Ha! I can't even make a "what ONE hook to carry" video, let alone three hooks!!! But seriously, it really depends on multiple factors that will vary depending on the type of Boat, Cruising style, Global location, Availability of anchors, Personal finances, Personal risk tolerance, etc. Best I can say, is to have the "secondary" bow anchor be "complimentary" to the primary. Generally, this could mean having one Rollbar anchor and one Non-Rollbar anchor (Rollbar anchors are be better in Soft Mud). I think a key factor for the stern hook is portability, or light enough to row, or walk. This usually means Fortress or Danforth. Fortress are the lightest (per holding power) but are not as reliable at setting/resetting as the Danforth. Note that if you installed a SINGLE bow anchor that equaled the combined weight of any two "complimentary" anchors, performance will not suffer. This also solves the problem of having to decide "which anchor" to set based on imperfect seabed knowledge (what the hell is down there!)

Good to hear. I just ordered a Viking 10 for my 26' C-dory.

I will test any anchor (within reason) that Viking sends to me. No plans thus far.

For this test (and others) I was carful to drop and reset each anchor in "fresh" seabed. Scow bay is very wide and with a flat uniform bottom, so it is easy to find undisturbed seabed. Over the years of testing here, I frequently do "repeat" tests of the same anchor. "Repeatability" has always been very high.

I conducted holding power tests in the same seabed in August 2021. The 21lb. Viking held 690 pounds and the 20lb. Danforth held 1,295 pounds. Scope was 5:1 and the rode included 80 feet of 5/16" chain.

Ok, thank you for the info, that’s super helpful. 690lbs is pretty substantial. I looked and didn’t see the soft mud with the Viking but I’m sure I missed it somehow. Thank you for finding that!

It's complicated. The Larger anchors received a "straight line" reset, not a "180 degree" reset - so not exactly apples to apples. While the holding/wt. was similar between the the Vulcans, the smaller anchor had the advantage of using the same chain (80' of 5/16") and therefore had more catenary. Again, not apples to apples. That said, I agree that the Larger Vulcan seemed to behave better than the smaller version. Another example is the Excel, where the 17lb version behaves very poorly in the Soft Mud and the 50lb Version does much better. The Mantus M1 might be the opposite. It appears that the smaller versions might be a bit better than the larger. This needs to be studied/tested further to make an accurate conclusion.

@@flygoodwin Yes, we’re thinking about this in the same way. Any plans to bring the larger anchors to Sucia?

Generally, yes, the anchors "scale" fairly accurately. However, I have noticed a few cases where a different size will have a fairly large affect. I will need to conduct many more apples to apples comparisons (between different sizes) before I can give a definitive answer.

At this time, do not have a "go-to" anchor. I am trying to gain real world cruising experience with as many anchors as possible. So far I have cruised PANOPE with the following anchors: 33lb Bruce, 35lb CQR, 45lb Manson Supreme, 45lb Spade, 45lb Ultra, 50lb Excel, 66lb Buce, 55lb Mantus M1. I do not have access to the 45lb Vulcan that I tested previously. After discovering that many of the places that I like to anchor have rocky/impenetrable seabeds, I am leaning toward larger anchors.

Set an anchor drag alarm with a small distance circle. If the wind shifts after the initial set, "test" the new "set" by backing down (with the engine) in the new direction. If the anchor holds, reset the alarm to the new position. If the anchor drags - retrieve, clean, and re-deploy. Another option is to use a "specialty" anchor like a Danforth. This is almost a requirement for storms because none of the "fixed fluke" anchors that I know of (including the Viking) have "storm level" holding unless grossly oversize. I recently spent a sleepless night in that same Soft Mud seabed lying to a 55lb Mantus M1 (as good as the Viking). This is at least 1 size larger than Mantus recommends for the 40 knot winds that I saw. The anchor dragged 20 or 30 feet throughout the night - hence the sleeplessness. I should have put out a Danforth or Fortress.

Also, keep in mind that this was a perfect 180 degree reset test that resulted in mostly "back flips". A more typical wind shift will happen at some other angle, and will have a tendency to result in the anchor pivoting in the seabed and not releasing.

@@flygoodwin Got it. Any grander ideas? In the past you drilled some holes in a Rocna and got a better performance. (Sorry if I'm mangling the details.) Do you think there is a way to modify these roll bar-less anchors physically to make them perform better in soft mud? I hope you continue to explore the issue of soft mud holding. Why is it happening to this class of anchors? It seems the scoop is getting full of material and causes the anchor to turtle. Is the only way to get them back over to add a bar?

@@davidhopkins In the case of the M2, I believe the anchor would behave better in the soft mud if the "ears" (the protruding wing like things) had an extra piece of metal in the vertical orientation. Most Non-Rollbar anchors have this feature. As it is, when the M2 anchor is on its side, the ear is easily pushed into the soft mud and therefore does little to help the anchor become upright. It is likely that a Rollbar will perform the same function as these "vertical ear panels".

@@flygoodwin FYI I reached out to Mantus. They are aware of the issue with the M2 in soft mud. They said the first version of the M2 had to be recalled due to a significant issue in soft mud. The revised version (as of 2020 I think they said) still has a lesser issue. Their theory was the shank is not perfectly straight. I was impressed with the support. They got right back to me and offered to make things right.

The Mantus M1 has twice as much holding power as an equal weight Steel Spade. This was true for the 20lb "range" anchors as well as the 45 pounders. While the Spade does have a bit smaller dimensions than the M1, the primary reason for the performance difference lies with the design. In a nutshell, the Rollbar anchors are consistently far better than the Ballasted, Non-Rollbar anchors in my soft mud testbed I do not have access to an Ultra in the 20lb. range.

Só the Rocna did not collect mud on the Rollbar any more?

@@MARIOSAILOR1 The Rollbar Rocna has a "mud collection" problem in the SANDY MUD seabeds. You are commenting in a SOFT MUD video. Rollbar Rocna anchors have always performed very well in this SOFT MUD.

That's the million dollar question. In most cases, the anchors will scale up (or down) and have similar performance, but not always. For example, the 17 lb. Excel is at times unusable in the Soft Mud, but the large versions are reliable. While it is technically possible for me to conduct a round of testing with a group of 80lb. anchors, this is solidly out of reach for me in terms of time and money.

@@flygoodwin Thank you for your response. I realized you pay for all these Test out of your own pocket and I believe the community appreciates that. It is very helpful to have an unbiased testing of such a critical piece of gear. Thank you Michael walters