep (he was using a Spade?) and thus evaluate. I expect his review will be unbias. Mic sailing since '67 -- Craig Smith Rocna Anchors www.rocna.com Message posted via BoatKB.com http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cruising/200605/1 |
#23
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Demonstration footage of boat anchors
I appreciate the fact that you have participated in this discussion as
the representative of an anchor company. And I have read many of your items in different forums. I think it was a good business decision to give one of your anchors to Dashew for his new boat to keep (he was using a Spade?) and thus evaluate. I expect his review will be unbias. Thanks. We didn't give Dashew a Rocna, he bought it. No for Wind Horse he originally had a Bruce knock-off made by a local NZ company that produce copies of just about anything, but we talked him into a Rocna. So far so good although he hasn't yet published a full review. He originally said he wanted a good amount of time and experience on different seabeds etc before commenting. He has always been a big proponent of Bruces, so any change in his position will be significant. -- Craig Smith Rocna Anchors www.rocna.com Message posted via http://www.boatkb.com |
#24
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Demonstration footage of boat anchors
"craigsmith via BoatKB.com" u22396@uwe wrote For example a 10Kg Rocna, well set, may hold up to a tonne of force. This is realistic. Assume you have appropriate rode. The anchor will cope with this, assuming the pull angle is reasonably low. Just wondered what type of rode would handle this force? On your site, you recommend the 10Kg anchor for cruising boats up to about 30'. What would teh corresponding chain/rode dimensions be to match teh anchor strength? The Rocna anchor looks quite interesting and seems to be a good idea, at least for some anchoring conditions. A few comments: 1. Testing by pulling with a truck with little or no scope angle does not really prove anything ( but is easier to film!) - Would it not be better to do a comparison of the anchors with a larger scope angle and typical rode/chain combinations. This may take a lot of testing using a boat, a diver, undewater cameras etc, but as you said "Get to the bottom of the theory, do your own research, get some experience, and make your own decisions". Seems to me that pulling an anchor along a beach with a truck is not the best way to make a scientific conclusion. - What happens if the bottom is soft mud or weed as we often see in the Great Lakes - Will the roll bar still work, or will it just sink in and not roll? I would like to have seen some comparisons of anchors setting in less ideal conditions. - The part showing the difficulty of getting the anchor unstuck is not too encouraging for those of us with bad backs 2. The web site does not give the size of the attachment slot for the shackle. Can you fit a shackle that will take a 1 tonne working load through the slot? In our area, most boats seem to have a Bruce or knockoff - But, more recently we see Delta or knockoffs. Nothing really works well in weed and soft mud but weight helps. The knockoff Bruces are a cheap way of getting weight, so I suspect that might be the driving force. In fact, I have just added a 15Kg Bruce type because my 10Kg Delta just does not work that well (10M, 5T cruising sail). GBM |
#25
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Demonstration footage of boat anchors
The angle of attack of the pulling force aside:
Isn't it funny how the other anchors start out in hard sand? You can see large parts falling off while the anchors are high speed dragged; that sand looks hard enough to drive on. The rocna starts out in a muddy pool of 'quicksand' that is so soft that even the pieces of mud/sand that the rocna piles up melt back into the surface immediately. Watch the left foot of the guy who tries to work it free after the test sink in. And the rocna gets a nice slow motion pull. All that doesn't necessarily make it a bad anchor, but this video shows a seriously bad test. The test proves two things we already knew: The most important factor in anchoring is the substrate, and good marketing requires artful lying. This was too blunt, mate, try again! |
#26
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Demonstration footage of boat anchors
On Tue, 30 May 2006 09:16:42 -0400, "Lakesailor"
wrote: For example a 10Kg Rocna, well set, may hold up to a tonne of force. This is realistic. Assume you have appropriate rode. The anchor will cope with this, assuming the pull angle is reasonably low. Just wondered what type of rode would handle this force? On your site, you recommend the 10Kg anchor for cruising boats up to about 30'. What would teh corresponding chain/rode dimensions be to match teh anchor strength? 1/2 inch (12mm) 3 strand nylon has a breaking strength of about 7,000 lbs and a Safe Working Load approximately 1/3 of that. Typical anchor rode for a 30 foot boat would be about 200 ft of 1/2 inch 3 strand, shackled to 15 or 20 feet of either 1/4 or 5/16 inch chain. That is enough rode to safely anchor in 30 ft of water. For a storm anchor I'd use 5/8 inch 3 strand nylon with 5/16 HT chain. Shackles rated for 2,200 lbs are easy to find. |
#27
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Demonstration footage of boat anchors
Lakesailor wrote:
Just wondered what type of rode would handle this force? On your site, you recommend the 10Kg anchor for cruising boats up to about 30'. What would teh corresponding chain/rode dimensions be to match teh anchor strength? Up to 33', at light displacement. Our sizing is conservative; in practice, even a boat of that size will need up around 70 knots of wind to generate something like a tonne of force. Wave action etc adds to the equation but if you restrict the model to considering only wind, you can see how we are talking about "extremes"; most boats, especially of that size, are not set up to handle those conditions. Accordingly you can't really expect the rode to be strong enough - and what about whatever the rode's attached to? Anyway, you would normally use 6mm chain with a Rocna 10, 8mm if you wanted. G40: 6mm - SWL: 350Kg, break 1000Kg 8mm - SWL: 800Kg, break 3200Kg so you would use the 8mm, or a high tensile grade of the 6mm, if you needed the strength. Rope matched to chain is usually stronger, so that's not an issue. 2. The web site does not give the size of the attachment slot for the shackle. Can you fit a shackle that will take a 1 tonne working load through the slot? Shackles: use the largest size the pin of which will fit through the last link of chain. So the chain dictates the size used, and the slot on the Rocna's shank is ample. A quality tested 8mm shackle for 6mm chain or 9/10mm for 8mm should not introduce a weak-point. The Rocna anchor looks quite interesting and seems to be a good idea, at least for some anchoring conditions. For all anchoring conditions, that's the point 1. Testing by pulling with a truck with little or no scope angle does not really prove anything ( but is easier to film!) It levels the playing field as I said above. The guy going on about shanks etc and scope affecting setting behavior is wrong and also missing the point. If you set your anchor using the relatively weak power of a sailboat's engine and prop, if you're using decent rode then the actual angle of pull you're placing on the anchor during setting is not the same as the scope; i.e. if you have out 5:1, the angle is not dictated by that trigonometry, but rather the catenary of the chain, which will make the pull surprisingly flat - it may even be horizontal, with part of the chain remaining on the bottom. Does not apply to powerboats with 1,000 HP using two meters of chain and a bit of string. - Would it not be better to do a comparison of the anchors with a larger scope angle and typical rode/chain combinations. This may take a lot of testing using a boat, a diver, undewater cameras etc, but as you said "Get to the bottom of the theory, do your own research, get some experience, and make your own decisions". Seems to me that pulling an anchor along a beach with a truck is not the best way to make a scientific conclusion. Yes, it would be better, but our video is supposed to be a simple demonstration of why the traditional plows and claws are bad, and simply why we've bothered coming up with the Rocna. A "proper" video would be an hour long and would still be hurt by the fact that we are not independent, so the validity of such a production would always be vunerable. So, we're not really the people to do it - although I would like to at least re-do our existing one at some point, to address some of its problems. - What happens if the bottom is soft mud or weed as we often see in the Great Lakes - Will the roll bar still work, or will it just sink in and not roll? I would like to have seen some comparisons of anchors setting in less ideal conditions. No it works fine, the roll-bar's radius is quite large for exactly that reason. Weed and grass are difficult for any anchor. It's also pointless testing or doing demonstrations, because every patch of weed is different to the next. The cynical viewer could claim we just did the test over and over again before it happened to work. The important factors are a certain amount of tip-weight, a low profile fluke with sharp edges, and dynamics that encourage force from the rode's pull to be transfered to the anchor's tip, so it cuts in. So the Rocna meets this requirement, and is a further improvement on the WASI or German Buegel, which is very popular now in the Mediterranean (weed city). - The part showing the difficulty of getting the anchor unstuck is not too encouraging for those of us with bad backs Well that was after over a tonne of force was applied to it - most of the time you'll never get it that stuck, and if you do, you probably won't mind a bad back as payment Although, it's not really a problem. Reduce the scope to 1:1 and leave it for a few mins, and wave action will work it out. Or if you're in a hurry power it out backward. In our area, most boats seem to have a Bruce or knockoff - But, more recently we see Delta or knockoffs. Nothing really works well in weed and soft mud but weight helps. The knockoff Bruces are a cheap way of getting weight, so I suspect that might be the driving force. In fact, I have just added a 15Kg Bruce type because my 10Kg Delta just does not work that well (10M, 5T cruising sail). GBM Deltas are generally good, except in soft mud. They simply don't have the fluke area. Peter used to have a 40Kg Delta on his boat, and incidents in soft stuff were one of the main reasons for designing the Rocna - and he had already eliminated other types over the course of his lifetime, selecting the Delta as the then best option. I am sure that a 15Kg Delta would have offered a similar if not better upgrade in your case. Understand your point about cheap weight, but you get what you pay for. But the simple solution is try a newer type - you don't have to put up with those problems any more. Bulwagga, WASI, Rocna. -- Craig Smith Rocna Anchors www.rocna.com Message posted via BoatKB.com http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/cruising/200605/1 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Upcoming article about a new boat | General | |||
Interesting boat ride on a 26 Twin Vee | General | |||
Need a Plan to Protect Boat from UV and Mildew All Year Round - 2 | General | |||
rec.boats.paddle sea kayaking FAQ | General | |||
Old Tyme Boat Brochure Photos, Amusing attire | General |