Anchor Surface Area Comparison - Manson Supreme vs CQR

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Therapy

This thread is from 2007 with 3643 views and 11 replies, all from today.

Yikes. Someone should PM Maine Sail and let him know we finally answered his question.

[Steve Thompson]

Before this thread goes completely over the top , should'nt you be using a Rocna for primary anchor a Rocna for secondary anchor a Rocna as a stern anchor and just in case all else fails a Rocna spare in storage
cheers Steve

[Marqus]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

The CQR, well, it just collects dust along side my aluminum Spade A-80 because they just can't compete with the Manson or the steel (..Spade)

I assume from the above quote that Maine Sail is saying that an Aluminium Spade performs worse than a Steel Spade of the same surface area.

In this instance (Spade Alu vs Steel), a factor other than pure surface area must be responsible.

If the geometries are the same, is it simply dead weight difference, or is the distribution of the weight significant?

I don't have Spade anchors so I can't check, but you would think that the weight distribution of the Alu Spade would be "more" concentrated in the tip than the Steel Spade (for argument's sake, 50% of the weight may be in the tip, whereas for the steel, say only 35% may be in the tip).

If this is the case (assumption), what would explain the poor relative performance of the Alu Spade (if surface area is the same, and weight distribution is more concentrated in the tip for the Alu)?

[Fortress]

Awhile back I asked Robert Taylor to assess the design of the roll bar anchors. Bob holds degrees in civil and ocean engineering, and he designed anchoring systems for the US Navy for over 40 years. He also wrote the anchor performance guides for the American Petroleum Institute.

To summarize, Bob stated that the huge roll bar would be a penetration inhibitor in harder soils, and I think that observation is difficult to dispute. As an example, it is difficult to imagine a roll bar anchor penetrating into rocks as well as a plow anchor without a roll bar like a Bruce, CQR, Delta or Spade. That roll bar would almost certainly provide greater resistance to the anchor burying deeper. The same for hard clay, hard mud, or hard sand.

Further still, I have reviewed tests from Australia, France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden in which the roll bar anchors did not perform as well as the older designs in a variety of other bottom conditions, and I believe that in a couple of these tests, the roll bar was cited as a possible reason why. I would be glad to e-mail these tests to you guys if you'd like, just send me a private message.

The above is why I believe that among the newer designs, the Spade should be a better performing anchor than the roll bar models.....but then again, the Sarca Excel from Australia and the Kobra from France, both of which are Delta copies, have been showing impressive results as well.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Marqus

I assume from the above quote that Maine Sail is saying that an Aluminium Spade performs worse than a Steel Spade of the same surface area.

In this instance (Spade Alu vs Steel), a factor other than pure surface area must be responsible.

If the geometries are the same, is it simply dead weight difference, or is the distribution of the weight significant?

I don't have Spade anchors so I can't check, but you would think that the weight distribution of the Alu Spade would be "more" concentrated in the tip than the Steel Spade (for argument's sake, 50% of the weight may be in the tip, whereas for the steel, say only 35% may be in the tip).

If this is the case (assumption), what would explain the poor relative performance of the Alu Spade (if surface area is the same, and weight distribution is more concentrated in the tip for the Alu)?

Wow guys a nearly FOUR year old thread!!!


Bottom line is the aluminum Spade of the SAME surface area as the steel version does NOT set nearly as well in hard bottoms. If you can't get it to set no amount of surface area will help much and it needs to be set before surface are helps... Once set they seem to perform the same..

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Marqus

I assume from the above


must be responsible.


is the distribution of the weight significant?

I don't have

so I can't check,

but you would think

If this is the case (assumption),
?

This prank is to show why anchor threads can be so fun.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Wow guys a nearly FOUR year old thread!!!


Bottom line is the aluminum Spade of the SAME surface area as the steel version does NOT set nearly as well in hard bottoms. If you can't get it to set no amount of surface area will help much and it needs to be set before surface are helps... Once set they seem to perform the same..

You are still alive!!!!!

Great!!!!!

If you ever come this far..........................................

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Fortress

The above is why I believe that among the newer designs, the Spade should be a better performing anchor than the roll bar models.....but then again, the Sarca Excel from Australia and the Kobra from France, both of which are Delta copies, have been showing impressive results as well.

Regards,
Brian

Fortress Marine Anchors

C'mon Craig, er, Brian... whew it's getting so I can hardly tell you two apart.. Always entertaining though...

I own two Spades a Manson Supreme and a Rocna among others. If the Spades were the better performing anchor they'd be on the bow of my boat and be my primary anchors, they have not been the better performers.

I know of no individual boat owner who has put more time into testing their own anchors in their own waters than I have. I view them as insurance and I want to know which ones I can trust and perform the best all round and I then chose the best as my primary.

All my anchors have been put through the paces including yours. Heck years ago I almost lost my boat to your anchor when I was using it as a primary and it failed to re-set, BUT, I still love the Fortress as my stern anchor. That event was my closest call to disaster with a dragging anchor.

There are currently two anchors I would choose to keep on the bow as a result of my use of them, and testing, and diving on them, and load testing them, and it's not the Spades, Delta, Fortress, CQR, Super Max or Delta. The steel spade is a hell of a performer but has not performed like the Manson Supreme or Rocna for me. At least in the testing and use that I have put them through in the North East the Spade are not the better performers.

The Rocna and Manson will someday be superseded and a better anchor design will come along, perhaps already has, but for now none that I own out perform them and I own a lot of anchors.

I suspect that my Fortress still has some of the highest holding power but I need an anchor that not only holds well but that also re-sets on 180 & 360 degree swings very reliably. I simply can't sleep with your anchor as a primary and I do like to get sleep now and then. As a secondary or stern anchor great guns, primary, not for me..

The only anchors I really don't like are my Supermax and my CQR's. I had a lot of hope for the Supermax.. The Delta is a decent product as is the genuine Bruce and the steel Spade but there are still performance differences between these anchors. I still like my genuine Bruce a lot but did drag it a few of times even though it was over sized and remained buried, though dragging. The darn things set and re-set well though so for 90% of the season it's a damn good anchor but I want a 35 pounder that covers all 100% of the boating year or as close as I can get.

I know Craig will probably hate to hear this but I have seen no discernible difference in performance between my Manson Supreme and my Rocna. If I lost one and had to buy another I'd buy either with no qualms.

Funny to see this thread again!!

[Dockhead]

We have deleted a couple of posts because they are based on a Commercial Vendor's comparisons of competitors' products, which is forbidden by our policies. Sorry for any inconvenience.

[sailorboy1]

Lets go back a little to the surface area item.

Do we have agreement that higher surface area equals higher holding once set?

If so do we think it scales: i.e. that 20% higher area equals 20% higher holding (once set).

If area is better: for 2 designs with the same weight do we think the higher area anchor would set about the same (it is after all the same weight)?

[Ziggy]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Do we have agreement that higher surface area equals higher holding once set?

Not completely. Another important factor is the geometry (angle and shape) of the buried portion.

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

If area is better: for 2 designs with the same weight do we think the higher area anchor would set about the same (it is after all the same weight)?

Again, geometry is an important factor.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Lets go back a little to the surface area item.

Do we have agreement that higher surface area equals higher holding once set?

mmmm . . . NO . . .. the shape of the surface area makes a difference. And in rocks for instance shape is probably more important that the total gross surface area.

If so do we think it scales: i.e. that 20% higher area equals 20% higher holding (once set).

mmmmm. . . . don't know .. . . . but essentially nothing scales linearly in the real world. I doubt this does.

If area is better: for 2 designs with the same weight do we think the higher area anchor would set about the same (it is after all the same weight)?

mmmm . . . NO . . . first, shape makes a difference in setting - just for instance I have found the roll bars catch on and don't set well in extremely heavy kelp. To a first approximation, tip weight seems to be one indicator of setting (better than just gross weight)

. . . . . .

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Do we have agreement that higher surface area equals higher holding once set?

Only if in an appropriate configuration, only if it isn't at the expense of strength so the anchor fails when overloaded, etc. The concave flukes of Spade and Rocna are quite superior to flat flukes which in turn are superior to convex plows.

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

If so do we think it scales: i.e. that 20% higher area equals 20% higher holding (once set).

No. Holding power scales with mass, roughly.

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

If area is better: for 2 designs with the same weight do we think the higher area anchor would set about the same (it is after all the same weight)?

No. Nothing is that simple. It totally depends on the design.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Lets go back a little to the surface area item.

Don, we swopped out a CQR copy with a Delta of about the same weight. there was a noticeable difference in surface area with the Delta having a much larger blade area.

The previous owner admitted some difficulty at times anchoring hence the change. We have never had a problem with the Delta. However, we tend to choose quiet anchorages in good weather as we see no point in sitting at anchor being tossed all over the place. We are also fortunate to have a miriad of harbours and marinas to choose from if the weather looks nasty.

Is surface area important? probably but only if the anchor can penetrate the seabed and make use of this. Deep soft ozzy mud would have us reaching for the Fortress, whilst the craggy rock and deep kelp beds of Northern Ireland, probably the old 3' tall fishermans anchor. Hard sand or heavy clay, the Delta.

Pete

[Kettlewell]

But, all else being equal, or at least as equal as possible, it seems that surface area is one of the most critical factors in determining holding power. The best example of this I can think of is to take two anchors with very similar designs and weights, but different surface areas. The two that come to mind are something like Fortress and a Danforth of the same weight, but because the Fortress has more surface area (for the same weight) it has better holding. I assume that is why something like the Fortress FX-37 is not called the Fortress 21, which is its weight. The idea is that the FX-37 compares favorably with the holding power of a Danforth 35-pounder. It seems to me that more anchors should tout their surface area bona fides. Again, I'm talking typical mud and sand bottoms that we find everywhere from Canada to the Caribbean, and in harbors over much of the world. I'm not really thinking of unusual situations like kelp, or rock, or coral bottoms, where anchor shape may be the most important factor.