Mic stated:
So it is not of "ultimate"
use under those conditions. But who said it was?
Wayne was just trolling. The fact that by using a kellet in heavy
weather anchoring is that a chain is less likely to become taut than
without one except in extreme conditons and circumstances. In other
words a chain will go taut latter (if at all depending on the
conditons) with the use of a kellet or more chain than sooner without
based on experience and knowledge. At which point the concern would
not just be that of ultimate holding power but chafe, deck hardware
strenght, integrity of snubbers, etc.

An attempt to correct misinformation and ill considered advice is not a
troll, it is normal newsgroup give and take. If you can't take the
heat stay out of the kitchen.

As I stated earlier, 3/8 chain will go taut at about 1200 lbs. That is
not an extreme condition at all, if fact it is only about 20% of the
safe working load of 3/8 HT chain. If you don't believe me, show up
with your strain guages and I will provide the test boat. I routinely
set my anchor with approximately that load and have suffered no loss of
deck hardware or anything else. It is also about the force generated
by my boat in about 30 to 35 knots of wind, windy but certainly not
extreme. I have sized my ground tackle to withstand 50 to 60 knot
conditions, approximately the force of a full blown thunder squall. So
far, so good. A kellet would serve no purpose whatsoever except
clutter.

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

Glenn Ashmore wrote:
A few observations:

First I noticed a number of other patterns on the beach including a Spade
but no test results for them.
Second, beach sand reacts very different from ocean bottom. And most
important, the test were done with effectively infinite scope. Zero angle
between the rode and the beach. This works against fixed shank patterns
like the claw and the plow because it holds the shank down keeping it from
righting. Setting on a normal 4 or 5 to 1 scope the rode is angled upward
which lifts the shank and helps right the anchor. When set on a 4:1 scope
the claw type will set easier than almost any other pattern which accounts
for its popularity. It just doesn't have the holding power.

The Rocna does have good holding power and is relatively inexpensive but the
big hoop just compensates for poor balance.

Mic 67

Glenn, we did not include in our video the Spade, nor the Delta, SARCA,
Buegel, and a few others, mostly for reasons of time. That video is already
nearly 10 mins long, and we wanted to keep our message simple: old types bad,
new types good. The most popular types are plows and claws so that is what we
target.

Your comments about scope are just plain wrong. This is important. No anchor
is designed to work with a particular scope; on the contrary, all anchors
work better the more scope you have. The ideal is horizontal, hence the use
of chain or kellets to attain an angle lower than that of a straight line
between the anchor and the boat. We therefore use a horizontal angle in any
testing to provide a level playing field; otherwise those boaters more
experienced would object to a particular scope being used, as it may favor
(or hurt) a particular anchor.

The shank, articulated or not, has nothing to do with scope affecting how the
anchor sets. The Delta, Spade, and Rocna, all depend on what's called three-
point geometry for their setting; i.e. they lie on their sides initially then
screw into the substrate.

The "big hoop" does not compensate for "poor balance"; rather the roll-bar
ensures the anchor rights itself, without relying on a dedicated weight in
the tip, an inefficiency common amongst other designs.

"craigsmith" u22396@uwe wrote

Your comments about scope are just plain wrong. This is important. No
anchor
is designed to work with a particular scope; on the contrary, all anchors
work better the more scope you have. The ideal is horizontal, hence the
use
of chain or kellets to attain an angle lower than that of a straight line
between the anchor and the boat. We therefore use a horizontal angle in
any
testing to provide a level playing field; otherwise those boaters more
experienced would object to a particular scope being used, as it may favor
(or hurt) a particular anchor.

I stand by my statement about the rode. I spent 3 days doing in the water
tests in the BVI/USVI last year with several Bruce and plow patterns to see
how they stacked up with the Spade. Tests were conducted in the coral sand
bottom at Deadman's Bay, Peter Island, eel grass over sand at Setting Point,
Anegada, heavy marl in Coral Bay, St. John and soupy mud in Great Cruz Bay.
Rode was 3/8 HT. Using weighted pool noodles to mark the drop and set
points and steel tapes we recorded the setting distance among other things
at various scopes. As the scope was increased past about 4:1 the setting
distance increased significantly on almost every pattern. Most would not
begin to set until the shank was lifted off the bottom. On the other hand,
once set, holding power increased with increasing scope leveling out just
past 7:1 in all bottoms on most patterns with slightly more rode required in
the soupy mud.

I have plenty of stills of the results but no movies.

Going down again Wednesday with my camcorder but not hauling 3 anchors like
last time. We have 2 boats with 3 different patterns and I may try to bum a
couple more from the charter company.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Glenn said:

I stand by my statement about the rode. I spent 3 days doing in the
water
tests in the BVI/USVI last year with several Bruce and plow patterns to
see
how they stacked up with the Spade. Tests were conducted in the coral
sand
bottom at Deadman's Bay, Peter Island, eel grass over sand at Setting
Point,
Anegada, heavy marl in Coral Bay, St. John and soupy mud in Great Cruz
Bay.
Rode was 3/8 HT. Using weighted pool noodles to mark the drop and set
points and steel tapes we recorded the setting distance among other
things
at various scopes. As the scope was increased past about 4:1 the
setting
distance increased significantly on almost every pattern. Most would
not
begin to set until the shank was lifted off the bottom. On the other
hand,
once set, holding power increased with increasing scope leveling out
just
past 7:1 in all bottoms on most patterns with slightly more rode
required in
the soupy mud.


That's why my anchoring modus is to lower the anchor in a controlled
fashion to the bottom, let out a little scope to let it drag to proper
position, and then let out 3-1 (faster than the boat moves, but not to
pile the chain on top of the anchor) and stop. Nearly all the time,
the boat will drift back, and, the anchor set. If not, nearly always
(otherwise), it will shortly set, as seen by the chain going taut. I
just tripped on that by doing it, not by reading the reports; it seems
to work...

Then I let out my anticipated scope, usually 5 to 7:1, in a bunch
(faster than the boat moves). That causes the boat to veer off and
blow down. As the chain starts to tigthen, it pulls the bow back
around, and, again, I look for the jerk (not the one standing over the
windlass button).

If it comes up short and hard, I assume it's reasonably set, back down
to be sure, and then attach the snubber and let out the required extra
to allow the chain to hang straight down...

YMMV as to your method, but it's pretty painless and doesn't involve
backing down until it's reasonably sure to be set.

L8R

Skip

Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig KI4MPC
http://tinyurl.com/p7rb4 - NOTE:new URL! The vessel as Tehamana, as we
bought her

"And then again, when you sit at the helm of your little ship on a
clear
night, and gaze at the countless stars overhead, and realize that you
are
quite alone on a great, wide sea, it is apt to occur to you that in the
general scheme of things you are merely an insignificant speck on the
surface of the ocean; and are not nearly so important or as
self-sufficient
as you thought you were. Which is an exceedingly wholesome thought,
and one
that may effect a permanent change in your deportment that will be
greatly
appreciated by your friends."- James S. Pitkin

Interesting footage, I noted that the Rochna test seemed to be wetter sand.
The CQR type plow was identical to my experience, 50% failed launchings.
This was cured by my changing to a Delta, a non jointed plow. My CQR
knockoff, now resides in the garden.
Lee Haefele
Nauticat 33 Alesto
"Mic" wrote in message
...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61924924082592

" Demonstration and comparison testing footage of plow and claw type
boat anchors vs a Rocna. Includes interview footage ... all »"

8 Minutes 20 sec ,

Mic 67

Lee Haefele wrote:
Interesting footage, I noted that the Rochna test seemed to be wetter sand.
The CQR type plow was identical to my experience, 50% failed launchings.
This was cured by my changing to a Delta, a non jointed plow. My CQR
knockoff, now resides in the garden.
Lee Haefele
Nauticat 33 Alesto
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61924924082592

[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]

Mic 67

The Rocna wasn't tested in wetter sand, although this is a problem with our
video, in that it looks like it. The problem is the plow and claw are shot
from the same point as the Rocna (the camera doesn't move). Furthermore both
the claw and plow drag up the beach fairly quickly, and at this point yes the
sand is dryer - but not where they started.

I know that sounds like excuses but what can you do. See this pic that shows
the beach waterline and the location of the Rocna tests against those of the
others: http://www.rocna.com/images/remote/t..._waterline.jpg

For those that are interested the proper video is on our website (
www.rocna.com and select "watch the video"). All versions are higher quality
than the Google one, and there is a double-resolution one also if you have a
broadband connection.

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!