Anchor new Gen is Roll Bar-Critical?

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Fortress

If a fixed-fluke anchor lands upside down on a very soft soil, will it be able to turn right side up with the fluke pointing downward into the bottom during initial setting?

In theory that should be no more likely that a mono hull sailboat coming to rest on the bottom, inverted, and for the same reason.
I can see at least one way it could happen though, if you were lowering the anchor slowly with some forward motion, it would touch down fluke sticking up and the forward motion could lay it on it's back, and if the substrate were soft the roll bar would just sink and not right the anchor.
However attempting to "set" the anchor with an aggressive force like hard reverse, it should fail and just drag.

On edit, I believe a roll bar is only effective in harder substrate, something that it will sink into would I think keep the rollbar from performing its job?

Nothing is fool proof, and any anchor has it's limitations due to design. Likely if I were in mud I would go for my Fortress, but if I were in big rocks, I wouldn't.

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by Copacabana

Anyone have the link to this thread? I have a Mantus and would love to use it without the roll bar. Thanks in advance for any links for further reading on performance after removing the roll bar.

Mantus Anchor without Roll Bar - Mantus Anchors

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Can you buy them fully welded?

Buy an Excel. Its welded, no bolts and Steve (PANOPE) videos seem to indicate what those of us who have owned the anchor already know, there is no better anchor. If you do need demountable, they do an Excel that slots together, again no bolts. And no roll bar.

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Only on there small dinghy anchor do they say you can remove the rollbar.
They also say this is only while fishing and they do not recommend that you leave to boat.

That is interesting, It suggests that even though the anchor may be well set and full dug in etc that the roll bar still has some role (pardon the pun) to play in keeping the anchor set? I would love to understand Greg's reasoning on that.

Originally Posted by downunder

Pelagic,

Interesting to note that Panope has tested most of these anchors and has recommended you consider a Sarca Excel.




There was fair a bit of discussion in the anchor war threads of a couple of years back if you have time to peruse. Those threads set the scene for some of the strongly held views that saw several participitants with other views leave this forum.

Originally Posted by a64pilot

While being a newbie myself, I define a new generation anchor as one that has a concave surface and digs in like a shovel, looks as if it were a digging tool.
That is probably too childishly simple, and such a simple concept that one wonders why it took so long?

Concave is NOT a guide to new gen or other. Concave or scoop anchor is one way to arrive at a solution, convex is another. concaves seem to need roll bars, convex not so much.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

Mantus Anchor without Roll Bar - Mantus Anchors

I've done a lot of anchor testing. In the process, I did some testing with and without the rollbar on the Mantus. I did not report on it--it didn't feel worthwhile to me--but I can say that what Mantus said is ecencially correct. It is actually very nearly impossible to get the anchor to land upside down when lowering, no matter how sloppy. Even if you just throw it, it lands butter side up.

However--and this applies to all roll bar anchors--if they get ups die down they are quite stable that way, particularly in mud.

How do they get upside down?

• 180 reversal. Very, very unlikely, but possible.
• Rocks. Quite likely. Rocks can flip any design every which way.

I would not do it. In fact, I added a roll bar to my 2-pound Mantus. For a dinghy it doesn't really need it. They are right about that. It absolutely works better with the cross brace cut out (less clogging, deeper set). But with the roll bar it is just a little more secure.

I smell another round of anchor testing coming. There are a few new ones out there with no data.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

I agree. Any new generation anchor that has a Concave anchor fluke like a shovel is much better than any plow anchor that is designed to push the seabed to the sides.

The roll bar just makes it set a bit faster.
.
.

Its interesting to note that the modern oil rig anchors such as the Stevpris mk6 and the Bruce FFTS PM, FFTS GP and DENNLA are not concave, being either flat or convex.

The amount of testing thats gone into these anchors is enormous, and if concave was better they wouldn't have changed from anchors such as the much lower holding concave FFTS Mk4 to the newer much higher holding flat or convex designs.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

While being a newbie myself, I define a new generation anchor as one that has a concave surface and digs in like a shovel, looks as if it were a digging tool.
That is probably too childishly simple, and such a simple concept that one wonders why it took so long?

I think one or more of the Anchor Right products (Excel?) is convex. Looks sorta like a Delta, although Rex is adamant it's not a plow.

FWIW, the SuperMAX is shaped pretty much like the bucket of a back-hoe... so I'd guess it qualifies for your definition.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Fortress is the only anchor I've ever used, which will set in really soft mud. Spade, Rocna, Claw, Delta, CQR, and maybe some other anchors I've owned and can't remember -- nada.

Nevertheless, it's good to have the Fortress to supplement whatever you use as a main bower. And not only for soft mud.

FWIW, the SuperMAX is excellent in soft mud. So much so that I moved our Fortress -- also excellent around here, but much easier to stow, use as a kedge, etc. -- to back-up status.

-Chris

[Pelagic]

What a wealth of experience on new gen Anchors

My cruising grounds is the Western Pacific and Coral Triangle Area.
The more exposed anchorages are made up of course sand and broken coral....

Would that affect your choice?

[bvander]

Yes the reason for the design was to expand market, but their design criteria was to have same performance as original Rocna. They recommend original Rocna for folks without interference issues because of cost, why recommend a higher cost solution when less expensive will work?

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Steve Bedford

I have always wondered what qualifies as a "new gen" anchor or not? Original date of patent? Original date of production? To my knowledge, that has never been defined, confirmed, or agreed upon. If one looks at the traditional anchor designs that were in operation for decades before the 2000's, we all pretty much know their names. Are the anchors that were designed (after a certain date) and not one of these traditional designs "new gen" anchors? That is probably its own thread!

Seems to me I was reading MAX reviews on the 'net somewhere -- specifically focused on slimy mud and hurricane holes -- by Cap'n Wil Andrews (that sound right?) in approx 2001 or so, give or take a year or two either way? I think we bought our first one at least by 2004, more likely 2003...

-Chris

[hamburking]

Rocna makes a model with no roll bar for bows that have no space for a roll bar:

The Vulcan | Rocna® Anchors

[barnakiel]

IMHO a design with a roll bar cannot be used without one. There must be something that makes the anchor dig the nose in when it lands on its side. In many new designs it is the roll bar.

Get a Spade. It seems to perfectly fit your existing hardware.

b.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Its interesting to note that the modern oil rig anchors such as the Stevpris mk6 and the Bruce FFTS PM, FFTS GP and DENNLA are not concave, being either flat or convex.

The amount of testing thats gone into these anchors is enormous, and if concave was better they wouldn't have changed from anchors such as the much lower holding concave FFTS Mk4 to the newer much higher holding flat or convex designs.

Snowpertrel,

You must understand this argument about convex/concave and ploughs/shovels is one that some have carried over from the anchor wars days.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Good point Skipmac
I am trying to quantity just how big the difference and are the ones without bars a significant improvement over the CQR?

I've use both the Can't Quite Reset and the Spade, and the difference is HUGE.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Its interesting to note that the modern oil rig anchors such as the Stevpris mk6 and the Bruce FFTS PM, FFTS GP and DENNLA are not concave, being either flat or convex.

The amount of testing thats gone into these anchors is enormous, and if concave was better they wouldn't have changed from anchors such as the much lower holding concave FFTS Mk4 to the newer much higher holding flat or convex designs.

Hi Snowpetrel, I think you will find the reasons for that are multifold but primarily because they are drilling deeper and finding soft sediment , or even slurry.

For those conditions, they are wanting them to present as much surface area as they can, when settling through the softer top layers in deep water.

Years back I did temp command relief on anchor layers in Alaska and Mexico.

Much shallower but I noted different anchors for different bottoms

[hugosalt]

Originally Posted by Copacabana

Anyone have the link to this thread? I have a Mantus and would love to use it without the roll bar. Thanks in advance for any links for further reading on performance after removing the roll bar.

If interest in anchoring with Mantus without rollbar see my post #18
where I go into my experience this past season anchoring with rollbar removed.
...in sand and mud.