I am a commercial troller (47' steel hull) in Alaska, and I see many of my friend's boats in this video. You are correct, we are creatures of habit in the anchoring regard, but for good reason. The Fjorford and a 5-10 fathoms of heavy chain is the gold standard in our fleet (I have a #8 on my bow roller, attached to 10 fathoms of 1/2" chain, followed by 50 fathoms of 3/8" chain, followed by 50 fathoms of 5/8" Samon Superstrong double braid). My backup anchor is a homemade Northill as you see on a few boats in your video. It is terribly inconvenient to deal with, and stays lashed on top of the wheelhouse with 100 Fathoms of line attached, ready for emergency deployment. I've never needed it. Very often, we either anchor on rocky bottoms in small anchorages, and with very little swing room if the fishing is good (meaning there can be a lot of boats in a small anchorage area), or on small ledges we can just get our hook to stick on. Most anchorages are fairly well protected, else we just drive further offshore and drift overnight. Our rocky bottom anchorages are very compatible with the Fjorford, but I have found the Fjorford lacking in silty mud. During a sustained 50 knot, 70 knot gust event in Kanga Bay, I drug repeatedly until I finally reset the hook over a rock hump in the bay and held fast. The other time was in a 40 knot sustained event in Torch Bay, a notoriously bad bottom for our fleet, and drug all night long, necessitating several resets. I have considered having the fluke modification done to my anchor (Kolstrand, ie., Intergrity Machining in Marysville, WA, does it for our fleet) but have talked with several old salts who feel the additional holding in silt and sand isn't worth the holding power in rocks that is given up. I anchor between 75 and 150 times a year on average, and trust my and my crew's life to the Fjorford up here. I know the conditions where the Fjorford isn't optimal, and try to avoid those very few situations that play to its weaknesses. When caught, as I have been, I just set anchor alarms and nap lightly until the tempest is over. Choosing another anchor means changing what works well now and has worked for generations. So why change?

Thanks for this video. I've been wondering about the Northill anchors.

Awesome stuff. Shocked at the number of wooden commercial vessels out there in the PNW! The east coast here is mostly FG commercial boats with very large-fluked Danforth anchors for the mostly sandy bottoms around here. One reason to paint the anchors along with the boat is to prevent rust streaking from an unpainted anchor from marring your nice new paint job!

Perhaps the stockless anchors are still popular on the older and larger craft because a very heavy anchor with comparatively low holding power might ideal for drudging (holding one anchor just in contact with seabed to reduce swinging on the main anchor) and for control when going astern before bowthrusters became the norm. As a child, I remember seeing cargo ships coming up our local river astern while dragging the bow anchor at a near vertical angle.

I see you focusing on power vessels in commercial sizes. They do seem to have different needs and anchorages than most SV. SV seem the most interested in changing with an expectation of improving. Trial by anchoring out regardless of storms is most telling. More than a few undersized lunch hook mains on vessels I've wondered they don't anchor out or cruise in hard conditions and have plenty $ to tie in marinas. A few I talked to had no expectation of riding any storm out.

Could you make more videos about Panope?

"I've never tested one of these (stockless) anchors, but I bet they are much like the Forfjord in that they produce perhaps very, very low holding power compared to modern anchors." - Steve Goodwin "The Navy stockless anchor has less holding power than an old fashioned anchor of the same weight and much less than today's lightweight anchors. ... The stockless anchor is used today only on large boats, but it is universal on ships where ease of handling and stowing by mechanical means is more important than anchor weight " - Earl R. Hinz In a light weight sailboat, I care a lot about weight to holding power ratio, which Steve covers in his videos. But then, I can muscle my anchors around if I need to. The need to manage an anchor without ever touching it, is one I don't think a lot about.

Those south winds that we’re all complaining about here in the PNW would sure be good for getting some real world numbers so we knew what sort of forces the wind and waves actually produce.

Possible thoughts on snubbers? Specifically regarding reducing the total shock load on anchors rather than taking the load off of a windlass. I am not so convinced of how useful they are in comparison to the catenary weight of my all chain rode. Recently helped a larger vessel set up a more complicated system than I would tend to want. Much research involved I still have more questions of value without load testing comparison.

Interesting. I wonder if the reason these vessels use older and more robust anchors is because they have a different kind of anchoring need. I doubt they spend a lot of overnights at anchor, or times where they want a set for a good strong blow. In those cases they would be more likely to tie up at the harbor, or would be motoring around into the weather. Instead, I suspect their needs are more of a temporary anchoring where they are near to controls if they ever did slip out of place. An interesting comparison would be a survey of boats that spend most of their time at anchor - such as full time cruisers. Not sure how to get that data, however.

Maaaan

Hi Steve, have you seen the video of the Fleming motor boat with a bent Ultra shank? See here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/lbR-hMdoqLKsiIk.html specifically have a look at 5:56 to see a completely failed shank on the Ultra.