Only One Anchor

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

No matter even that the video doesn't even show the Delta being tested, despite your repeated statements that it does?

Perhaps you're confused with something else.

One track mind, I guess. That wasn't the point though.

I guess that I should have merely said, "Other anchors". It really doesn't matter. I'm not for one minute, claiming that the Delta is better then the Rocna. I simply don't know. I would simply like to see a more responsible attempt to to demonstrate their product. That video was insulting, coming from the manufacturer (no offence to you). He also contends (in his presentation) that "They" made that video.

[craigsmith]

Originally Posted by Kanani

One track mind, I guess. That wasn't the point though.

It wasn't the point that you repeatedly stated something, offensive and defaming to us, that by very easy inspection simply wasn't true?

You do appear to have an axe to grind, and I don't think I'll justify your other comments with responses.

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by craigsmith

It wasn't the point that you repeatedly stated something, offensive and defaming to us, that by very easy inspection simply wasn't true?

You do appear to have an axe to grind, and I don't think I'll justify your other comments with responses.

No axe to grind. What is it not true (other than possibly the brand name of the competitors anchor).

That test was just down-right silly. Not many people anchor on dry land. The sea bottom (with identical composition) takes on very different characteristics.

I never once knocked the product (I don't know anything about it), only the deceptive marketing techniques. That tends to tell me something about the manufacturer. Then again, Bruce has been getting away with the same techniques for years and that thing is a real piece of junk. I can tell you that from many years of personall experience.

[RonRicco]

Just curious, if you knew the Bruce "was a piece of junk based on several years of experience"... Why would you continue to use it and not replace it with something better?

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Kanani

No complaint on your video skills. No complaint about you being excited about your anchor (it actually looks like a good anchor). No complaint about the tow vehicle.

My only concern is that a manufacturer would use something as amateurish (You're not a the US Coast Gaurd or a private testing lab) as that to promote a product that sailors use as "Life Saving" gear. No offense to you at all. I think that you did the best you could but you know as well as any of us here that ANY anchor will almost immedialety dig-in in a soft sand sea bed (maybe not a beach).

We're not talking about "Millions$" in equipment to do a real-world test. 1 underwater camera, 1 diver, 1 boat, some chain and a bunch of anchors. Then again, I get the feeling that these people may have to rent a boat.

I saw a similar test that Bruce put on at West Marine back in the 80's I bought the stupid piece of junk and that is the worst holding anchor that I have ever used. It digs right into soft sand (as any will) but when the stuff hits the fan, it drug and I was miffed (even with 10:1 scope). I sold it. I bought my Delta and never had an issue except that it is hard to set in hard mud. The only way that a Bruce will hold in severe conditions is if it wedges between two big rocks. It doesn't work at all in mud or any thick/slick bottum (unless there is no wind).

Ah... the Rocna is not my anchor, it's Craigs and it is good. The bottom was quite firm packed sand with broken shell and a few smaller stones. A common bottom around here. As I mentioned that was not done with the intention of be published as it was, (note: I have no problem with Rocna doing so though) if it was I would have dressed up a bit more to show my real sexy side . The data I wanted was not and did not need to be underwater but the pulls were well below the high water mark between tides, as you can see by the varying levels of surface water.

Also at the time it was the only video information Rocna had to work with i.e. put somewhere people could see one actually moving.

What happened, whatever you want to call it, was not driven by or controlled by Rocna so there is a good level of independence about it. I haven't actually seen the trimmed version but unless Craig should be calling Weta Workshops (brains behind most special effects in movies) rather than selling anchors, I can attest that what you see is what actually happened and in a most even way that was possible at the time.

Re video quality; Bit tricky really. I suppose Rocna could spend the big $$ to get a slick vid but them would the viewers be seeing something they believe or will they be thinking 'Hollywood'. You know the ones where all the Engish people have US accents, The Wright Brothers were the 1st to fly, and giant Apes are climbing around the cities of America.

Personally I think my home movie, while being a tad rough, does show a lack of creativeness hence less manipulated.

I do know that there has been and is some more still to go testing using a small tug, divers and an underwater camera. Whether that gets fully published is still up for debate. Apart from being pulled apart by people like me NZ is small and there is the 'do we want to be told how wrong we did everything constantly' factor. We have done lots of tests for certain aspects of anchoring but haven't published anything, partly due to the above. We do use the information though as you maybe able to tell by comments I've made in the past.

[Celestialsailor]

I guess with any product, you wait until they get out in the 'field' for a few years and see how they perform. Kanani makes an excellent point. There are too many variables to put faith in one anchor. I have 2 so far, a #45 CQR and a Danforth. I will also get a Bruce knock-off, because as I stated, they have been out for a few years with no ill-effects. I like to think that I am a smart shopper and let others try the new toys and do a 'lets see' with them.
I suppose a true anchor test would be to take the same number of boats as there were anchors and anchor in different anchorages and swap anchors around.
Another thing I have heard is to a limited amount, the effect of how a boat rides in an anchorage has an effect on whether some anchors will dig in or dig out.

[Celestialsailor]

"Thanks for summarizing John's article Celestial, I think you got the basic point. Well done".

Yes, by all means craig, have the last word like you do with anyone in this forum that remotely disagrees with you or questions your promoting your product

[GMac]

Good thinking there Celestial but I'm not sure if I agree with the need for such a wide range of to be carried by each boat these days. I was definitely Yes have a choice a few years back but these days I'm in the 55/45 area and leaning a bit towards 'maybe you don't'. Still a decision in process though and excludes specialised anchors or anchoring situations.

Currently I'm carrying 2 sorts myself, an alloy and a steel Spade . Actually I have a Supreme as primary at the moment and my alloy Spade (my race anchor, nice and lite) as back-up. Which leads nicely to the next bit regarding your post.

I know very well how the Spade works and, as mentioned, use them (2 alloys) as my race anchors and keep one as my secondary. Last Xmas thru to a month or so back I had a Rocna as primary then swapped to a Supreme. All are equivalent 'size'. I have a 8 or so spots out around the gulf that vary quite a bit in bottom and tidal type flow, which I've tried them all in on more than a few occasions. Supreme has only had a few so still a work in progress. By the end of this Xmas I will have very good comparison data on the anchors only based on the boat, rode and user are identical with all anchors. Nice.

[Celestialsailor]

Thanks Gmac for your info. Food for thought. Kanai makes some good points about the Delta also and I never considered them. Strangely enough because they are so inexpensive compared with the CQR and especially the "New and of course better" anchors available today. One thing most folks here agree on is more than one anchor. The poor guy that started this forum must really be scratching his head now.

[MidLandOne]

Originally Posted by GMac

The data I wanted was not and did not need to be underwater but the pulls were well below the high water mark between tides, as you can see by the varying levels of surface water.

Not getting at you in any way GMac as I really value your input over all the forums I see you on (unlike that from the used car like salesman talk guy who is really just a regular pain in the proverbial and I agree with the other criticisms of him made here, there and everywhere ) but to test drag an anchor on a beach between tides is the most unrepresentative place one can pick to do such a test.

Sand behaves differently according to how wet it is, as I think others have alluded to but few seem to know why. So here goes - when it is dry there is no interaction between the sand particles (at the macro level that is) and again the same when it is covered by water where it is fluidised to an extent dependant on the nature of the sand.

But when it is damp a completely different factor enters the picture. Between the grains exist air spaces and water and so there is an air/water interface between the grains on which surface tension acts sort of like this
O><O
if you imagine the "O"'s as grains and the insides of the > and < to be filled with water and the outside being air.

The surface tension holds the sand tightly together, the extent of which depends on the number of the air/water interfaces - so dry, no surface tension and the sand is free flowing and loose, when submerged again no surface tension and the sand is fluidised, and semi dry/damp the sand is bound by surface tension and is firmly bound according to the number of air/water interfaces between them.

This effect is very obvious when one gets close to the tide where the top layer of sand is firm but when dug down into it suddenly becomes "soft" (fluidised) when the subsurface water is reached.

The same applies to all granular materials with the effect diminishing as the grain size increases eg it is negligible for pebbles. So a beach test is entirely unrepresentative, unless, of course, one makes a habit of anchoring on them .

In an earlier life I was a physicist and there is a little anecdote told that Einstein was walking along a beach one day with another (from memory Feynman but I may be wrong there) and he was asked why damp sand was firmly bound, whilst submerged and dry sand was not. The above was the answer so if anyone disagrees with what I have said they better have it out with Einstein, not me .

Oh, and if I was to buy a main anchor today it would probably be a Manson Supreme (or maybe a Spade as Alain is rather a nice guy ). I could not stomach contributing to the grocery bills of the other. But in the meantime my existing older generation anchors serve us very well at maybe a cost of carting 10 or 20 lbs or so of extra weight around per anchor (maybe 40 lbs total). Hardly worth contributing to any anchor builder's grocery bills for the sake of saving that, as far as I am concerned .

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by FlyBri737

Just curious, if you knew the Bruce "was a piece of junk based on several years of experience"... Why would you continue to use it and not replace it with something better?

I only had that the Bruce for about a year. Another cruiser allowed me to try his Delta. I sold the Bruce at the next cruiser's swap meet.

BTW, I'm not saying that the Delta is best. All I'm saying is, it is a heck of a lot better than the CQR or Bruce. that I know from much experience with each.

The Delta doesn't hold as well as a fluke anchor (nothing I've ever seen does). However, I would never use a fluke anchor as a primary because it fouls too easily and won't self-reset (most of the time).

[GMac]

Celestial - The Delta we like and refer to it as the 'best of the rest'. I do have issues at the price though considering the venue and quantity they are built in. My chinese bloke has offered us an anchor which is approx. 10% of my delta cost. The new one is called a 'Delto' so I'm guessing you'll figure out what sort that is . I've a couple coming down purely for interest sake, whether we go there or not I don't know but thinking probably not.

If a Delta is of big interest I'd suggest you look for a 'Shark' (New Page 1). An tweaked Delta and I think a lot better.

Re the one anchor - I'm still in favour of 2 sorts just at this stage. Coastal and weekender we suggest a serious primary (rocna, spade, Supreme, dare I say it, a CQR, etc) and a flat anchor i.e danforth pattern. Around here that is more than enough for 99% of bottom types. Off-shore I'd go 3 at least, not so much for the variation more in case of loses.

MidLandOne - as I mentioned earlier that was not intended to be an anchor test as we know them. I was after and got some other data. It just so happened I had load measuring gear so it was a sort of default test I suppose. The Rocna lads wanted some vid of their anchor moving and as it shows comparisons to the others it was used.

That area we pulled them in is quite representative of the bottom type we have around here. The top few inches were sloppy with firm and getting firmer below. Where we pulled the anchors we don't call a beach more tidal flats. The beach (with the soft sand) was quite a bit higher.

I'm reasonably happy that what the video shows is a fair comparison, between the anchors in it, with regards to setting characteristics and the load numbers do parallel what we have found in our deep water testing.

Sure it is not 100% real life but then I can't see anyone spending the very large sum it would take to get extremely close to real life. We have been doing some testing (still ongoing) using boats, divers and so on and it has proven not that cheap an exercise, the beer bill alone is massive Damn interesting though.

We do tests to find specific things rather than the big picture as such. For the big picture we talk to the users as they are the ones in the variation of boats, bottoms and users. As we here have had the Rocna and Supreme on the market and in use for a few years now (puff out chest and add - NZ leading the world yet again ) we have got a good solid base of users giving us feedback. Sure some of the users wouldn't know if their arse was on fire but we can see they are not having some of the issues they were even if they don't realise this. We have also had many who do know what they are doing using the 3 (inc the Spade even if it's not that new) and all we are hearing is good, damn good.

I also deal with all 3 contenders so know a bit about numbers being sold. These numbers suggest that plows are definitely on the way out in favour of the newer ones, no question. Mind you Deltas are still going out in big numbers as well. My own business is now averaging over 130 new types (the 3 combined) a month where 2 years ago it wasn't 10% of that. All others are pretty static numbers wise.

Advertising wise here we have Craig doing Craig things, a small smidgen of Spade and Manson does bugger all as it can't keep up. So almost all the growth in the new ones is from word of mouth. Quite telling don't you think?

To us that says the new ones are good and doing the business. That's a real life anchor test.

As a slight aside - While Craig does seem to annoy a few, to right off his product because of it does seem to be a bit short sighted. I'm sure many TV adverts also piss you off (they do the hell out of me) but you still consider the product. Anyway Craig is far, and I mean far, from the most irritating and annoying Rocnaite, or maybe it's just me

Sorry lads I do have to go now. Xmas silly season is apon us and I must get something done today. Bloody anchors, I just can't keep away from them. Maybe I need medical help

[colemj]

Originally Posted by MidLandOne

Oh, and if I was to buy a main anchor today it would probably be a Manson Supreme (or maybe a Spade as Alain is rather a nice guy ). I could not stomach contributing to the grocery bills of the other.

I'm breaking my personal rule now of staying out of anchor debates, so I'll try and make this short.

People certainly have a right to their opinions about others and I'm not here to change anyone's mind about Craig from Rocna. However, I would like to relate that when his early US distribution channels went tango uniform, he worked very hard to provide a fair deal and easy purchase/delivery of an anchor to me. He also provided very solid advice about anchors and anchor systems - even to the point of praising other designs (well not the CQR, but I discounted that anchor long ago). In previous posts on this forum, you will find that he is working with a children's boating program to provide an anchor for their club boat.

Craig has never backed down from a debate and mostly enters them with facts and honest opinions. However, in my opinion some here haven't been interested in good debate and have taken uninformed or cheap shots at Craig with the apparent intent on getting him on the defensive. And sometimes this works on the poor guy. I would have been there long before now, so I give him credit for holding on as long as he did. Through all of the fire and fury of their past debates, he and Alain took the high road and didn't stoop to what some are here.

But those who can't do simple fact checking or even back down after someone does the fact checking for you probably deserve his ire, so I personally will cut him some slack if he does.

Mark

[schoonerdog]

Lot's of people have different points of view on the CQR, just to add my experience I have been out in hurricane force winds in soft mud in the CQR. It seemed to hold completely well until I noticed that I was 100 yards further down the river. I had a bit of a struggle then easing the load on the anchor by using the engines, readjusting the rode, then lifting my fouled danforth off my transom which had become fouled on a bag after failing to reset when my boat dragged over it and it had to adjust 180 degrees. I used about 12 to 1 scope on my anchors and spent about 15 hours in nasty winds being tossed like a puppet running back and forth on the boat. The CQR skipped over and over, never drug, simply set, then failed, then set again. Finally I was able to reset the Danforth properly just before I drug into a marina. Then it didn't move an inch. Your anchor will often seem completely solid until it gives, then you will be your own one man band running around trying to get things right. I switched to a spade which was a wonderful anchor in sand, but poor in mud and nothing in turtle grass. My next anchor will be a Rocna. I understand the design, trust the reports from several magazines, and want to never ever repeat the experiences I've had. Every anchor will fail, I would choose one whose tested holding strength is above what you would need in 80 knots of wind and I would use several sources to see what they all say. Word of mouth from other sailors is nice, but really just because someone hasn't drug with their particular anchor doesn't mean anything. I work with contractors testing different equipment and I insist on testing to failure with everything. I don't want to know where it works, I want to know where it doesn't. And until someone comes up with a better method, I think the anchor tests from magazines like Sail are an excellent resource.

[Rick]

Colemj;
The "facts" are questionable (study "critical thinking on the web" for example on logic) and what opinions are not "honest"? Now I'm not attacking here, I am pointing out just why many of us have taken a stance of a negative reaction to such "salesmanship" presented on this (and other) threads.

One progressive attitude that is palatable to most people is one of never "knocking the competition" but merely pointing out what is good about the product that you are selling...ignore the competition, in fact.

So, the negative reaction that you have been reading about is one of normal human adversion to being dealt a lack of critical thinking as well as a lack of good salesmanship, regardless of what you might think of the product. Guess who will have the "last word"...always seems to?

Regardless of Craig's "good" attributes his objectionable ones are not made more palatible or excuseable by any such demonstrations, in my opinion. In short, he would serve his company better by being less rather than more.