Anchor Surface Area Comparison - Manson Supreme vs CQR

[Maine Sail]

Hi All,

OK So I was really bored today and while cleaning the garage I found myself staring at some of my anchors. I have been using a Manson Supreme as my primary anchor but had never noticed how much surface area this little 25lb anchor had when compared to a 25 lb. CQR, and a 35 lb. Spade. I took a picture because I found it very interesting. It's no wonder the 25 lb. Manson holds so well it's the size of most 35 lb. anchors in terms of pure surface area. It can be lighter because it does not need the added lead tip weight like both the CQR and the Spade yet it weighs a full 10 lbs. less! The 25 lb. Manson Supreme dwarfs the 25 lb. CQR and is the same size as a 35 lb Spade! My 35 lb Delta Fast Set is similar in surface area to the Manson but my my 33 lb. Bruce has even less surface area than my 25 lb CQR. They are not pictured because they are currently under shrik wrap because I loaned them to friends seeing as I was not using them.

If surface area is what holds your boat once the anchor is set why pay good money to be hauling up unnecessary added lead weight and straining your back??? Wouldn't it be a better idea to buy a Rocna or a Manson Supreme? This is why Craig Smith (of Rocna) says his prices are competitive. They are competitive because you cant compare a 35lb CQR to a 35lb Rocna! A 25 lb Rocna is closer in surface area to a 35 pound CQR so you only need a 25lb instead of a 35lb...... I don't own a Rocna but do think the anchor is a winner. If my less expensive Rocna knock off can beat all my other anchors, even though it weighs significantly less than them, than the real Rocna must really perform!

Dont get me wrong the Spade is my back up anchor and the Fortress pictured is my dedicated stern anchor & no I would never use it as a primary. The CQR, well, it just collects dust along side my aluminum Spade A-80 because they just can't compete with the Manson or the steel Spade!

[Kettlewell]

I was searching around for surface area comparisons and found this interesting old post. Very nice photo comparison. Does anyone know of a surface area comparison chart for various anchors? That seems to be a very important factor that nobody talks about much.

[capngeo]

Oh goodie! Another anchor thread! Surprised the anchor salesmen aren't already opining!

[Dockhead]

Well, Spade sell their anchors based on surface area, and not primarily weight.

But I wouldn't just toss weight aside as a factor in how your anchor holds.

[Kettlewell]

Surface area isn't everything, but in general it seems that surface area is important when comparing two anchors of similar weight.

[S/V Alchemy]

When Maine gets bored, Practical Sailor gets nervous. The guy's a one-man Consuming Sailor Reports.

That's a compliment, by the way.

[s/v 'Faith']

Cool thread,

Thanks for sharing.

[Sailmonkey]

The Raya anchors were marketed by area rather than weight also.

[djmarchand]

Well, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Sure If two anchors are set well and deep, then the one with the more surface area will hold better. But they are never set the same. The Bruce has superb setting geometry, but its wide flukes don't let it set deep. That is why it has top setting ratings and mediocre holding ratings. It simply never sets deep.

What makes the Rocna and Manson Supreme work extremely well is that their design and geometry lets them set easily and deep. And the extra surface area lets them hold better than most.

David

[Kettlewell]

Obviously, it is all a balancing act, and ideally you want great setting ability and great holding ability. Here on much of the East Coast you are anchoring in mud, and in general getting the anchor to bury is not the problem, but we do have frequent thunderstorms and weather patterns that means that any time you do anchor you want a lot of holding power. So, if two anchors are similar, surface area would be a useful thing to compare them. That's one reason that the Danforth/Fortress type usually wins out in mud bottoms, and that I do not sleep well if someone is anchored upwind of me using a Bruce.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

So I was really bored today and while cleaning the garage I found myself staring at some of my anchors.

I can't help but feel pathos regarding this situation. Our friend Maine Sail, our dear old friend Maine Sail, sitting in his garage, staring at his anchors.

Winter is cruel.

[S/V Alchemy]

Crimping, soldering....crimping, soldering...

[Therapy]

I am confused. This thread is from 2007 with 3643 views and 11 replies, all from today.

Something in the electron world is not right.

But it is an anchor thread so I am on it for sure.

Thanks Kettlewell.

PS: Should Someone notify a mod now so it can be put out of it's misery right away?

[sabray]

Originally Posted by djmarchand

Well, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

Sure If two anchors are set well and deep, then the one with the more surface area will hold better. But they are never set the same. The Bruce has superb setting geometry, but its wide flukes don't let it set deep. That is why it has top setting ratings and mediocre holding ratings. It simply never sets deep.

What makes the Rocna and Manson Supreme work extremely well is that their design and geometry lets them set easily and deep. And the extra surface area lets them hold better than most.

David

Best simplest explanation I've heard. Right on. I wanted to add something but you have concluded all anchor threads in your explanation. Bruce is a good anchor where you won't and can't get better depth or cut. The Manson rocna and even cqr will bight deep where a Bruce won't. I think the fx does the same it has great holding but is not as inclined to dig deep. Usually avoid anchor threads but you put that so well

[sabray]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Obviously, it is all a balancing act, and ideally you want great setting ability and great holding ability. Here on much of the East Coast you are anchoring in mud, and in general getting the anchor to bury is not the problem, but we do have frequent thunderstorms and weather patterns that means that any time you do anchor you want a lot of holding power. So, if two anchors are similar, surface area would be a useful thing to compare them. That's one reason that the Danforth/Fortress type usually wins out in mud bottoms, and that I do not sleep well if someone is anchored upwind of me using a Bruce.

But I've never had a problem with my bruce in mud. Cqr sucked but then some of that is size and rhode and technique related. So far my Bruce with 5/16 chain gas held in a lot of travels. I'm really thinking I'll put a rocna or Manson as my primary and will be up1 weight class from the Bruce. Keep my Bruce and fx. Sell the 60lb cqr. I took off my Luke 70 and it's a lawn ornament and for sale.