Anchor Keep / Sell Advice - What Would You Do ?

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Now I don't disagree with Gordie, just a comment. For the cost of a 33 Rocna, you can purchase a 55# Delta. Rocna is a fine anchor but pound/pound a 33 cannot compare to a 55 and size does matter even in anchoring.

Foggy

First - you're confusing pounds with kilos. He's talking 33 kilos. Second, a 33# Rocna 15 will probably out-perform a 55# Delta in most situations, and it probably has about the same fluke area, because much of the Delta's weight is in the weighted tip.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

First - you're confusing pounds with kilos. He's talking 33 kilos. Second, a 33# Rocna 15 will probably out-perform a 55# Delta in most situations, and it probably has about the same fluke area, because much of the Delta's weight is in the weighted tip.

The Rocna 33 weights approximately 72.6 lbs...plus or minus

[foggysail]

OK, the Rocna I quoted was posted as 33# but so it is kilos instead. And that is about 73#s and it is listed at eAngler for $946.97 plus shipping.

My 88# manganese steel Delta (and that is pounds) is selling at Defender for $681 or $265 less. I purchased mine last spring from them for $540 WHAT A STEAL back then! They must have realized the anchor was priced way too low for the market.

NO, I am not going to start another anchor war, its been discussed ad nauseam here. But 88# is still 15# greater than 73#s. I will go one step further, if the 73# Rocna was equal in bucks to the 88# Delta, I would stay with the Delta. Three RAH RAH RAHs do not make up for 15#.


SailFast:

Are you smoking something??? A 33# Rocna out performing a 55# Delta???? Your joking of course or maybe you own a 33# Rocna and bought into the hype!

Foggy

[colemj]

Originally Posted by foggysail

SailFast:

Are you smoking something??? A 33# Rocna out performing a 55# Delta???? Your joking of course or maybe you own a 33# Rocna and bought into the hype!

Foggy

Sailfast is speaking of projected fluke area in opposing contact to the bottom, which is what determines holding, and is why a 20lb Fortress is so tenacious compared to a 80# CQR.

Pic attached shows three anchors of equal weight. The pic is not mine - I "borrowed" it from another post on this forum from MaineSail.

Mark

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by colemj

Sailfast is speaking of projected fluke area in opposing contact to the bottom, which is what determines holding, and is why a 20lb Fortress is so tenacious compared to a 80# CQR.

Pic attached shows three anchors of equal weight. The pic is not mine - I "borrowed" it from another post on this forum from MaineSail.

Mark

Fair enough Mark but there is no Delta in that picture--

Foggy

[colemj]

I meant to add that fluke area is not hype - just physics. I suspect you would prefer your choice of a 88# Delta over a 103# log, which is 15# heavier. And I suspect you would prefer that Delta because it projects greater opposing forces to the sea bottom than a heavier log.

And how does a 19# Fortress get those amazing holding figures?

Mark

[foggysail]

Lets stay with fluke sizes and leave the logs to paper makers. I did not find the specifications for the Rocna----and I am not claiming there is anything wrong with that anchor. But the distance between the fluks on a 55 Delta is 16 3/8" . There is no specification on the total fluke area that is see in their specification. The 88 has a distance of 19 1/4".

Foggy

[H/V Vega]

For me anchors are like insurance policies. When things go wrong you cannever have too many. I could bore you for hours with stories but just have faith when you really are in it you will be glad you kept that anchor

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by H/V Vega

For me anchors are like insurance policies. When things go wrong you cannever have too many. I could bore you for hours with stories but just have faith when you really are in it you will be glad you kept that anchor

OK--- fair enough! I subscribe to the same policy. That is why I have an 88# anchor on my boat. Got to go--- getting late

Foggy

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The Rocna 33 weights approximately 72.6 lbs...plus or minus

You misunderstood too. 33# means a Rocna 15 kilo ("#" is the symbol for pounds)

[SailFastTri]

Originally Posted by foggysail

Fair enough Mark but there is no Delta in that picture--

Foggy

The Delta would be more or less similar in fluke area to the steel Spade of equal weight. However, the scoop shape of the fluke enables it to hold better, compared with the plow shaped Delta.

Yes I do buy into the "new generation" anchor hype. Fluke area, ability to set (bury), ability to reset when direction of pull changes, and shape of fluke all matter. It just makes sense.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by foggysail

NO, I am not going to start another anchor war, its been discussed ad nauseam here. But 88# is still 15# greater than 73#s. I will go one step further, if the 73# Rocna was equal in bucks to the 88# Delta, I would stay with the Delta. Three RAH RAH RAHs do not make up for 15#.

SailFast:

Are you smoking something??? A 33# Rocna out performing a 55# Delta???? Your joking of course or maybe you own a 33# Rocna and bought into the hype!

The Rocna 15 (33 lb) would in fact offer comparable performance with a Delta 25 kg (55 lb), particularly in the fairly wide variety of marginal circumstances where the Delta would fail to set or otherwise behave poorly.

The tested, documented, easily demonstrable performance ratio between the Rocna and Delta in hard sand is over 1.5:1 in favor of the Rocna.

Which comes as a relief to the Rocna designer, and myself, since collectively we probably still have more experience with the d**n Delta than the Rocna... the latter having been designed principally to deal with the problems we experienced with the former.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by colemj

See if you can pick up a used Spade for a good price during the next two years. It disassembles and makes a great primary anchor if you ever lost the Rocna for some reason.

For whatever it's worth, I had a Spade on my last boat. Rocna is my current main bower anchor. I like the Rocna, but I had even better luck with the Spade. It's a subjective comparison, because I was using the Spade on a different boat in a different ocean, so maybe not worth much, but the anchoring I did with the Spade was the best anchoring I ever did in my life. It bit and held first time, every time. The Rocna has been good, but not that good, although, that could just be different bottom conditions.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

The tested, documented, easily demonstrable performance ratio between the Rocna and Delta in hard sand is over 1.5:1 in favor of the Rocna.

Which comes as a relief to the Rocna designer, and myself, since collectively we probably still have more experience with the d**n Delta than the Rocna... the latter having been designed principally to deal with the problems we experienced with the former.

I replaced a Delta with a Rocna on my current boat and have experience with both anchors in the same locations and ground conditions. I would say that my experience supports what Craig is saying here. The Rocna is far superior to the Delta in all conditions, although the Delta was better than CQR's and Bruces I have used in the past.

I have had situations where I simply could not set the Delta no matter what and had to find another place to anchor. In the same place (West end of Worbarrow Cove for any UK sailors here) I have been able to consistently set our Rocna, although not always on the first try -- difficult, rocky bottom. Once set, however, even in this difficult bottom, the Rocna holds. I rode out a storm there once where other boats in the anchorage dragged, including one which dragged into my bow (the Rocna held both of us, then).

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I have had situations where I simply could not set the Delta no matter what and had to find another place to anchor. In the same place (West end of Worbarrow Cove for any UK sailors here).

Some interesting Geology there, a series of low sloping ledges, small boulders and kelp makes for a good novice dive site with lots to see without getting into trouble but little for an anchor to grip. Same for Kimmeridge but thats probably too shallow for you at low tide and full of novice divers at the weekends. Lulworth smooth round stones only a little better and the final bay Worbarrow (I think) has the wreck of a liberty ship called Black Hawk, oh and the discharge pipe from a former nuclear power station running through it. They blew the wreck apart to lay the pipe on the sea bed, but at least the seabed is sand and shingle.

Anyway back to anchors looks like its a vote for changing to a Rocna and keeping the Fortress as a back up.

Pete