Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

[sailingharry]

Barnakiel mentioned the Spade, which certainly (along with the Sword) gets a lot of press in the forums. Anybody know why the Spade only has ONE vendor (which pretty much means mail order) in the US, and nobody sells the dramatically cheaper and arguably comparable Sword? It is a drag that the only next gen you can "just go buy" is the Supreme/Rocna style.

[David M]

It's my opinion that there is no best anchor just as there is no best boat. A number of factors determine which anchor is best for which situation....including the skippers skills.

[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..

[Vasco]

MaineSail,

Excellent!

[YOGAO]

Harry,

Sorry if I wasn't totally clear (a common problem for me on these forums!). We NEVER used a CQR on our boat! We did have other C&C yachts in our club using CQRs. These were mostly the folks that took their boats to the Bahamas for the winter and were married to the idea that a CQR was a "cruising" anchor. Most of these were on boats in the 38 - 41' range w/anchor weights in the 45 - 60 lb range.

Again, for me, I would sell the bloody CQR on e-bay or find a restaurant going for a nautical theme, but that's just me. I know you will probably go with the danforth, anchor in some really nice, isolated creek on the Eastern Shore and wake up w/the boat hard aground in Ego Alley - AND IT WILL BE MY FAULT!! Just remember the advice you get is worth what I received to provide it!

Fair Winds,
Mike

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by David M

It's my opinion that there is no best anchor just as there is no best boat. A number of factors determine which anchor is best for which situation....including the skippers skills.

The best anchor does not exist, but the better one, it's my opinion, very much so. The thread reads "better".

But I would take the skipper's skills out of this bag - I strongly believe that for any specific situation, a specific anchor is good/best, regardless of skipper's skills. This is because, so I think, the skills for all anchors are same.

Or else please expand on your thought in more detail.

barnie

[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

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

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

Yes a Manson 25 will roughly equal a CQR 35 in terms of surface area and a Manson 35, a CQR 45 in sq in, and so on.

For years a CQR 35 was the standard size for most 34 footers and a 25 Manson equals that in sq in surface area... Sure you can use a 35 but it's really more like a CQR 45 on a 34 footer..

My buddy Tim uses a Manson 25 on an Ericson 35 III, never an issue and has seen high winds, and I used my Manson 25 on a 31 footer to 55 knots.

Here's 25Lb CQR vs. a 25 Lb. Manson Supreme. Unlike the Manson the CQR has a weighted tip which means less available surface area or holding area, for the given weight.



This is an interesting photo. I took photos of a Bruce, Rocna, Spade, CQR & Super Max. I then highlighted the angle of attack or "set angle" as these anchors usually orient when landing on the bottom.

As you can see the Bruce actually has the steepest drive or set angle but the anchor has to roll nearly 180 degrees to be in the "perfect set" position once buried. As one who has dove on this Bruce many times I can assure you it takes a lot to get this anchor in "perfect set" orientation on a hard bottom. Often times even when backing down at 80% throttle, on a hard bottom, it was still laying mostly on it's side with only half the anchor buried or half holding power. The hope would be that if the wind kicked up it would finish setting and roll upright..?

The Rocna and Spade have the next steepest angle of attack but the least distance to roll upright into "perfect set". The CQR has a very low angle of attack on the bottom and is probably why it tends to "skip and hop" along the bottom rather than punch through penetrate it. The Super Max has a terrible angle of attack and in my own use of this anchor it set no better than a CQR in hard bottoms so all next gens are not created equal.


A surface area comparison of a weighted tip new gen anchor and a roll bar anchor. The Rocna is 33 Lbs. and the Spade is 35 Lbs.. The Spade is two pounds heavier yet has dramatically less holding surface area for its given weight...

[sildene]

Maine Sail, excellent post and good photographs that I'm sure are much appreciated by many, including myself.

A couple of comments:

1) Angle-of-attack photos: Once the anchor hits a flat bottom, that is how it would lie. But that is probably not it's orientation once the rode pulls on it.
When we pull up on the shank, we will pull up and re-orient the tip of each anchor from the positions shown in the second photograph. Thus, once the rode pulls the anchor, the angle of attack of the tip on the (assumed for this discussion) flat bottom, would change. And it is the angle of attack of the tip in this "changed", tensioned position that will have an important bearing on how quickly the anchor can dig in.

So, ideally useful would be a comparative series of photographs showing how candidate anchors orient their tips, and start to dig in, once under increasing tension from a rode.

2) Regarding the relative weights of the Rocna33 and the Spade35, the variance in weight-to-surface area is even greater if you discount the part of the Rocna's weight that is in it's hoop. If that means (I'm not sure) the "extra" weight in the Spade is in it's tip, ultimately, that could be a good thing for penetration. So, potentially an interesting question - how do you trade off penetration against holding power once set?

Martin

[roverhi]

For the Chesapeake mud bottoms, a Danforth is an excellent anchor. Think the West Marine reccomendation of a 16 is a bit on the light side however. We had a 20H on our Morgan 35 and it worked fine. The 25# CQR is a bit light for a serious cruising anchor but if you are sticking around the Chesapeake should work just fine. Sounds to me like you have a good anchor setup for the area that you are cruising. I wouldn't invest in any new anchors unless you intend to roam farther afield. Then I'd get a 35# Manson/Spade, etc.

We anchored 24/7/365 for over a year with a 45# CQR and 3/8" chain on a 20,000#+ boat and never had a problem including one tropical depression with 50 knot winds.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by sildene

1) Angle-of-attack photos: Once the anchor hits a flat bottom, that is how it would lie. But that is probably not it's orientation once the rode pulls on it.

Actually when you set with proper scope the weight of the chain does not really allow for "uprighting" of the anchor. Sure, you can always try to set on shorter scope in order to "upright" the anchor but without visibility of the anchor this is guess work at best. Plus, we all know from experience, that the CQR actually dislikes short scopes..

To visually answer your question I have a video that was done on an intertidal zone. It was performed at a 7:1 scope ratio with the pull vehicle roughly 12 feet above the anchor with 85 feet of line out. This anchor test had only 12 feet of 1/4" chain yet a boat with more chain, or heavier chain, would keep the chain on the bottom even better. This video shows that the anchor remains in the orientation I showed in the pictures. These test I conducted led me to those red lines.

Manson Supreme Test Video (LINK)

I have physically tested all the anchors I own to get a feel for how they set and those red lines are very much how they set and dig in.

Originally Posted by sildene

2) Regarding the relative weights of the Rocna33 and the Spade35, the variance in weight-to-surface area is even greater if you discount the part of the Rocna's weight that is in it's hoop. If that means (I'm not sure) the "extra" weight in the Spade is in it's tip, ultimately, that could be a good thing for penetration. So, potentially an interesting question - how do you trade off penetration against holding power once set?

Martin

In reality it does not work that way all the time. The cross sectional dimension of the Rocna or Manson is a single plane, like a shovel tip, where the Spade, due to it's lead filled tip, is like a triangular cone. Pushing a triangular cone through a hard surface is just physically harder no matter how you slice it up despite the added tip weight.

Here's a video showing how the Spade penetrated the hard sand vs. the previous video you just watched, not as good.

Spade Set Video (LINK)

Tip views:

This is a LOT of three dimensional metal to drive into a hard bottom:


This Rocna is one dimensional, knife like and easy to slice through a hard top layer:


The Manson Supreme is also very knife like:


P.S The tip weight of a Rocna is roughly 32% of the anchors total weight! This info was published in Practical Sailor Vol 34 No 11..

[imagine2frolic]

The Model T isn't the same as the new Shelby GT Mustang. It's the same company, but it is called evolution. Over time the same, and or simliar products will improve, and that is what has happened to anchors too........i2f

[YOGAO]

Maine Sail,

Interesting vids - especially for someone who might typically be in murky water and unable to see the anchor's behavior.

The other interesting point that you documented so well in the cross section pictures, is the way the Manson and Spade behave while digging in. The Spade somewhat more plow-like due to its bulk and the Manson more like a pointed shovel (what gardeners might call a "spade" shovel).

The other interesting thing is how the Manson directs the sand/mud through the hoop. We have noticed this on our Rocna and we have also noticed that our Rocna will not bury as much due to the hoop. I interpret this as a 'worry point', since in a real blow the anchor may not dig in any deeper (haven't yet had to test this).

Fair Winds,
Mike

[Therapy]

MainSail,

As always your information is invaluable.

I just have not decided between the Rocna and Manson.

[Talbot]

Before you decide, it is also worth looking at the Raya. It has a larger surface area, and less weight than the other two. It also has an even better angle of attack. It certainly has my interest.