Originally Posted by Ancora Latina
[Note: I believe that I erred when I removed this post, and so am restoring it to the thread. I have made a few minor edits (in blue), but it remains essentially as initially written. I appreciate Ancora Latina's interesting and valuable contributions to this thread, and apologize for being a bit over-zealous. Cheers, Hud ]
We have developed this specific anchor to answer the specific anchoring conditions we have here in Brazil.
The main anchoring problem we have, is that usually the best protected anchorages are located into river mouths.. (We have very few ports and marinas.) with 180° changing (strong) currents with the tide, and this anchor has also been developed for extreme conditions present in the Far South, Patagonia and even Antarctica. In extreme conditions, we need only “the Best”..
The concave shape of the anchor is a relatively new concept developed by the Spade. The heavily weighted tip is a good concept for penetration.. but also more weight at the tip means less surface area and less holding.
We have also designed the RAYA to have a heavy tip, less than the Spade (at ≈ 50 %) and around 34 to 37%, which is (with the exception of the Spade) the most heavy tip weight repartition. If we have less tip weight than the Spade, on the other way, we have a sharper tip and much more ( +162% ) fluke surface area:
This characteristic means that for the same anchor weight, the holding of the RAYA would be about twice the holding of a standard anchor, or for the same anchor size, the weight at the bow would be half for the RAYA anchor.
This concept is also used by all NZ anchors, but :
The shape of the fluke of some NZ anchors is a portion of cylinder. Technically, this shape is easy to manufacture with a cheap rolling machine, but it has a big draw back.. more we go toward the tip, more the penetration angle of the edge will increase.. being too vertical near the tip – bad feature for the penetration, and in weedy bottoms or hard sand, the NZ anchor will have problems to penetrate..
Due to the folding construction of the fluke of it’s closest competitor, it has a better penetrating angle, the weight repartition at the tip is better with around 30% of the total anchor weight, but, as both don’t have enough weight at the tip, both should have a “BSH” at the back part of the fluke ( BSH = Big Stupid Hoop) in order to turn itself in the right penetrating position.
This “BSH” concept is not new and has already been patented by Peter Bruce in year 1973, but never used before the Bügel anchor..
The BSH has three draw back, first it will reduce the possibility of penetration of the anchor, second, it add some more weight at the back of the anchor.. wrong place, and third, if all users of the “New gen” anchors are very satisfied with their anchor, all are complaining that it bring up a large amount of sea material, wedged by the “BSH”.
Now what are the differences with the RAYA anchor?
- The shape of the fluke of the RAYA is a “portion of cone”.
Big difference, the lateral penetrating angle of the edge is always the same between the “ears” and the tip.
Due to the specific shape of the anchor, and to the efficient weight distribution, the RAYA anchor is the only anchor which has only two stable resting positions, the right and the left penetrating position and doesn’t need any BSH.
- Thanks to the sharp tip, to the right penetrating angle, to the good weight repartition and to the only two stable resting positions, the RAYA anchor will have the best chances to penetrate quickly, even in the most extreme conditions.
- As its penetration will be better, its holding will be at least as good, and even better than the one of the BSH anchors.
- Due to the absence of BSH, when weighting the anchor, the fluke is self cleaning and will not bring up the entire sea bottom..
Some more questions??
All very enlightening and intriguing. I currently own a Rocna
20kg and Manson Supreme 35, and used to own a Spade A100 (and others). I would like to see head-head performance comparisons between the Raya and those three other "new generation" anchors (in similar weights) in differing bottoms (e.g. mud, loose sand, hard-pack sand). As for weeds, that is more difficult to test objectively because each drop is so variable.
The BSH is a clever expression
, and indeed the hoop has some issues. As some others have noted it may (in some cases of harder bottoms) limit penetration and may also increase the amount of weedy material brought up. However the latter is a non-issue IMHO, because the shank
is just as likely to catch material (and you haven't figured that one out either) and with any anchor we've ever used we usually need to wash-down and/or re-lower the anchor until mud and weedy material are clear after raising.
As for the BSH limiting penetration, it may be debatable as to whether that is really an issue. Unless the "BSH" can be shown to cause the anchor to drag or pop-out it's my contention that the ability to limit penetration is really just another term for limiting drag. Based on my own real-world observations from diving
on my anchors, at the point where penetration is limited the anchor no longer moves. That sounds like a feature.
In my view -- the biggest draw-back of the "BSH" is that it gets in the way of bowsprits and bow platforms and other gear
at the bow, making mounting and stowing at the bow an issue in some boats. After all, sailing is important too
. If the Raya only performs "comparably" to other anchors with BSH, then it may indeed be the clear best choice for many boats.
In comparing the Raya to NZ anchors, it would appear that the forward-mounted shank of the Raya would be a factor to limit penetration in very hard-packed bottoms, and in weeds (especially if the leading edge of the lower shank isn't sharpened). The Supreme has a much sharper, longer, extended tip than any of the others and by logic I would expect it to do best in weeds, followed by Rocna and then the Raya. (It was well established in my experience that the AL Spade does not penetrate weeds or hard-pack well, possibly contributed by lack of density but more likely due to the broad 3D trangular cross-section of the Spade's weighted tip). In my limited experience, I have seen equal penetration from M-Supreme and Rocna in hard-pack (far superior to the Spade) and have yet to encounter a non-set or drag from either anchor in any bottom type including weed, hard-pack, mud or loose sand.
Anyway -- all this is academic until we see the results of objective third-party testing. The Raya looks very promising and attractive.