Best Overall Anchor for 50' powerboats

[Andrew Troup]

A better option, perhaps, would be a removable slug of lead, although engineering the retention would need careful and smart detailing.

[noelex 77]

Thanks or the meterlurcal insight Andrew.

I understood CQR anchors had the lead just "naked". When regalvanisng the lead was removed and remelted in place after the galvanising.

My CQR anchor is buried in a locker hopefully never to see the light of day again , but from memory there is lead just melted in the "V"

I have had CQR anchors regalvanised in the past without problems, but the "no lead" claim by the current manufacturer does not sound correct, but not enough to warrant dive into the bottom of those outside lockers

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

... the "no lead" claim by the current manufacturer does not sound correct, but not enough to warrant dive into the bottom of those outside lockers

It might not sound correct, but I think it is.

I think the problem is that we all learned the "fact" that CQRs were ballasted with lead from supposedly reliable printed sources, or at the metaphorical knee of people who were informed by those sources ...


... but of course half truths and supposition (and things which once were true in the dim distant past) are not the sole preserve of the www.

I have a genuine 35lb CQR purchased in 1985 which has been used exactly once, and I can confidently report that it does not contain any lead ballast.

Whatsoever.

[Jim Cate]

FWIW,
I checked, and the popular Manson plow knock-off of a CQR does indeed have lead ballast in the toe.

Cheers,

Jim

[downunder]

I have used CQR's (type) on the Queensland GBR that had lead ballast.

Never checked the brand.

[Kettlewell]

"CQR" is the brand name for a particular plow-type anchor. A lot of people use the term CQR to mean plow anchor, but not all plow anchors are CQRs, if that makes sense! IMHO the genuine CQR does not have lead in the point--it is solid steel.

[Andrew Troup]

I agree with Kettlewell: calling all plough anchors "CQR" is like calling all utility vehicles "Hilux"

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1236563

includes a photo, which, together with the identical setup on my much older anchor, show fairly conclusively that genuine CQR anchors have not been lead ballasted, at least in the last thirty years.

[Delfin]

The OP asked about the "best" anchor for a 50' (or so) powerboat, and I believe he has chosen a Spade. I have also been in the market for a replacement of my Claw, which has always held just fine in winds up to 55 knots, but which doesn't fit the boat as well as I would like.

Anchor threads always create a lot of heat, since everyone who has an anchor has a reason they keep it, and sometimes are defenders regardless of design or objective performance. After a few decades of anchoring, I've reached a few conclusions about what designs are likely to be the "best", granting that on this subject, no consensus is reasonable or possible. It's also worth noting that most anchors will do just fine most of the time. It's only when it really matters that a reason exists to prefer one over another, and here is how I reached my decision to buy a 176# Ultra to replace my 176# Claw:

I'm not interested in a roll bar anchor, regardless of maker. The "best" anchor in my mind is the one that will bury itself but still has a reasonable amount of surface area. The deeper it goes, the better such an anchor holds assuming equivalent surface area if comparing anchors. Because the roll bar is an impediment to burying the anchor, I'll pass. If I was to purchase a roll bar type, it would be a Manson Supreme, which uses the best possible steel available. No thanks on the Rocna because they have, at least in the past, demonstrated that they can't be trusted to tell the truth on the steel they use. No thanks on the Mantus because they use mild steel for the shank; ditto on the Super Sarca.

While I like the Fortress/Guardian because it will bury itself, I can't go that route (except as a secondary, and I have a large Guardian) because I couldn't keep the flukes from rattling around when pounding through waves, and it won't fit on my bow anyway. Danforth is out for the same reason.

Plows like the CQR are out because they are designed to plow, not bury.

Big Bruce types seem to anchor well enough; lighter ones not so much. But as noted, fitting one on my bow is not ideal, and they don't bury themselves all that great either, so if one hadn't come with the boat it wouldn't have been my choice.

So that leads an anchor made with robust steel, or a design that provides strength, and that will bury itself and have decent surface area when buried. In my opinion, that leaves the Excel, which I would have purchased if they were distributed in N.A. and all things considered is probably the best anchor for the money, the Spade or the Ultra. The Spade 165# was a candidate, but is expensive enough that buying the stainless steel Ultra wasn't that big of a leap. I exclude the Delta because it doesn't seem to want to bury itself in the tests I have seen, and the shank can bend even if the steel is a bit stronger than mild steel is.

The Ultra will bury itself, has more surface area/lb than the Claw, CQR or Delta, does reset itself well in a wind shift, has an engineered hollow shank that won't bend and is purty. Expensive, but when compared to the galvanized Spade, not a deal killer. And, the stainless solves the problem already identified of what to do with the lead when you go to re-galvanize a Spade.

So there.

[noelex 77]

It would be great to get some more feedback on the Ultra anchor, so make sure you keep us informed. Most people spending this much money on a SS anchor have opted for the proven performance of the Spade (when a roll bar won't fit) so there is not a lot independent information on the Ultra.

If the manufacturers are listening I was dismayed to see the "ultra anchor setting in large weed" video on the ultra website. Ultra Anchors
It shows the anchor taking a large hop and at the end the anchor looks to be set poorly (see the still shot which is the final set that is achieved). I cannot understand them using this as promotional material.
The other videos are much better, but they only show an average, rather than a really good, set. These modern anchors can be made to disapear completely even in hard sand.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Because the roll bar is an impediment to burying the anchor, I'll pass.

I dive and observe a lot of anchors. The roll bar anchors typically set very deep. They will dive much better than a Delta or example. (And no better, or worse than a Spade)

In basic design terms the roll bar enables the toe of the anchor to be much thinner and chisel shaped as ballast is not needed to achieve the desired tip weight.
Ultra do a better job than most of keeping bulk out of the tip.
Nevertheless anchor designers struggle with these compromises. Bulkier tip, roll bar, or less tip weight.
A few modern anchors have appeared without either a balasted tip or a roll bar, such as the Oceane, but have not been successful, presumably due to a lack of tip weight.
The Manson Boss is possible exception, but the jury is still out on its performance.

The advantage of the roll bar concept is that any impediment to setting and digging in is at least at the back of the anchor. By the time the roll bar is creating any drag the anchor is reasonably well set. A weighted bulky tip creates an impediment before the anchor has set at all.
Despite these comments on anchor design both roll bar and non roll bar anchors can do a fantastic job.
I have often seen a Spade next to a Rocna or Manson Supreme and there is little difference in setting depth and overall performance, over a wide range of substrates. Surprising given they are very different designs.

I hope the Utra can deliver similar performance.

[Delfin]

I'm sure you're quite right about the equivalent burying ability of a hoop anchor vs. a Spade type, but perhaps only up to the point where the hoop is almost submerged. At that point, the anchor is set well enough that it's going to work just fine 99.9% of the time, but it would still be true that to go any deeper, the hoop presents an obstacle, whereas a Spade or Fortress will just keep going. This video shows the Excel disappearing and outpulling a Rocna and Manson combined, which are impeded in burying themselves by the hoop, at least in these conditions.

Excel vs. Manson + Rocna

I believe the Coasties locally had to abandon a Fortress that had continued to dig itself in over a three day storm rendering itself unretrievable. That can be a problem with the Danforth types since pulling up on them doesn't orient the anchor in a way that lets you break its hold, but not so with an Excel/Spade/Ultra.

But I'm probably talking about edge cases in emphasizing the importance of burying, since as you point out, a hoop anchor will bury itself enough to help really well. Just not perhaps quite as well as an anchor 12" under the seabed.

Once I get some experience with the Ultra, I should be able to give some additional feedback on it, at least compared to a equivalently sized Claw.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

This video shows the Excel disappearing and outpulling a Rocna and Manson combined, which are impeded in burying themselves by the hoop, at least in these conditions.

You need to be wary of manufacturers' videos. It's easy to to select a substrate, rate of pull, scope, editing etc that shows your anchor in the best light. You can keep trying and only display the best result.

All the manufacturers do it (apart from Fortress) so I would not be too critical, but I would also place little faith in it.

An interesting point is just before the video cuts away, the MS and Rocna look equally, or more buried to me than the Excel. You can still clearly see the shank of the Excel.
The MS and Rocna with their tall roll bars are much "deeper" anchors than the Excel. When the flukes are equally buried the taller roll bar should be easily visible. There is some heaping of the substrate so its difficult to tell, but I have included a still shot so everyone can judge for themselves the relative depth of set.

Keep in mind this is not an independent result, but selected to supposedly show the Excel buries deeper than the competition.

(from left to right they are Excel, MS and Rocna.)

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

You need to wary of manufacturers videos. Its easy to to select a substrate, rate of pull, scope etc that shows your anchor in the best light. You can keep trying and only display the best result.

All the manufacturers do it (apart from Fortress) so I would not be too critical, but I would also place little faith in it.

An interesting point, is just before the video cuts away, the MS and Rocna look more buried to me than the Excel. You can still clearly see the shank of the Excel.
The MS and Rocna with their tall roll bars are much "deeper" anchors than the Excel. When the flukes are equally buried the taller roll bar should be easily visable. There is some heaping of the substrate so its difficult to tell, but I have included a still shot so everyone can judge for themselves the relative depth of set.
Keep in mind this is not an independent result, but selected to supposedly show the Excel buries deeper than the competion.

Agreed on viewing manufacturers videos with a degree of skepticism. I think the still shot you show was about mid way on the pull, and you have to watch carefully to see the degree to which the Excel has penetrated relative to the Manson and Rocna shown in the photo attached below. This video perhaps illustrates the point better:

004 Presenting Sarca Excel - YouTube

Just as a matter of common sense, one would not expect the hoop to facilitate burying, would one? After all, it is perpendicular to the sea bed. But as I said, I don't doubt that most all of the time a Manson would be a great choice - good steel and an excellent design - but I think it is hard to argue that an anchor with equivalent surface area buried will provide better ultimate holding than one partially buried, if only because the density of the substrate generally increases as you go deeper.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

This video perhaps illustrates the point better:

.

The video only shows the Excel. Most anchors will burry themselves like this, even the old generation anchors. I have seen the Rocna buried, much deeper, several feet under the substrate.
I have watched new generation anchors set and the video performance is very atypical. New generation anchors set very quickly, normally in a few feet. From them on they virtually don't move. The very long drags show in all the videos are much more reminiscent of the older generation anchors. As all the anchors do this I assume its a very unusual substrate, or because its a beach test, rather than a proper underwater test.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Just as a matter of common sense, one would not expect the hoop to facilitate burying, would one?

A thick ballasted toe also does not facilitate burying, nor does a light tip weight. The roll bar facilitates a high tip weight with a fine chisel tip toe.

The manufacturer of a modern design anchor must decide between the design elements choosing to balance the best compromise between a roll bar, thick toe, and low toe weight.

[motion30]

what makes you guys think the roll bar.and impedance for the anchor to be buried deep . on more than one time I've had my suppreme burried where you could only see the chain protruding from the sand

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by mvelotas

Thanks, Guys, for the fast response! But the bruce seems to give up ground ...slowly and deceptively!! Like when I have a rising tide and wind. Even let out more road after re-anchoring. Just don't trust it. A spade is not much different from a delta style, so I tend to want to lean that way. Would like the Rocna or Manson, but don't see it fitting under my bow correctly. And the CQR had great tests with the Navy and with independent testing. On the Formula site, I had suggestions to use the Fortress. It has the Navy's best test results, but not sure I would want that as my primary anchor on my windlass..

Yep, in plain old sand the Bruce is going to travel for sure. It has very little surface area projected in a manner to provide resistance to doing so.... just look at it and think it through. IF the Spade fits your roller setup give it a try. If you want ultimate holding and they fit your roller setup a Danforth or Fortress will provide that.