New to anchoring - appreciate advice/opinions

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

And a final comment for those who like to sleep nights - the greatest advantage I've seen from the new generation anchors is their ability to dig in again instantly after a 180 degree tide or wind shift: don't expect this from your old Bruce, CQR, Danforth - they were never designed to do this. (I'm not certain the Mantus is built strong enough for this either, though I don't doubt its ability to re-set, but as a once-in-a-decade storm anchor I'm prepared to take the risk.)

I've used a 45# Mantus and a 44 Bruce clone in reversing currents of up to 3 knots all the time. Never had the Bruce pull out in 11 years time. The Bruce does take about 5+ feet longer to dig in and the mantus probably holds 3 times+ better based on breakout effort (Totally UN-scientific). But then the bruce has held fine in 35 gusting 45 winds. I sleep the same with either anchor.

I'm back using A Bruce now as the Mantus got stuck in something 3 weeks ago. Well more the rode got wrapped around something. As it was in 30 feet of muddy water, I did not feel safe diving on it. Just can't afford to loose a expensive anchor like that. As the Bruce (lewmar clone) was less then 1/2 the cost, I'll cry less next time when that get snagged. Well Actually cuss less....

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Peter Smith's web site has a bit of a Rocna slant to it with some inaccurate and missing test information. I would be glad to give you specifics by PM if you have an interest.

Thanks Fortress,
I've just been searching for independent test data on the Sarca Excel (which, unlike the Mantus, I can purchase right here in NZ) and have stumbled across some nasty and bitter arguments about who is impartial - the result: trust nobody! (Not even my preferred source is free from bias, according to numerous detractors, with lots of specifics.) Oh well, thanks for the warnings.

I did find out that SHHP is only required to exceed twice the holding power of a HHP (not 4 times as I'd thought).

[knockabout]

drop the pick feel it pull in let out a bit more to test

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

I've used a 45# Mantus and a 44 Bruce clone in reversing currents of up to 3 knots all the time...

Apologies for turning this thread into an anchor comparison but at least one test I stumbled across this morning highlights the superior performance of the mud-shedding 'convex' anchors (plough shape: SHHP Excel, HHP Delta) in re-burying after a 180 degree shift, compared to the mud-hugging 'concave' types (spade shaped: Mantus, SHHP Rocna or Manson Supreme, HHP Bruce - though curiously the 'Spade' seems to shed mud quite well), the latter group "appear to take about 50% longer to re-set".

Much more significant though is the numerous test results that show older generation anchors failing to re-set - be it CQR, Bruce, Danforth... Yes they sure are cheap, but...

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Apologies for turning this thread into an anchor comparison but at least one test I stumbled across this morning highlights the superior performance of the mud-shedding 'convex' anchors (plough shape: SHHP Excel, HHP Delta) in re-burying after a 180 degree shift, compared to the mud-hugging 'concave' types (spade shaped: Mantus, SHHP Rocna or Manson Supreme, HHP Bruce - though curiously the 'Spade' seems to shed mud quite well), the latter group "appear to take about 50% longer to re-set".

Much more significant though is the numerous test results that show older generation anchors failing to re-set - be it CQR, Bruce, Danforth... Yes they sure are cheap, but...

That has not been my experience with a Mantus or a bruce. Both have never pulled out.

Luckily being an engineer, I do my own evaluations, with long term in reversing tides. In 12 years of anchoring mostly with a bruce clone (lewmar), I never once had a Bruce pull out in reversing currents. That's in many years worth of anchoring.

Anchor tests tend to be a bit unrealistic and I take them with a large grain of salt. What's more important is real world usage and I have a ton of it hanging off a bruce/claw. Is it the best anchor, Nope. Is it good enough, I think so.

If the anchor fairy dropped a 45# mantus (or any other new gens) on the Rose, I would use it. But I can't afford to donate 1/3 of my measly life savings on another.

You're laughing at the fairy comment. But the windlass fairy was very good to me with and deposited a used ideal windlass on the deck of my little boat back in may (out of the blue too). I just got it installed (tricky when it weights over 100 pounds (Halyards are your friends there). A small slice of heaven....

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Much more significant though is the numerous test results that show older generation anchors failing to re-set - be it CQR, Bruce, Danforth... Yes they sure are cheap, but...

I know I've said this quite a few times before, and I admit to being an outlier, but in my neighborhood setting bow and stern is the norm and two Danforths set opposing each other (and I am pretty sure the same would be true for Fortress) has been bomb proof for me.. and if you set 'em Bahamian, you can swing, but in a tiny circle. By pulling them against each other you can tell right away if one of them has not set. But once they are set... sleep well. If anyone wants to sell their Danforth 20H cheap, let me know!

[Panope]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Apologies for turning this thread into an anchor comparison but at least one test I stumbled across this morning highlights the superior performance of the mud-shedding 'convex' anchors (plough shape: SHHP Excel, HHP Delta) in re-burying after a 180 degree shift, compared to the mud-hugging 'concave' types (spade shaped: Mantus, SHHP Rocna or Manson Supreme, HHP Bruce - though curiously the 'Spade' seems to shed mud quite well), the latter group "appear to take about 50% longer to re-set".

Much more significant though is the numerous test results that show older generation anchors failing to re-set - be it CQR, Bruce, Danforth... Yes they sure are cheap, but...

I cannot speak about anchor performance in mud bottoms that are entrained with heavy, rooted weed.

However, I have conducted perhaps the most brutal 180 degree (pure mud) re-set testing - EVER. So brutal is my testing that numerous respected cruisers have discounted the tests because they believe it does not represent typical real-world anchoring (I mention this not to complain or challenge, rather as an indication that it is a damn difficult test!)

That said, my findings indicate that the Mantus anchor and the genuine Bruce do not have a problem re-setting.

Steve

[NevisDog]

Panope,
I'd be interested to read those anchor test results you mention but clicking on the second of your two links - videos of anchors setting - doesn't seem to take me anywhere. (The first link works, which makes me think it's not just my computer.) Is there some other way we can all review the test results you speak of? Another CF thread perhaps?

[downunder]

Nevis

Panope's thread

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...155412-21.html

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Panope

However, I have conducted perhaps the most brutal 180 degree (pure mud) re-set testing - EVER... That said, my findings indicate that the Mantus anchor and the genuine Bruce do not have a problem re-setting.
Steve

Steve, I've found those videos (simple search - no worries). Looking at the Bruce video (#5 I think), it is clear the camera float attachment to the shank is assisting the anchor in adopting the ideal (point down, shank up) position for immediate engagement. Other tests done without the float attachment show a totally different scenario, where the Bruce (or CQR) lands on its side and completely fails to engage, while the shank drags happily along the sand forever.

Perhaps you have found the solution to their worst problem - mount a small float to the upper forward point of the shank

[Panope]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Steve, I've found those videos (simple search - no worries). Looking at the Bruce video (#5 I think), it is clear the camera float attachment to the shank is assisting the anchor in adopting the ideal (point down, shank up) position for immediate engagement. Other tests done without the float attachment show a totally different scenario, where the Bruce (or CQR) lands on its side and completely fails to engage, while the shank drags happily along the sand forever.

Perhaps you have found the solution to their worst problem - mount a small float to the upper forward point of the shank

I believe your conclusions about the float's affect on re-setting are inaccurate.

Here is another Bruce anchor test that I conducted. In this video, the camera float is not attached to the anchor shank. Instead it is attached to the chain, several links away from the anchor. Note, that if this float was capable of lifting the chain (it is not) it would be doing more harm than good because Bruce anchors will NOT set without the weight of chain (I've tested rope only, it does not work).

Also, the anchor in the video that you mentioned was Panope's primary anchor for 10 years. I can assure you that the anchor performed the same as when a TINY camera float was present.

Lastly, my comments were pertaining to the concept of "mud-hugging 'concave' types" that you were speaking about. Camera float or not, Bruce anchors do not fit that characterization. Note that my test area/sea-bed is precisely the same as where the Manson Supreme and (Rollbar) Rocna anchors both repeatedly failed to reset due to mud clogging. Yes, both those anchors had cameras attached to them.

I've had people tell me all along that the float must helping these anchor's performances. Conversely, a roughly equal number of people have told me that the float is hurting the anchor's performances.

Fascinating.

Steve

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNcFSZ3thpM&t=688s

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Sailmon

Dear All,
Her Diamond (our Freedom 38) is almost ready for retirement cruising. After 32 years of days sailing and vacation cruising on the Great Lakes, we will be casting off the dock lines and heading to New York at the end of July. Hope to be in Carolinas at end of hurricane season and head to Bahamas (and beyond) from there.

While we have been vacationing on our boat for the past 3 decades (makes us sound so old...) we have mostly stayed in marinas and have little experience with anchoring and related use of tender. I hope you can help me out with advice/opinions regarding the following questions.
1. Aside from lunch hook, we currently have 2 anchors on the boat - a Fortress and a plow type (can't remember which brand). While I realize different anchors are more suitable for different conditions and that there will be times when both anchors will be needed, would it be a poor choice to think of the Fortress as our primary anchor (southern U.S. east coast and Bahamas).
2. We have 2 rodes - one is 30' 3/8 BBB chain and 150' 5/8 three strand nylon. The other is 95' 5/16 BBB chain and 205' 5/8 3 strand nylon. Wondering which rode would be best suited for which anchor (plow and fortress)?
3. We have a 9.5' Brig RIB (fiberglass). We will use it as a tender and for an occasional longer excursion - but principally as tender. We hope to anchor and/or pick up balls a fair bit - but not exclusively - will sometimes be staying at marinas. We plan to purchase a Mercury outboard (I am still working as part time associate at West Marine). We are going back and forth between a 6HP and. 9.9HP engine. Recognizing that 9.9 will have significantly better ability to plane and push through chop, the larger engine weighs almost twice as much as the smaller engine.
Recommendations/opinions on all three topics greatly appreciated,
Bob

Back to the original post and leaving the anchor warring parties behind, I strongly recommend the OP get rid of the rope-chain rode and switch to all chain for cruising full time. If the OP plans to anchor anywhere there's weed or bottom grass, then forget about any of the roll bar type anchors unless he enjoys poking at and cutting off weed balls or dealing with mud balls everytime he pulls up his anchor. Pruchase an anchor such as the Ultra, Spade etc, that doesn't require the roll bar to work properly. It's the roll bar that'll cause you much aggravation when it grabs up weed and mub from the bottom.

Note: Anchors we've used for at least two years each include: Danforth, CQR, Rocna, Fortress and now an Ultra for the past five years. The Ultra is hands down the best of the bunch, the Rocna was the most aggravating due to always hauling up big chunks of the bottom or weed, the CQR was fine in sand but terrible in hard-packed bottoms, the Danforth always seemed to hold fine in mud and the Fortress is with us as a kedge only... because it was terrible as a stern anchor the few times we used it. It probably works fine as a bow anchor in sand and mud.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by Panope

I believe your conclusions about the float's affect on re-setting are inaccurate....

Hate to admit it but I believe you're right. I should have spent more time watching other videos. You've certainly put a great deal of work into this.

In my defence, I have seen the Bruce fail to set, but I now think the tests I've watched where it doesn't set may be the ones at fault (not sure though - obviously a complex subject that I foolishly jumped in on). I'll look at the Rocna and Manson videos you mentioned with interest. Wow - this should keep me occupied and silent for a looooong time!

[Panope]

Nevis,

I recommend skipping the first 55 videos.

Start with #56 (it is a compilation of the earlier work). Then watch each and every video thereafter.

Cheers,

Steve

[Sailmon]

Thank you all for your replies - has been very helpful - much food for thought. We haven't made a selection yet, but are getting close. Departing Lake Erie in 4 to 5 weeks! Two more questions:
1. It appears that based on manufacturer tables Mantus recommends a 45# anchor for our size/weight boat and for Manson Supreme a 35 pound anchor is recommended. Any idea why? Is the Manson more effective per pound?
2. Is the Excel anchor available in the U.S? I haven't been able to find a distributor.
Thanks again,
Bob