Mother of an anchor

[ssullivan]

Rick, I have the same roller problem with my CQR. I have to watch carefully to be sure it is oriented properly (no swivel) as it comes up. I think this is a pretty common issue for all anchors designed to fit in the bow roller.


Interesting response, Craig. Thank you for elaborating for us. You make some compelling points, in my opinion. Also, I enjoyed the PDF. Confirms my knowledge of the CQRs and CQR copies. It would lead me to believe that the actual Rocna probably performs better than its copies in a similar way to the CQR and its copies.

(Sorry, Rick for a little hijack of the thread)

Craig:

With a complete and utter open mind, could you tell me what you think would be the best second anchor for me to buy given that I already own an expensive real CQR and can't afford to buy another anchor of this caliber until the CQR is worn out?

From what I understand, the CQR is known to work in sand, weeds and rocks. I think that leaves me less protected on slick, muddy bottoms. Of course, I'd surely take a Rocna and test it for you here in the States (ha ha ha), but realistically, I can't just go out buying new anchors until the old one is retired. I'm still trying to pay off the boat.

What would be the best anchor to compliment the CQR?

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by Vasco

Do you have a test similar to the one you posted (Rocna,Manson Plow, CQR) but with the Supreme and the Rocna. Would be interested in seeing that. Your methodology in those tests was fairly simple and would be easy to reproduce.

No - that test was independent.

Frankly we're not particularly interested in trying to prove differences in performance between a Rocna and a Rocna copy. We have enough trouble convincing people that a plow is a bad idea! It is quite adequate for us to focus on the construction and basic design principles, as they're comprehensible even to people who aren't engineers / metal workers.

Originally Posted by Vasco

I was concerned with the bow roller issue and the distributor agreed to take it back if it didn't fit. As you can see from the picture it fits quite well. One problem with this type of anchor is that I have to make sure it is oriented right before homing it in the roller and I have to take care that the roll bar doesn't hit the bow if the anchor comes up facing the wrong way. I don't use swivels on my anchors.

Several of Manson's mistakes will exacerbate this problem. The roll-bar is incorrectly placed, it being too high. The height of the shank then prevents it from righting itself once it's on the roller with the wrong orientation. Other anchors, including the Rocna, will right themselves quickly. If you look at more traditional designs such as Bruce and CQR, they all have fairly low profile shanks - one thing they got right.

Originally Posted by ssullivan

With a complete and utter open mind, could you tell me what you think would be the best second anchor for me to buy given that I already own an expensive real CQR and can't afford to buy another anchor of this caliber until the CQR is worn out?

From what I understand, the CQR is known to work in sand, weeds and rocks. I think that leaves me less protected on slick, muddy bottoms. Of course, I'd surely take a Rocna and test it for you here in the States (ha ha ha), but realistically, I can't just go out buying new anchors until the old one is retired. I'm still trying to pay off the boat.

What would be the best anchor to compliment the CQR?

If you are happy with the CQR, why change at all? Or you just want a spare/secondary? In that case, most modern anchors are going to be better options than the CQR, regardless of the bottom, so one should really replace it...

The CQR will work in sand, just as any anchor will. The harder the sand gets however, the less reliably it will set. In mud, again, anything will set, but then the CQR doesn't offer enough fluke area to sustain large forces. I disagree about weed, no anchor with dedicated tip-weight and blunt fluke edges works well in weed - you need a sharp low profile blade. With regard to rock, it doesn't make much difference.

This idea of "complimenting" is a bit misleading, because it implies acceptance that no anchor can be a good all-rounder, and that you need multiple types, each to address the flaws of the other(s). That now simply isn't the case - for our part, the Rocna will set in any bottom that any other anchor will, even so-called "specialist" types, and then hold at least as well. The basic design principle was not a sand anchor, or mud anchor, or weed anchor, but a general purpose anchor.

Since genuine CQRs are actually quite valuable, perhaps you could sell it - even its 2nd hand price would probably largely pay for an upgrade.

[Rick]

Keep in mind that Craig's degrading comments regarding plow anchors in general, and CQR specifically, fly in the face of success as though they did not exist in the real world over time with no acknowledgement, as such, much less in some abstract space in which he does criticise so vehemently. For all I know his anchor IS superior in ALL respects...I merely point out that any critical thinking reveals many defects in his comments regardless of his zeal and, therefore, one becomes suspicious of the rest of what he claims might potentially might be "real" and valid.

Go ahead, blast me for this revelation in thinking critically in the presence of emotional degradation for ANY AND ALL other brands of anchors that exist as though anyone laying to one would necessarily drift off into space in the slightest of breeze or challenging of bottom conditions! Yes, none of us could have survived yet here we are!

[ssullivan]

Thanks, Craig. I appreciate the response. I suppose I do subscribe to the idea that no anchor can be a good all arounder. Why? Because I have never run across an all arounder product that works as well as one specifically designed for a purpose. Hybrid bicyles (mountain bike/road bikes), motorsailers (sorry folks who own them - no ill will intended), dual purpose cranking/starting batteries, etc... In my experience, products that are designed for all around use seldom are good at any one of the specific tasks they must juggle.

So what is the fluke area of the Rocna that would be on par with a 45lb CQR anchor? I mean to say, I am using a 45lb CQR right now. It's what the boat came with, and it's what I'm using because that's what I have. If I replace my 45lb CQR with a Rocna, which Rocna would I select, and what would be the fluke area of that Rocna?

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

Thanks, Craig. I appreciate the response. I suppose I do subscribe to the idea that no anchor can be a good all arounder. Why? Because I have never run across an all arounder product that works as well as one specifically designed for a purpose. Hybrid bicyles (mountain bike/road bikes), motorsailers (sorry folks who own them - no ill will intended), dual purpose cranking/starting batteries, etc... In my experience, products that are designed for all around use seldom are good at any one of the specific tasks they must juggle.

Let's not convince ourselves that anchors are too complicated. Ultimately all they do is hook up on the bottom, it's not a particularly applied task - we're not going to the moon here.

It is a bit of a misconception that there are "specialist" anchors in the first place, and it comes from the fact that the older styles tend to have flaws which give them interesting characteristics, such as the CQR won't set as well as a Bruce, the Bruce won't hold as well as a CQR, etc. There are certainly specialized applications, e.g. anchors designed for small boats, ships, ease of stowage, etc, but it should be recognized that most common types are intended as general purpose anchors.

The Rocna is a general purpose type in the same way that a CQR or Bruce or Delta is. We just argue that it does that job better.

An anchor, in general, needs to do two things, while retaining a good degree of practicality and durability: set, then hold.

Setting is most difficult in hard or weedy bottoms. You deal with this with a combination of tip-weight, good dynamics, and a sharp low profile fluke. Holding is most difficult in soft bottoms and performance is dictated by the fluke, by its shape and size.

Come up with something that can both set well in hard bottoms or weed and also hold well in soft stuff, and you have basically have a good general purpose design.

Originally Posted by ssullivan

So what is the fluke area of the Rocna that would be on par with a 45lb CQR anchor? I mean to say, I am using a 45lb CQR right now. It's what the boat came with, and it's what I'm using because that's what I have. If I replace my 45lb CQR with a Rocna, which Rocna would I select, and what would be the fluke area of that Rocna?

Truthfully I don't know the exact fluke areas of the CQR. But it would be misleading to compare the figures, as clearly a concave fluke is superior to a plow, and a smaller concave or even flat fluke would offer better resistance than the same sized fluke in the shape of a plow.

If you consider the extremes, such as the SAIL testing, there is no comparison. In more "normal" circumstances, we measured the Rocna 10 (22lbs) holding an average of 823Kg force and the CQR 25lbs an average of 393lbs (having failed to set once; the highest for both was 1050Kg and 780Kg respectively).

Ignoring the unreliability of the CQR's setting and taking the best case scenario (highest holding), you might conclude that the Rocna holds a third better and may be accordingly smaller than the CQR you would otherwise choose. However, there is something to be said for weight, and if you ever need to anchor on flat rock or dead pan coral, it won't matter much what type of anchor you're using - just so long as it's heavy. So we have gone from one extreme to the other, one where the Rocna simply works best and the CQR not at all, to one where there is no difference. Conclusion: size still matters.

As such our sizing recommendations are no smaller than might be expected, and in fact are, by comparison to other manufacturers who say things like "for wind speeds of up to 30 knots" in their fine print, quite conservative.

[SkiprJohn]

There seems to be more than one thread on this subject so in case you missed this one:
Aloha All,
Of all the discussions concerning anchors I've ever read there is one thing that is absolutely certain. You need to have more than one style of anchor. I have four styles aboard for different bottoms. My main storm anchor is a 65lb "real" CQR. I have not used it in weed but I also have a 60lb fisherman for that purpose. Backup anchors are 40lb Northhill and a 27lb Fortress. I admit to having too many anchors but I'm not going to have very much insurance. Its a tradeoff.
JohnL
Craig responded that I have limited experience with anchoring in weed and that's true but will not give up my good ole anchors to try something new. I have a fisherman and northhill for weeds when I find any.

[Lynx]

I have a Super Max and have been very happy with it.

[Manson Anchors]

Good to hear the anchor is going well Vasco. Good feedback is always nice to hear....and always much better to hear from people who use/buy anchors rather than people that try and sell them.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

Just checked out the Manson Supreme in detail. Interesting. One of the best features also has me a bit concerned. What would happen if you had a day where you had a 180 degree wind shift (or current shift) and you were using that neat feature for anchoring in rocky bottoms (ie: the slot in the shank)?

Would it gracefully trip the anchor for you as your shackle slid up the shank?

If so, would you then be dragging an anchor along with the chain on the wrong end, as in close to the flukes?

I know there are some anchor guys on here... What would happen?

I like the design (like the Rocna), but am uncertain about 180 degree shifts while using the sliding slot on the shank, which is one of the best features....

thoughts?

Shawn,

My feeling, and the folks at Manson may not agree, is that the slot is there to avoid any sort of patent infringement on the Rocna. I think, while in concept it is a nice feature but in practice it is just plain foolish. Take for example a wind shift with say 12 knots of wind coinciding with a tide shift. Usually when the wind shifts it dies down to a few knots or less so now the shackle and rode are all the way down tne slot because there was minimal pulling pressure. So now the tide kicks in and you begin dragging the anchor backwards. Could happen I guess... Now I do have a little faith, because I tried to drag it around the beach backwards with the slot and had no luck. The damn Manson just kept spinning itself around in just a few feet and digging in. The manufacturer has actually designed this anchor to NOT drag backwards. Don't get me wrong I'm NOT going to use the slot because dragging it across a beach with my truck is not a muddy or fouled bottom. I have never used the slot and don't plan to. I personally have used just about every major anchor on the market and currently own a Fortress, two Spades, Bruce, CQR, Delta Fast Set and a Manson Supreme. Many of these anchors came with boats I bought over the years and then sold.

The Manson Supreme is by far the best performer I own and is my primary anchor. So far it's roughly 169 out of 170 sets first try. The one time it did not set on the first try was because I hooked a lobster trap so really it's most likely 170 for 170 had the trap not been there. My steel Spade is my back up anchor and it's set rate is about 96% vs. the aluminum Spade's set rate of about 75%. My CQR is the worst setter of the lot at about 70% & the Bruce is a decent performer when it comes to setting at about 85% but it does not have the brute holding power of the Manson, Spade or Fortress. If your wondering where I get my numbers it's because I keep an anchoring log book with depth, bottom type, wind shift through the night, scope and max wind. From what I understand most sailors don;t log anchorings but I am nutty enough to do this.

I like to sleep at night and know from my own personal testing that my anchor choice is a solid one for Maine. The key is to know which anchor performs best for your use. In terms of testing I actually test all the anchors I own on a local, very hard, intertidal zone and on my boat. In the video below you can see how an anchor sets. Many boaters don't even understand that you actually have to back down on an anchor to make it set...????

Anchor Setting Video
DropShots Day

[Manson Anchors]

Fair question.
No, the anchor retrieval slot has been around since the 1940s (was patented in the 40s) and was first introduced on a Danforth Type anchor, this is not new. The sliding slot is used by day fisherman more than cruisers. Fisherman tend to want to anchor in rocky possitions a little more than cruising sailors do and tend to use the slot more frequently.
We offer it on the Supreme as an alternative connection/retrieval option. From over 1200 Supremes sold to date, we have yet to have any problems with the operation of the slot. But if people hear of any, we are keen to know about them.

Thanks.

[David_Old_Jersey]

On board I have a CQR and a Bruce - both "big 'uns"...........these came with the boat.

However I prefer Danforth Anchors, cos' they have held for me in the past - and being in a place where we often dry out after anchoring means getting the chance to see whether the Anchor set and what it was doing until it set (both mine and others).......I feel more comfortable with an anchor that does not plow a longgggggggggggg furrow, although the Danforth has picked up debris in the past that stopped it from setting properly.

But I appreciate (and know!) that a Danforth is not exactly the easiest to handle on a foredeck or stow in a bow roller! - am toying wth the idea of a Fortress (Danforth) instead of a steel version.........but the price is a bit of a "yikes"

Before thinking about one of the "New Style" Anchors I will probably also give the Bruce a good try, cos' I am not very familiar with it in practice (and from what I have read over the years I probably would not go out an dbuy one - but as I've got one already!)...........I would prefer to have a choice of Anchor types (as well as a spare!) - if I wasn't comfortable with the Bruce I would certainly look at / consider one of the "New Style" Anchors.

[GordMay]

The "Fortress" pricing only appears expensive when compared to steel anchors of the same weight. When compared by Fluke Size (hence holding power); they are roughly equivalent.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The "Fortress" pricing only appears expensive when compared to steel anchors of the same weight. When compared by Fluke Size (hence holding power); they are roughly equivalent.

I must confess I haven't studied this closely to work out the exact equivalent as what I was thinking about is also going up in size on the Fortress - I find it hard to get away from the inherent feeling that "bigger is better"........

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

" ... bigger is better ..."

Yep - bigger IS better!!!
In which case you are comparing to a bigger steel anchor.

[soul searcher]

David
The numbers on the Fortess will give you a rough ideal of the size of the steel anchor it would be substituted for. An FX-55 is roughly the same size as a 55 or sixty pound danforth.