Rocna Vs Spade

[Barra]

Thanks for the great replies guys, particularly Colmj - thats exactly the side by side comparison I was after.

The UK spade website recommends the 20kg for coastal cruising for my size boat but upgrades to the 30kg for extended cruising which sounds about right so ill just stick with that for the commissioning cruise and see how things go. (42 feet was just on the edge of length for 20kg vs 30kg recommended for extended cruising).

I like the fact i can dismantle the spade so I will have an easily stored kedge anchor as well i suppose if i do go heavier.

On my last boat (32 foot catalina) i had a 25kg cqr which was probably a bit of overkill and did sink the bow somewhat but not such a concern on a mono vs cat. ill be looking for the best holding for weight ultimately if the 20kg spade doesnt prove to be enough.

I had the original sarca on my last fishing boat great all round anchor I agree but can be troublesome on some bowrollers (in the original form anyway). So good i had trouble retrieving it!

thanks

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Barra

I had the original sarca on my last fishing boat great all round anchor I agree but can be troublesome on some bowrollers (in the original form anyway). So good i had trouble retrieving it!

thanks

Which is why I went for the excel, much easier on the bow roller

[Dockhead]

I have used Spade, Rocna, Delta and CQR at various times in about 15 years of cruising.

The Rocna and Delta were on my present 54' boat.

The Spade and CQR were on my previous 37' boat.


My subjective non-scientific non-warranted opinion based on experience with different boats and different cruising grounds, thus not all that well comparable, is that the Spade is much easier to set than the Rocna. The Spade -- used by me for nearly 10 years -- set very, very aggressively; I was afraid to damage the bow roller, in fact. I never once dragged it, although I anchored in some pretty serious storms.

I used the Rocna for about two years on my bigger boat. I was happy with the performance -- again, never dragged an inch even in storm conditions. But it was often hard to set, particularly in soft mud. Sometimes it would plow for a long, long ways before it would finally dig in.

It is possible that some or most or all of the difference in setting behavior of the two anchors comes from different bottom conditions; I don't know. But I liked the Spade so much that when I returned my Rocna last fall, I ordered a Spade to replace it. I'll pick it up this weekend

The Spade is lead ballasted, and has a sharper fluke. So I'm guessing that it is not just bottom conditions, but that it actually sets better than the Rocna. We shall see.

Both are far better than the Delta. The Delta holds ok, but doesn't set at all in some difficult bottom conditions. This is a more scientific comparison, as I was anchoring the same boat in the same spots where I later used the Rocna. The Rocna always set in those places.

I suffered for years with the awful CQR and won't repeat stories I posted about here. To this day I don't sleep soundly at anchor because of near disasters caused by dragging CQR's.

[AllezCat]

I have a new oversized Rocna and a Shark (not sure what a spade is but seems similar with lead ballast).
The Shark lands point first every time and sets well.
Haven't used the Rocna yet.
Have used CQR and Fortress - not as good...

I reckon the 20kg is ok - but can you have 2 - say add a 40kg rocna?
Would be better for offshore/extended cruising, and you could use it for Bahamian mooring, spare for when you lose one, and storm conditions...
cheers

[SailFastTri]

I think mark was using the term "friction" loosely. "grab, holding, resistance" could be applicable too. The effect is the same.

BTW, whoever posted above that Spade has a sharper point than Rocna is wrong. Rocna or especially Manson Supreme are sharper and will set more easily in a hard-packed bottom or weeds. But in a soft mud bottom I suspect anchors with hoops don't set as deep due to the hoop providing resistance.

[colemj]

Actually, my statement is true - if not absurd for the sake of making the point. With enough chain, it would never be lifted - ever - that's the whole point of "with enough chain".

But the point I was trying to make is the one about friction being the actual workhorse and not weight. Of course nobody can carry around enough chain to forego an anchor. So, as you correctly note, the anchor is used to hold the boat. And the anchor relies on friction with the bottom and not weight to do that.

Putting aside the material strength for a moment, a properly set plastic anchor will hold just as well as the identical properly set steel anchor. The friction is doing the work, not the weight. Of course, material strength does matter in usability, so anchors aren't made of plastic. But material, and thus weight, does not matter in holding ability once set.

If one relied solely on anchor weight, one would be in the same position as relying solely on chain. In other words, it isn't practical to carry around that much weight. Even most moorings rely on friction and not pure weight.

Mark

[Ram]

Originally Posted by colemj

Actually, my statement is true - if not absurd for the sake of making the point. With enough chain, it would never be lifted - ever - that's the whole point of "with enough chain".

Mark

True --I dont even have an anchor , but I have 18 miles of chain!

[Erik de Jong]

You are right that weight doesn't matter for an anchor to hold and that it is actually the friction holding the boat, but in order to keep your anchor in one piece you need enough thickness of the material to meet that requirement. The larger the anchor (= more friction) the thicker the blades need to be to overcome the bending moments that are applied to these blades, ergo: the more weight the better. In practice, i did some experiments, 1 kg of anchor gives roughly the same amount of friction as 18 kg of chain.

Miracle anchors do not exist, there is only so much force that a certain amount of ground can hold, do you need more holding power, than you need to "grab" more ground with your anchor, and that can only be achieved with size (= weight) normally the sunny and warm cruising routes have very good holding ground and generally 40 knots of wind (outside hurricane season) is considered to be very much. On higher latitudes how ever, you will experience much higher wind speeds and very often poor holding grounds. That was the main reason for my statement of anchor size, it totally depends on which area of the world you are sailing.

The anchors that are called "the best" are usually anchors that dig in faster, they do not have higher holding power in poor anchor grounds so be careful with believing what the sales person tells you.

[sabray]

Even more unscientific I dropped a 27 kg Manson off the bow while at dock. The damn thing sunk in the mud and set. It was a bear getting it to come out with the tag line I attached in case I dropped it. Dohhhh. I' dug the 30 kg cqr out of the stern locker and added to my lawn ornaments sitting next to my 70 lb Luke and a really old 30 lb fishermens anchor. And a 40 lb danforth. Nowbim modernized with a Manson a Bruce that is a great anchor an a fortress. Anyone interested in a cqr in the Annapolis area give me a shout.

[Matt Johnson]

I was looking at both sites, and it seems the Rocna has a higher surface area to the Spade... I think the Manson is about the same as the Rocna for size.

[Barra]

well i was warned anchor questions would provoke some pretty firm opinions!

I guess its what helps you sleep soundly at night so fair enough too.

thanks again for all the replies

Barra