Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better?'

[RaySea Lady]

My mistake and My apologies, My anchor is a 35LB CQR and not a delta as previously mentioned. Just noticed and would not want to give Delta a bad rep as I know nothing about their product. Now, I feel that I should buy a Delta just to make up for this.

My boat weighs 27 tons with fuel etc. and I have a 3500 lb. windlass

Originally Posted by RaySea Lady

QuicklineUSA - Ultra Anchor

I currently have a Delta plow 35lbs with 200 ft of 3/8 chain rode, but the delta simply does not grab all that well and takes several attempts, although I have only anchored three times with it. It Seems to act like the cqr mentioned above.

Right now I am debating between the Rocna above and this Ultra Anchor. Both seem to recomend around 100lbs ..

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

Evans,

36.5' steel sloop full loaded displacement upwards to maybe 23,000#, what size Ray would you recomend to go anywhere?

Hiracer,

The short answer I suspect 44lbs would be just fine for 'normal' locations. I would think about a size larger for Chile and the rest of the south. We got RTW never dragging with a 44lber on Silk.

The long answer - I don't know

We don't have that much experience with our Ray yet to know if it is a good Bruce copy or not - we suspect it is but can't say with certainty yet.

I also don't know how much of our (or any-one's) anchoring experience is due to the captain rather than the anchor - I suspect a lot, but can't say with certainty. I am VERY careful picking my anchoring spot - looking for the best protection and the best bottom in a harbour. I am VERY aware if my anchor is well set or not (usually diving on it in the tropics and backing on it in the cold water) and will leave if the weather becomes unsettles and the set is suspect. When its possible, we really enjoy sailing on and off our anchor, and that creates an incentive toward a good setting design (although I might add that lin/larry also obviously do this, and quite successfully, with a CQR). I am VERY careful to create an exit plan for any anchorage that does not have 360 protection, so I can leave at night if the wind shifts to the unprotected quarter. A lot of cruising boats will try to sit that out, but we leave and go to sea. I use quite short scope (down to 2:1) in many situations (but quite long scope in bad conditions) and that probably affects my anchor choice and sizing. We do not use two anchors very frequently, preferring one large anchor and if it is not big enough for any particular harbour/situation we go elsewhere. If I have to make a trade-off, I prefer to have more weight in the anchor and less in the chain/rode (but not less than 75' chain in coral). We do explore the more remote corners of the world and do probably see great bottom variety and more wind than most.

This is all pretty distinctive technique and I could probably add another dozen points if I thought about it more. I am sure they dramatically affect our anchoring experience and selection and sizing.

[Hiracer]

Evans,

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

I have a 44# Spade right now and I'm very happy with it (and a 66# Spade in the lazarette). Prior experience is with the CQR, Super Max, and cheap Bruce copy.

The Spade performs the same as the other 'new generation' anchors you reference in your website. That is, it works great so long as the bottom is some type of deposited 'soil.' In rocky bottoms it's just as terrible as most anchors. I view this failure to work in a rocky bottom as a positive thing because I then know when to move elsewhere. The San Juans Islands and areas north offers fairly benign anchoring, and there's always someplace else to bailout to.

But my limited experience in Alaska (three years mainly in Kenai Fjords) tells me that having an anchor that can provide some service in rocky bottoms can be a real asset when an entire region offers nothing but iffy bottoms. I left the Great North 9 years ago, but back then the Bruce absolutely dominated the anchoring scene up there. It's the regions where the glaciers have receded in recent history that pose the problem. There just hasn't been enought time for any type of soil to form and be transmitted to the bottom of the bays.

I don't like the risk of fouling that comes with the fisherman types, so by default I keep thinking about picking up an old used Bruce or, if none, springing for a Ray.

Avoiding rocky bottoms is obviously the best solution, but sometimes that solution is just not offered unless one sticks to the middle latitudes.

Thanks again.

Does anybody know what is the next size above 44# for the Bruce? I might start looking for one, although the shank width might pose a problem for my particular boat.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Hiracer,

The short answer I suspect 44lbs would be just fine for 'normal' locations. I would think about a size larger for Chile and the rest of the south. We got RTW never dragging with a 44lber on Silk.

The long answer - I don't know

We don't have that much experience with our Ray yet to know if it is a good Bruce copy or not - we suspect it is but can't say with certainty yet.

I also don't know how much of our (or any-one's) anchoring experience is due to the captain rather than the anchor - I suspect a lot, but can't say with certainty. I am VERY careful picking my anchoring spot - looking for the best protection and the best bottom in a harbour. I am VERY aware if my anchor is well set or not (usually diving on it in the tropics and backing on it in the cold water) and will leave if the weather becomes unsettles and the set is suspect. When its possible, we really enjoy sailing on and off our anchor, and that creates an incentive toward a good setting design (although I might add that lin/larry also obviously do this, and quite successfully, with a CQR). I am VERY careful to create an exit plan for any anchorage that does not have 360 protection, so I can leave at night if the wind shifts to the unprotected quarter. A lot of cruising boats will try to sit that out, but we leave and go to sea. I use quite short scope (down to 2:1) in many situations (but quite long scope in bad conditions) and that probably affects my anchor choice and sizing. We do not use two anchors very frequently, preferring one large anchor and if it is not big enough for any particular harbour/situation we go elsewhere. If I have to make a trade-off, I prefer to have more weight in the anchor and less in the chain/rode (but not less than 75' chain in coral). We do explore the more remote corners of the world and do probably see great bottom variety and more wind than most.

This is all pretty distinctive technique and I could probably add another dozen points if I thought about it more. I am sure they dramatically affect our anchoring experience and selection and sizing.

[Eric ROGUE]

Maine Sail and estarzing thank you both for so generously sharing your vast knowledge about anchoring. This thread is by far the most informative of any information I have been able to obtain from many, many hours of web searching. Yes, I have read every test openly published on the web and been to various anchor manufacturer's websites. I still have some questions. I am especially interested to hear estarzing and Main Sail thoughts on the matters I raise.

Anchoring is a matter of anchoring system, not just anchor. In days before engines new sail vessels tested their anchoring system by reaching in force 5 and letting go the anchor. If the vessel turned head to wind, and everything held the anchoring system was considered adequate. In those days the anchor was a traditional kedge/yachtsman. What modern anchor will reliably set under this testing situation as well as it would set if one were taking care to set it on the same bottom?

My question is not idle. "Slow but firm" setting as advocated by Evans is not always possible. Without an engine, or when an engine fails, an anchor is what the safety of the boat depends on (assuming inability to sail out of the situation). I have been in said situation. My storm anchor was in the bilge. I was 500 yds off a windward shore that became a lee shore in a 180* wind shift when the wind went from calm to 30 knots in less than five minutes under clear skies. My sails were furled and I was under tow by an inexperienced dinghy operator. Under me was glacial gravel covered with weed. The working anchor is the anchor that must WORK! When I successfully dropped my working anchor over better holding ground I was sailing at or near hull speed. I was very lucky I was able to sail under bare poles at nearly 90* to the wind to get to better holding ground.

ROGUE is 26', weighs 8000 lbs, with high freeboard but free standing masts so windage ROGUE's windage is more like a power boat than a sailboat. ROGUE presently has no engine, and will never have an engine I would consider adequate for an emergency or high wind. ROGUE is a sailboat. I rely on sails and anchor(s). Presently I have a 13S Danforth, 15lb Fortress, and 50* plow. I am going to get rid of the plow. My working anchor will be my storm anchor. Hurricane will take more thought: backed anchor or 3 danforth types at 120* mooring style. I will dive to check for adequate set. I have no anchor windless. I can dangle my boat from the anchor cleat and shake it without worry. Cleats on the quarters are just as well attached. I can stand at the bow secure in a hatch to handle anchor and rode. I wish I had bought 5/16" instead of 1/4" chain, more so now that I hope to go with a lighter anchor than the 50 lb plow. (Interesting that that my 50 lb plow (not CQR) has about the same fluke area as a 22 lb Delta.)

I was pretty well convinced from anchor tests and distributor propaghanda that I should get a Rocna or perhaps a Supreme. Then I read Evans' article in "Cruising World" about Rocna/Supreme not holding in rock when the claw did. However, independent tests, and a Rocna propaganda video show that the (22 lb? ) claw dragging and failing to set when the Rocna dug right in. In this forum Evans has stated that Rocna and Supreme do not do well in rock, weed, or on short scope. He and Maine Sail both feel that a claw of less than 44 lbs cannot be assumed to perform like a claw of 44 lbs or more. I can handle 44 lbs plus at least some chain, but I would prefer to go with a 22 lb anchor and 50 to 100 feet of 5/16" chain plus half inch three strand nylon. As I get older a 44 lb anchor will be less and less enjoyable to handle.

Will a Delta perform better in rock than the Rocna or Supreme? What about grass/weed? What can I expect for reliablity of setting with a 22 lb Delta? What about claws? are claws unreliable in weights less than 44 lbs? The performance of the claw in the Rocna test was as unacceptable as the CQR. Compare Delta and Spade regards ability to dig in (both have somewhat blunted, weighted tips). Under what conditions? Rocna and Supreme are clearly reliable in sand and mud. Maine Sail I would especially appreciate your comments because you have experience with Delta (which you gave up) and Spade (which you do not use?) as well as the Rocna and Supreme. What are your experiences with Rocna and Supreme in Maine weed?

Until reading this forum, and having already become less enchanted with the Rocna and Supreme, I had been wondering if the Delta might be my best all around choice for an anchor. It had the added advantage of being easier to stow than the roll bar anchors. (I do not carry my anchor on deck.)

I will be carrying the Danforth types. I am willing to carry two other anchors if I need to in order to deal with different bottom conditions. However, I think I would sail more comfortably, and sleep better, with one "best all around anchor" (even if not perfect) attached to my anchor rode ready to deploy in a sudden emergency of which I have already had experience. If that takes handling a 44 lb anchor, so be it. If I must carry three types of anchors, the third better cope with weed and rock well because I have mud anchors, and clear choices for sand anchor.

[estarzinger]

Eric,

First, congratulations on sailing engine-less. I think that is a great skill and achievement.

Second, I am certainly NOT an anchor expert. We have anchored a lot and thought about it a lot, and I went thru a multi-anchor testing exercise when we needed to replace our broken Bruce, but the intent has always been to learn what the best anchors are FOR US rather than in some more general sense.

Third, I have always had a real problem understanding why the anchor tests are generally so contrary to our own (And other cruisers like the Dashews) direct personal experience. We never dragged with the 44lb Bruce, but the anchor tests all say it has almost no holding power and is a complete failure. That's not a small minor inconsistency, it is in fact a major disconnect between the tests and the real world (at least our real world). It makes me heavily discount anchor test results. I don't completely understand the cause of the disconnect/inconsistency, except that for us setting ability in difficult bottoms is much more important than holding power in good bottoms and the tests generally focus on holding power. But this disconnect is one thing that makes me reluctant to recommend specific anchors - I feel comfortable enough with my understanding of the reason for the disconnect to intelligently equip my own boat but not enough be be comfortable making a firm recommendation to others.

Fourth, the forum generally disagrees with me, but I do think the skipper is more important that the particular anchor design. Each and every design has strengths and weaknesses. The skipper needs to be aware of what those are and use his skill and forward thinking to compensate for them. I believe a good skipper and a decent anchor weight can make any of the 'good' design work.

Fifth, you don't say where you sail or what sort of bottoms you anchor on. You also don't say if you have a windless. I think that would be important to know.

That all aside, what would do if I have your boat and were sailing worldwide (so a wide variety of bottoms). My initial preference would be to get a Ray 44 with at least 75' of 5/16 chain plus rope. My second choice if you were going to be almost all in sand and mud with be a supreme if your bow can handle the roll bar or a delta if not.

As I said in #4 above, these anchors all have strengths and weaknesses. The Supreme will have excellent holding power in deep sand/and mud. It will not have much holding power in thin sand over coral/rock - I dove and watched Dashew drag his Ronca in Mexico on this sort of bottom (the tip skated along the coral and plowed thru the sand) where our Ray created a big pile of sand in front of it and held. The Ray will have better setting in a wide variety of bottoms but there are a few where it will have much less holding power (soft sand) and you might get a danforth out for that bottom. The Delta is a good design - easier to stow than the supreme, will probably dig deeper than the supreme in some bottoms (because of no roll bar) will probably work better in very heavy grass/kelp (again because of no roll bar), but may have very lightly less holding power in a very few particular bottom. I think you could make either work for you.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I don't completely understand the cause of the disconnect/inconsistency, except that for us setting ability in difficult bottoms is much more important than holding power in good bottoms and the tests generally focus on holding power.

Bingo.

It's hard to appreciate the significance of this statement until you get to areas that simply do not offer much in the way of good bottoms.

[Eric ROGUE]

Evans, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Your remarks have contributed greatly to my decision making.

Your strong sense that skipper actions are more important than anchor design is disconcerting. I have a boat that will perform well when I do not. I want an anchor that will perform well when I do not, or can not. I hope others reading this forum heed your comment "and a decent anchor weight".

I don't understand the discrepancies between experience and testing either. Thinking that the variable test results I remembered for the claw might be based upon anchor weight I just reviewed some of the test results. In one a 22 lb Bruce set well and 22 lb Lewmar claw slightly less well, while in another a 36 lb Lewmar Claw performed very poorly. Choosing would be simpler if weight were the sole factor. The Delta performs superbly in some tests and fails to set in others. Even the CQR came out tops in one test. The new anchors have had less testing and this may be the reason they have not yet shown the variable results the older designs have shown. Average results are far more important than superior results in one test or another. For this reason the experience of sailors like yourself, who have a lot of experience anchoring with several types of anchors, and experienc anchoring on as many different bottom conditions as any sailor is likely to encounter, is of tremendous value to the rest of us; whether you consider yourself an anchoring expert or not.

ROGUE has no anchor windless. There is a rope winch on the foremast which can be used to bring in an anchor rope rode. I have chain hooks on ropes which can be, one after the other, hooked onto the chain to winch the chain rode in, but I consider this merely a means of dealing with a stuck anchor, or dealing with a situation where I have dragged into deep water and have all of my chain and storm anchor to haul straight up (happened to someone who couldn't deal with it).

As for cruising areas I am likely to experience: The Great Lakes and on out the St Lawrence River to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia (emulating cruises my father did on his 25' Ariel). I am most familiar with Lake Onterio and the Thousand Islands. Lake Huron's North Channel appears to be like the Thousand Islands, but more so and wilder. East Coast of the US, Maine to the Chesapeake. Bahamas (ROGUE's element. ROGUE floats in 1', sails well in 3' 30 knot wind). Caribbean. So, anchoring conditions I am likely to anchor in include: sand, glacial moraine, kelp? and other interesting weed (and rock?) in the Canadian Maritime and Maine (I will be interested in Maine Sail's comments), and sand over coral.

Sailing around the world? ROGUE while smaller than I would prefer is seaworthy enough for the dream to be made real if I choose.

As for sailing engineless, that has been a matter of poor design. Had I carried out my original design the prop would have sucked air. However, going engineless while I considered what sort of auxiliar power would suit me best has not been troubling. ROGUE was designed to be a sailboat with auxiliary power an after thought. I never intended to rely on an engine. I learned to sail with an unreliable engine. Dad never used the engine when control was important. We sailed into the marinas, to pick up moorings, and on and off the hook. We couldn't rely on the engine so we seldom used it. I don't expect marinas would allow us to do that any more. Dad replaced the original engine with a reliable diesel and I got sloppy sailing Dad's boat while I built ROGUE. Not having an engine is forcing me to learn how to sail again. ROGUE is not so nimble as Dad's Ariel, but will sail itself for long periods of time, and can be stopped and backed up under control. Learning the full capabilities of one's boat and learning to accomplish all tasks under sail is not just satisfying, it creates a justifiable confidence and knowledge base that will keep boat and crew safe.

[colemj]

The problem with kellets are getting enough weight so that they are useful means getting one that is unwieldy. I think their main purpose is to make the owner feel better. The attached pic is of a kellet in 12kts of wind.

Mark

[speedoo]

Originally Posted by colemj

The problem with kellets are getting enough weight so that they are useful means getting one that is unwieldy. I think their main purpose is to make the owner feel better. The attached pic is of a kellet in 12kts of wind.

Mark

My guess is that kellet is very light. Do you know its weight?

[Keegan]

I found a fail-safe anchor. Just set it and forget it.

[Hiracer]

I just looked at the price difference between the Manson and Lewmar clones of the Bruce.

My goodness. It's got to be the metal.

[barnakiel]

Doubt it. Just that Lewmar makes theirs in huge amounts in China, while Manson and Rocna (and perhaps Spade) may be doing theirs locally (NZ?) where labour is more expensive. Then shipment costs, marketing ...

Anyway, the "Bruce" from Lewmar look like cheap knock-offs - have a look at any original Bruce and you will be shocked to see the difference.

b.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Doubt it. Just that Lewmar makes theirs in huge amounts in China, while Manson and Rocna (and perhaps Spade) may be doing theirs locally (NZ?) where labour is more expensive. Then shipment costs, marketing ...

Anyway, the "Bruce" from Lewmar look like cheap knock-offs - have a look at any original Bruce and you will be shocked to see the difference.

b.

Actually, ROCNA is made in China also. They have not lowered their prices to reflect this either... not sure why anyone would pay MORE money for a CHINESE anchor?

From their web site;

....Each Rocna begins life in one of our three manufacturing facilities worldwide, located in New Zealand, China, and Canada....

I will stick with my Manson Supreme, less expensive, Lloyds certified, and not made in China.

[sabray]

I'm quote happy with mr bruce original. Damn I'm sold old iremember when were excited about cqr. Given tecnique and ground conditions. I lke the Bruce if it's mud the fx will do I have a 60 lb cqr which I wish was a rocna and Luke 70 which I have never used. Either one though is a Fill in depending on conditions.

[CAELESTIS]

Evan, since you did a test for PS, how good is the Ray compared to the original Bruce?