Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Harry,



Dragging is almost always operator and not anchor error.

I can understand this thinking. I had a plough on my previous yacht and only dragged once in 20 years, but try a plough in hard sand or weed and it just does not work.
The anchorage where I am currently 90 % of ploughs are not set at all. The remainder are poorly set.
Just one example there is a 35 foot HR that I have seen anchor here many times, with perfect technique. He tries about 5 times to set his CQR, painful, as he only has a hand winch after the 4 th or 5 th time he gives up and does not apply an reverse to check the set of the anchor. There is not much else he can do other than leave the anchorage.
There are anchorages where new generation anchors will set instantly, but older generation anchors will consistently refuse to set despite textbook technique.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

plough in hard sand or weed and it just does not work. new generation anchors will set instantly

Yes, there are of course some bottoms that are difficult for some designs, but in our experience they are rare, and almost non-existant in the Cheaspeake (which was what the OP was asking about).

Hard sand and weeds can be challanging to set in for any small/light weight anchor. The tip weight is just absolutely low for a small/light anchor and that makes it skate rather than dig. This is true for any design - depending on how hard the bottom is, there will be a size where the anchor is just be too small/light to penetrate.

I think you will find the delta will generally set pretty much just as well as the 'next gen' anchors.

The CQR is probably the least good of the 'prior gen' plows but it does surprisingly well with proper technique.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yes, there are of course some bottoms that are difficult for some designs, but in our experience they are rare, and almost non-existant in the Cheaspeake (which was what the OP was asking about).

Hard sand and weeds can be challanging to set in for any small/light weight anchor. The tip weight is just absolutely low for a small/light anchor and that makes it skate rather than dig. This is true for any design - depending on how hard the bottom is, there will be a size where the anchor is just be too small/light to penetrate.

I think you will find the delta will generally set pretty much just as well as the 'next gen' anchors.

The CQR is probably the least good of the 'prior gen' plows but it does surprisingly well with proper technique.

I am sure you are right about the Chespeake. My comments were more directed at your reply rather then the OP. Hard sand and weed would be described as "rare" or common depending on where you sail.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Harry,

4. All the plows (both old gen and new gen) are good multi-bottom (except rock) anchors and re-set well in wind shifts. Generally when any of these designs (properly sized) drag it has been because of operator error

"Multi-bottom (except rock)" imply s that the CQR will work in hard sand and weed and that dragging is generally due to operator error. I don't agree with this. If the anchor will not work when all the new generation anchors would I believe the blame should be directed to the anchor.

[rtbates]

About my experience with Danforth type anchors.

They work great as long as the wind never shifts 180. IF it does they like to break out and skip along till your boat comes upon a land mass. They also will foul in a heart beat if an oyster shell gets jambed in the flukes. I use my Danforths to plug holes at the bottom of my fence so my dog can't escape. I use a Bruce to keep my boat in place.

My opinion on the new style anchors is that they work better than the older types, CGR, etc because they are NOT shaped like a plow. A plow is design to move through the ground digging a furrow. A plow anchor will do the same thing. The new style are shaped opposite like a spoon in that it is concave. And they bring up a lot of bottom becasue of this shape. I'd live with that.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

The CQR is probably the least good of the 'prior gen' plows but it does surprisingly well with proper technique.

I agree 100% that technique is vitally important but it's not always sufficient with certain anchor designs and in certain bottom types.

But how about the technique used by Chuck Hawley & crew during the Sail Magazine /West Marine hard bottom anchor tests..? Was it flawed? Can the CQR actually set consistently well in a hard bottom if "proper technique" is used?

Originally Posted by Sail Magazine

"The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom.

Sounds like they really had a tough time with the CQR, mirrors my own experience in hard bottoms, despite technique..

The Sail Magazine / WM anchor test had more than one test per anchor. They tested all the anchors at three different locations with multiple sets, pulls and scopes and they then reported exactly what the results were. The XYZ, despite being a "new gen anchor" was a poor performer in this particular test.

People on other forums made odd claims that Sail gave "preference" and may have "fixed" the results to satisfy advertisers. Using this logic Sail magazine really cut off their supply of ad money that month. It seems two of the anchors that got beat up the worst were the Lewmar Claw and the West Marine Performance 20, basically a Danforth knock off, & West Marine ran this test.

Lewmar is one of Sails larger advertisers (CQR, DELTA, Claw). In that months issue they had one full pager and one quarter page ad. West Marine's VP of product development Chuck Hawley was actually involved in the testing and WM also spends ad money with Sail. Two of the best performers Manson & Rocna had no advertising in Sail Magazine at all. West Marine also did not sell or stock either the Rocna or Manson Supreme prior to this test.

I think when a company like WM tests anchors, and their own anchor, the Performance 20, bites the big one, but two anchors they don't distribute, stock or sell, perform well, and they own up to it, it seems to lend more credibility to the testing..? No..?

This test was probably a very "biased" test from scientific standpoint when it comes to the CQR & Claw but not their competitors. They went so far as to have "in-depth discussions" to figure out a way to get the Bruce and CQR to set better so they could at least get load test results? Granted this test was only a hard sand test so you can't translate these results to a soft mud bottom but the authors made it quite clear that these were hard sand tests and were up-front about it. Hard sand is, well, hard to set in.

Originally Posted by Sail Magazine

"The CQR is another tried-and-true anchor that yielded surprising results. The maximum load we recorded during our first three pulls on 5:1 scope was a very short spike up to 350 pounds, but most of the time we never felt the anchor set. No matter how slowly we went or how we tried to manually coax the anchor to set, it seemed to just skip along the surface of the bottom.

To me this sounds like they perhaps had to give the CQR a little "extra" by going slower than with other anchors and trying to "manually coax" it to set. How can anyone believe there was a bias against the CQR when they clearly gave it preferential treatment? They didn't coax the Rocna, Manson Supreme or Hydro Bubble, didn't have to. The XYZ another new gen anchor also performed poorly but because it was not a "proven" or "tried & true" anchor like the venerable CQR or Bruce they gave it NO preferential treatment. Why did they not also try to "coax" the XYZ to a better performance..? Hmmm??

This seems a little unfair if you are replicating test results supposedly using the same technique with all anchors to make it as fair as possible.

The results of this test don't surprise me as I own a Bruce, and a CQR plus many others, and though they perform well they are not always quick setters (CQR) or high holding (Bruce). My assertion, & what I witness day in day out here in the North East, is that perhaps 70+% of boaters never actually set an anchor. They tend to get very lucky in the generally benign summer conditions using basically a "rock on a rope".


If you want light a Fortress is a great anchor and should have minimal trouble with re-sets in the soft Chess gunk unless the chain wraps the flukes, which I've seen happen. I would have no qualms with a 25 Manson or a 22 Rocna for a Sabre 34 though as they both have as much if not more sq in surface area than most 35 pound plow anchors..

These are some of the anchors I have collected over the years. There is no question that the two best performers for me, consistently, are the Manson Supreme and the Rocna. All of those anchors are genuine, not knock offs. Not all "new gen" anchors are great performers. My aluminum Spade has a tough time setting in hard bottoms and my Supermax was only marginally better than my CQR's. I love my Fortress as a stern anchor when it can be dedicated to a direct line pull with no chance of swinging and breaking it out..


P.S. Evans it's not a surprise you're Manson Ray performs so well. If I am not mistaken it is a full five sizes bigger than the original Bruce recommendation for a 47 foot 30k displacement vessel. That's a mooring! If I went five sizes bigger than what Rocna recommends for my boat it would be a 121 pound anchor on a 36 footer..

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

... If you want light a Fortress is a great anchor and should have minimal trouble with re-sets in the soft Chess gunk unless the chain wraps the flukes, which I've seen happen. I would have no qualms with a 25 Manson or a 22 Rocna for a Sabre 34 though as they both have as much if not more sq in surface area than most 35 pound plow anchors...

Correct only if Sabre is an ULDB. Or to use them as a lunch hook. 22-25 may be too small for the main anchor. I do not mean it is too small, but I believe it is too small to allow for some sort of less than perfect conditions or a patch of bottom where the holding is less than perfect.

I think a good size for an average displ 34 footer would be 30-35, so by using equal weight Next Gen Anchor (no names PLS ;-)) we get extra holding, as compared with say CQR.

barnie

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

But how about the technique used by Chuck Hawley & crew during the Sail Magazine /West Marine hard bottom anchor tests..? Was it flawed? Can the CQR actually set consistently well in a hard bottom if "proper technique" is used?

If I am not mistaken it is a full five sizes bigger than the original Bruce recommendation for a 47 foot 30k displacement vessel.

(1) I know Chuck. He does the best unbiased job he can with his testing. But Yes, I would say the setting method in that test was flawed. They pretty much ripped the anchors along the bottom, while a cruiser knows that in some bottoms you sometimes have to be a little gentle. We actually know some people who had trouble understanding these test results and went back to the exact same area and got CQR's to set and hold in that bottom. But I understand the dilemma for Chuck - he wants to treat all the anchors exactly the same, BUT they actually want somewhat different technique for best performance.

(2) Yes, you are mistaken. At the time when we built Hawk, a 30kg bruce was the recommended size and one size up was 50kg (there was no 40kg available) so we had (and have a 50kg). Also, please remember we sailed RTW on a 37'er previously using 20kg anchors (bruce, cqr and danforth) so we have plenty of experience with more typical anchor sizes.

Also several other boats have similar experiences to ours with 'normal' size next gen anchors. You may have read some stuff by Andy O'Grady, who tried to go down a size switching from a CQR to a supreme and had much less good performance.

(3) In Chile we had Ray, Supreme and ROCNA on board and found three situations where the 'next gen' anchors did not do so well. (a) In very heavy kelp in S Georgia, the roll bars seemed to catch on the kelp and not allow the anchors to set. (b) In bumpy/lumpy rock bottoms in Chile the next gen anchors would skate and not set (while the ray would). (c) in shore scope situations the next gen anchors would drag while the Ray set. You can see our write up and pictures on some of this at http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/Main...hor%20test.pdf

I have no agenda here, other than to say that in our own experience, the Next Gen anchors don't seem to be as magically better as the marketing claims. I hate to see people throwing away perfectly good anchors thinking the 'next gen' performance is going to be vastly better when what they really need is a bit better technique.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

#3 pretty much no-one thinks enough of the next gens vs the prior gens to suggest you should get a lighter next gen.

This is because of the confusion around sizing. The sizing charts are marketing tools and the variables in them are often apple and oranges. For example: sizing charts for anchors such as CQR and Bruce go back many years and had different types of boat designs from those days in mind (lower windage, for example). Sizing for the Spade anchor was dictated by French law specifications that tend to be conservative. Manson, Rocna and Raya spell out quite specifically the wind and windage holding expectations of their anchors, along with the surface blade area (all of which are higher than many others).

The results of the various anchor tests to some extent equalize the sizing charts when they compare anchors of similar weight. Those anchors performing less well could be considered undersized to those performing better. The newer generation anchors almost uniformly exceeded the straight line holding performance of all but the Fortress in most tests. This might suggest one could indeed match the performance of an older generation style by getting a lighter newer generation (best, though, would be to go vice-versa).

Mark

[Talbot]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

............Despite all the high holding power marketing claims about the next generation anchors they are not willing to recommend smaller/light anchors than the prior gen anchors. ...........

Perhaps you need to look again at the Raya recomendations before making such sweeping (incorrect) generalisations.

[forsailbyowner]

I had two beefs with the danforth that eventually made me decide to switch to delta type. One is during a really hard blow it would dig so deep it would straighten out the flukes before giving up its hold. Better to replace anchor than drag though. Two is I've had occasions in firm mud where a chunk would come up and stay in flukes while dragging. Will probably switch to spadewhen novelty wears off and price comes down to realistic level. It doesn't cost any more to make a spade than it does plow of equal size. Paid $200 for my 45lb delta.

[barnakiel]

Better:

- set faster,
- hold stronger,
- re-set better.

Probably only a shortlist of what is a longer list of benefits.

My old hook CQR useless, converted to Bruce, much better, my future plans - either a Manson, Rocna or a Spade, or whatever found best at the time of my re-fit.

There is no one overall winner, but the one gaining most points in a set of conditions wins IMHO (sort of like winning a decathlon competition).

b.

[sailingharry]

Barnakei,

I've heard the words many times before, and tend to "believe" all of them, especially the "reset better" which while important is a very difficult one get anecdotal comparisons between anchors. But I believe! The challenge, and I do suspect it is a complete lack of standards or consensus on how to make the recommendations, is that the recommended weight goes UP with "better" anchors.

Your selection of anchors closely parallels my initial thoughts, where I initially thought my 25lb CQR was incredibly dumb, and I should go with a Bruce (arguably the first and most well known major increase in anchor design), until I found that the recommended Bruce was as big or bigger than my CQR, so then I started learning and found that I now am more confused than when I started.

In your case, could you let me know the size/weight of your boat, the kinds of bottoms you anchor in, the size of the CQR and Bruce that you used, and anecdotally, the "bad" of the CQR and the "bad" of the Bruce (you are considering replacement, after all).

Oh, a buddy of mine, with a Sabre 36 (mine is a 34) has a 25lb CQR as I do. He has anchored many times over many years in the Bay, often as the anchor boat in a raft in heavy air, and finds it fine. My skepticism is unabated -- I want to sleep and the "reccomendations" say I need another 10 lbs in my CQR or another 20 lbs for a Ray (Bruce type). But then, I run into the fact that I can barely manhandle that 25lb CQR onto the roller and can't imagine trying to recover a "better" 44 lb Ray.

Oh the confusion! I think I'm just going to go sailing this weekend! (oh, and raft to someone so THEY can worry about the anchor...).

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Barnakei,
The challenge, and I do suspect it is a complete lack of standards or consensus on how to make the recommendations, is that the recommended weight goes UP with "better" anchors.

.
The problem you have is that a suitable sized anchor is going to be to big for you to handle. Have you considered an aluminium spade, it does not work as well as the steel version, but that still makes it a lot better than the designs you are looking at. If you are manhandling the anchor I would try an avoid any of the designs with a pivoting fluke. The CQR is deadly on fingers.

[YOGAO]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

Barnakei,
...
In your case, could you let me know the size/weight of your boat, the kinds of bottoms you anchor in, the size of the CQR and Bruce that you used, and anecdotally, the "bad" of the CQR and the "bad" of the Bruce (you are considering replacement, after all).

Oh, a buddy of mine, with a Sabre 36 (mine is a 34) has a 25lb CQR as I do. He has anchored many times over many years in the Bay, often as the anchor boat in a raft in heavy air, and finds it fine. ...

Oh the confusion! I think I'm just going to go sailing this weekend! (oh, and raft to someone so THEY can worry about the anchor...).

Harry,

I think Evans (estarzinger) pretty much nailed it in his overview post.

Here is some anecdotal info.

We owned a C&C 34 for 15 seasons on the Ches Bay - about 12,000 lbs, so pretty darn close to what you have.

We were members of a very active sailing club with large raft-ups at least once/month (10 - 15 boats up to 41').

CQR - I personally would use this as a garden decoration. A huge percentage of times that the anchor boat was using a CQR we dragged. We eventually refused to raft with a boat using a CQR (especially in the Rhode). Never ever considered using this type of anchor on our boat. [Yes, I know I will now get beaten up and reported to the mods for this post by CQR lovers.]

Bruce - Our experience with a 33lb bruce was marginally better than with the CQR. This was always confusing to me because it looks like it should do well...it was also HARD to hump that thing up.

Danforth - We used a 13# danforth that came with the boat (1980 model). Initially it had 6' vinyl coated chain w/3-strand nylon rode. After we bought the boat in '91 we replaced that with 20' chain and 3-strand. The only times we dragged were when we

A) - did not properly set the anchor/used too short scope in a narrow creek
B) - had too many boats rafted in too much wind (we had as many as 13 boats on several raft-ups)
C) - after a big wind shift turned us 180 degrees

Note that we decided to buy a heavier hi-tensile danforth style from WM. We thought the extra weight would help and quickly returned it after spending a weekend dragging all over the Corsica River.

YMMV!

Fair Winds,
Mike

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

..."believe" ...
...lack of standards...

... could you let me know the size/weight of your boat, the kinds of bottoms you anchor in, the size of the CQR and Bruce that you used, and anecdotally, the "bad" of the CQR and the "bad" of the Bruce (you are considering replacement, after all).

Hi to all,

msg mostly to Sailingharry, hope others will not get too bored:

In my case it is not a "believe" factor that rules. If you read thru the tests done pretty many times over by various sailing magazines - they give the exact methodology they used, anchor types / sizes and bottom types. To me, they set pretty accurate standards. Then come conversations with other cruisers (esp after a bad night) and last but not least my own experiences. There is an amount of 'art' and some 'ifs' in anchoring like in any other aspect of sailing that is broad and varied enough, but otherwise it is all hard facts.

To keep things in perspective - my own boat 4000 metric loaded (say 8800 lbs), my CQR 25 lbs, Bruce 22 lbs, Dan 22 lbs, chain 60' of 10 mm (believe it is 3/8), then 16 mm Polyester line (on the main). No anchor winch. I consider all my anchors to be one size too small for my boat, but the chain was pretty good.

Anchoring over last 7 years in probably any type of bottom (sailing from Europe to NZ we anchored 100% of time, from NZ to Europe we anchored everywhere except in RSA. We preferred anchorages with about 20-30' depth, sand or mud, needless to say - this was not always possible. We used two anchors a lot of time, in a couple of combinations depending of local conditions.

We dragged I think two or three times, one time dramatically so.

My comments on CQR - sets with difficulty, drags through soft mud / coral sand / does not penetrate weed, does not re-set. Sets very well on submarine cables though.

My comments on Bruce - does not penetrate weed (worse than CQR), can grab a rock and then clogs with it and stops to work, otherwise magic, but re-sets 50/50 - (my guess - gets clogged with heavy mud and other adhesive types of bottom).

Danforth - may penetrate weed, sets poorly, but magic in sand and mud, does not re-set though. Big disadvantage - tends to trip in bottoms where there only a fine layer of sand over rock or coral. And often drags a lot before it sets.

We used the Bruce as our main and the Danforth as our second or kedge.

The choices for our cruising future are either Rocna or Manson, maybe Spade (or whatever will be the best thing available at the time of our re-fit). We also want to downgrade to finer (5/16) higher quality chain - I believe 5/16 is OK for my boat and I want to go for 100' on the main (now 60'). I will go for about 30-35 lbs of new anchor towards my 8800 lbs of boat. (Please note the anchor weight / boat displacement ratio is not linear, so it is of little use for your boat).

(In fact - I talk lbs of anchor, but what I want to gain is not the anchor weight only but the fluke area too - I believe if talking weight then once the anchor is just big enough (say 1 size bigger than the charts) there is no point to get an even bigger one - I believe once the anchor is OK then it is a better use of the weight to have longer and heavier chain).

The reason why I want to upgrade is that the new anchors set faster, hold stronger, penetrate better (weed!!!) and re-set faster and more reliably. All this confirmed in tests and by people I have asked on their Spades, Rocnas and Mansons.

Off course, I also want one of those lovely Guardians (cheapo Fortress) to join my trusty rusty Dan.

My final note is that anybody who cannot handle their anchor manually should use a sort of winch. I am only 6' tall and just 130 lbs of bones, a very skinny guy they say - weighing up my 25 Bruce plus 60' of 3/8 chain (about 120 lbs I guess) is probably as far as I would recommend to anyone, then there are the winches.

Hope this explains my case.

b.