Visit our Popular Forums

Mark Johnson · 29-01-2011, 10:01

Craig,

EVERYONE knows that there is no such anchor brand as a plow, or a Lightweight. They are industry accepted American terms for "types".

For several decades (40s & 50s) people in America called refrigerators a "FRIGIDAIRE", incorrectly, because it was the most common brand.

Likewise, for decades all "lightweight" anchors were referred to as a "Danforth", Then many more brands came out...

Many years back, when improvements to the old hinged Danforth came out, like West Marine, Fortress, etc. It was agreed upon by the industry and testing entities, to refer to ALL of these as a "lightweight TYPE", without in any way suggesting that they were similar in performance in any way. (Only vaguely similar in shape)

Likewise, when the old CQRs and Bruces, were being replaced by the Delta, Rocna, etc, these, as a group, needed to be compared within they're type, It was agreed that they would be refered to as "PLOW TYPES", only because they resemble a farming plow, NOT that they are the same in any other way.

No one ever suggested that all "lightweights" were the same, (the Fortress is definitely better than a Danforth)... or that all "plow types" were the same, (the Rocna is definitely better than my beloved Delta)... In fact, if a direct replacement Rocna would fit where I need to put it, I'd run out and buy one!

MY POINT was that ALL "Plow Types", have this in common... They have a pretty good chance of resetting from a new direction, especially if they slowly spin around VS being jerked out of the bottom... So using a "Plow Type" as a single hook is a reasonably safe thing to do. (Obviously some do this more reliably than others).

The other point was that this is NOT true of "lightweight" types, because of the ease of fouling their hinge. (especially the lighter ones). So, it is not prudent to use a single "lightweight" type as your only hook, in reversing wind or current situations.

None of our personal experiences of comparing one anchor within a group to another, means anything at all. (Including mine) It is too small a sample.

Hundreds of unbiased test done by multiple sources, in many different locations, all over the world, DO mean something! The jury is in, that the best of the "lightweight types" is the Fortress, and in firm mud or sand it is the most powerful as well! (POUND FOR POUND). Still, it is NOT meant to be used day in day out as one's only anchor.

Of the "plow types", that ARE meant to be used as a "single hook" anchor, the Rocna has been tested as superior to all of the rest.

I agree that ALL of the cheaper "knockoffs" out there, are similar in appearance perhaps, but not as good as the name brand. Subtle differences make all the difference!

So, when comparing anchors themselves, we call them by name, but when comparing which ones should be used in opposing pairs as (A)... and which ones can be used alone as (B)... We have no choice but to call them by type.

(A) "Lightweights" = Danforth, West, Fortress, etc.

(B) "plow types" = CQR, Bruce, Delta, Rocna, etc

The points I was making had nothing to do with what anchors within a type, now test out as being best, I think that those test speak for themselves! I was making a point about one anchor types limitations and virtues, VS another.

I hope this clears up my previous statement. BTW, congratulations on having the best "plow type" out there at present. Good work! Mark

craigsmith · 29-01-2011, 10:14

That's all great and I wasn't disagreeing with you.

But on the naming issue, you are wrong. Plow anchors are plows, they have convex flukes and essentially a plowshare arrangement... articulated ones (CQR type) and fixed shank ones (Delta). The Rocna is not a plow, by the most obvious point of distinction of a concave fluke. The Bruce is not a plow either. Neither Spade, Buegel, et al.

If you want a technical category to discriminate all these anchors as one group from Danforths, the term you're looking for is asymmetrical as opposed to symmetrical.

**Hudson Force** · 29-01-2011, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigsmith

...................If you want a technical category to discriminate all these anchors as one group from Danforths, the term you're looking for is asymmetrical as opposed to symmetrical.

I'll risk being a little picky with terminology to note that all the anchors mentioned in the above posts are bilaterally symmetrical. The "danforth types" are symmetrical in two of their three demensions and a mushroom anchor would be radially symmetrical. The only asymmetrical anchor I've ever seen is a line tied to a rock!

Mark Johnson · 29-01-2011, 11:36

Craig,

Concave or convex plow heads may work differently from one another, but they both, as well as the Bruce are triangular or shovel shaped heads on the end of a shank. They ALL resemble one another very much from about 75' away. (none resemble a Danforth as much as they do each other)

The same can be said of ALL "lightweights". From 75' away you can hardly tell one design from another.

However, From that same 75' away, ANY "plow type", can be distinguished as not being a "lightweight type", and vice versa.

There is very little conversation about mushroom anchors, concrete blocks on a rope, or the weird box shaped designs. In this country, we only use two VERY broad categories... "LIGHTWEIGHTS" or "PLOW TYPES" in the context of what I was talking about.

When the subject is anchor types that lend themselves to being used alone, and anchor types that should be used in opposing pairs, (which was the ONLY subject I was talking about), there are two groups only.

All of the plow types fall in the first category, and all lightweight types fall in the second.

You are either trying to change the way an entire country refers to all anchors, or change the conversation from what I was saying... ("Lightweights" are not trustworthy to be used alone in a reversing current), to another subject, like... the finer points of which of the "other types" is best. I already conceded that the Rocna was.

Regarding the ONLY point I was ever trying to make... I can assure you that if you are forced to put all current popular anchors into two categories... Those that you can use alone, and those that should be used in opposing pairs. Their are only two types in that broad category.

The Rocna falls in the category above that can be used alone, along with the CQR, Bruce, Delta etc. It does not fall in the other category with Danforths, West, Fortress, that have a hinge at the flukes, and have to flop over to re-set.

BTW, I was raised on a horse ranch, and have done my share of plowing, even with the old hand pushed type. They are NOT all concave, but I still called them a plow, because that is what everyone agreed to call that type of tool. A disc plow for example is a series of sharp disc that turns dirt under, rather than cuts a "V" and pushes it aside...

Here, what we call an anchor that in no way resembles a Danforth, is a "plow type", for lack of a better description. When pointing out your anchors superior attributes, I suggest you still lump it in with the type that can be used alone, which regardless of the finer distinctions, if they are not like an old Danforth, we still call it a plow type... M

Teeto · 29-01-2011, 16:44

This thread seems to have tapped into long held "religious" beliefs about anchors. Very interesting to hear. I would be intrigued to hear about positive/negative experiences with the Manson Supreme from others. Craig thanks for the feedback. I'd just like to hear some impartial views on both types - Rocna & Manson.

**Jim Cate** · 29-01-2011, 17:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teeto

This thread seems to have tapped into long held "religious" beliefs about anchors. Very interesting to hear. I would be intrigued to hear about positive/negative experiences with the Manson Supreme from others. Craig thanks for the feedback. I'd just like to hear some impartial views on both types - Rocna & Manson.

Teeto,

Please see post #5 above, where we reported having no problems anchoring in mud in Moreton Bay or other east coast anchorages using our 60 lb Manson Supreme, 10mm all chain, no unusual scope requirements.

We think highly of our Manson. Is it better/worse than an equivalent Rockna??? Who the hell knows?? Craig obviously thinks the Rockna is way better, but the folks at Manson disagree. Wonder why?

However, Craigs point about getting a lemon is just possibly valid. If the troubles persist, you might compare your anchor with another of the same size, looking at all the points he raised.

Good luck

Jim

Fortress · 29-01-2011, 17:36

Gents,

Great thread and some very insightful observations. Here's a few of ours:

Teeto, you asked for impartial views. We have consulted regularly with Robert Taylor, formerly a long time US Navy Soil Mechanics and Anchor Design expert. Bob holds degrees in civil and ocean engineering, and he spent over 40 years designing anchoring systems for the US Navy and offshore oil industries.

I recently asked for his thoughts on the Rocna anchor, and he brought out two serious design issues that will unquestionably be a detriment to its performance:

1. The huge roll bar will inhibit penetration into harder soils.

2. You cannot adjust the fluke angle, which is optimized for harder soils, and so the holding power of the Rocna anchor (and all other fixed fluke angle anchors) will fall off considerably in soft mud.

This fact is what led Fortress to design the two adjustable fluke / shank angles: 32° for harder soils and 45° for soft mud. The 45° angle for soft mud will dramatically improve the holding power in this type of bottom, and only the Fortress anchor has this feature.

Below are the results of a recent test that was conducted by the 40,000 member Swedish Cruising Association, who have been testing anchors for over 20 years in the clay bottoms off of their coastline.

As you will note, the Rocna anchor only achieved 2 out of 5 stars for its performance in this test, while a Bruce copy did far better, as did a much lighter Fortress once again:

http://www.watski.se/mail/anp/ankartest.pdf

I suspect that the huge roll bar, as Bob mentioned, inhibited the Rocna anchor's penetration into this clay bottom.

It is concerning that Rocna, as supposedly one of the leaders of the "new generation" anchors, has not provided ANY holding power test data for ANY bottom conditions from which they derive their anchor size recommendations.

As a responsible manufacturer of boating safety equipment, you would expect that this information would be made public, as we have done with our hard sand (optimal bottom for holding) and soft mud (poor holding bottom) test figures.

Be safe,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

Bash · 29-01-2011, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

Likewise, for decades all "lightweight" anchors were referred to as a "Danforth", Then many more brands came out...

I may be dating myself here, but there was a time when the literature referred to such anchors as "patent" anchors.

(Ahhhhhh. Anchor threads. I love the competing claims between Rocna and Fortress. I carry one of each, and wouldn't be caught dead with either one without the other.)

Mark Johnson · 29-01-2011, 17:56

Teeto,
You bring up a very valid question. Our own personal hunches or appreciation of our own brand of anchor, as well as a few peoples testimonials, would mean little. It is WAY to anecdotal...

As far as strength of holding in a given type of bottom, then in another type of bottom, quickness of set, likelihood of resetting after pulling out, etc There have been the subject of dozens if not hundreds of comparisons worldwide, over the last 30 years. These test are done using line scales, tow boats, and all that, and done by "hopefully" impartial testers. I used to keep up with these test passionately when outfitting our boat, but not as much now.

15 or so years ago, the overwhelming consensus of dozens of these these test was that among their relatively small selection of anchors: The best of the "lightweight types", (pound for pound), was the Fortress, AND In the issue of MAXIMUM holding power alone, it was also the overall champ... (pound for pound).

In the category of "primary anchors" which they always refereed to as "plow types",
The old CQRs, and Bruce, were beaten out, (pound for pound), by the Delta. It was also more reliable and faster on re-set. So I went with a Delta 35, and it has held our 34'er, for thousands of nights, hundreds of thunderstorms, and about a dozen hurricanes, (in protected areas). Since we were out cruising for most of the last 15 years, I would only occasionally review the latest batch of test, from all over.

For a while they were clear that my Delta was no longer the best of the type, it was the Spade. Their aluminum model of the same weight, would've had better holding than my Delta, but it was just HUGE, so I didn't get one.

In the last few years, one can again compare a batch of test, from far removed test sights and organizations, and see that the consensus of opinion is that the champ of this type is now the Rocna, (but it wont fit in my wing anchor locker).

I don't off hand remember if the Manson was in the mix however in the test that I last looked over. Usually they compare 5 or 6 brands MAX. of each type. A lot of less popular brands may not be getting tested!

I suggest that you ignore all anecdotal testimonials, including the one I just gave for my Delta, (which I love), and research about a dozen of the test done in the last 5 years or so. Then Ignore any test done by an anchor manufacturer or dealer, or test with a result totally different from ALL of the others. The ones I would trust would be like: Practical Sailor, the US NAVY, BOAT US, X University research done on a federal grant, etc. West Marine does test too, but since they sell certain anchors, their results just might be biased.

If you look at a dozen test and they're results are all over the place, you are back to square one, but if 8 or 9 out of 12 come up with similar comparisons, then you have something reliable to go on.

All I knew in past discussions, was that a whole lot of test have been done since I bought my Delta, and first the Spade became better, then the Rocna better yet.
I wasn't paying attention to weather the Manson has gotten fair representation in these test.

I'd do a whole lot of Web searching for the answer. I bet a few CFers could send you in the right direction...

Hope this is of use, Mark

Therapy · 29-01-2011, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Johnson

Craig,

Concave or convex plow heads may work differently from one another, but they both, as well as the Bruce are triangular or shovel shaped heads on the end of a shank. They ALL resemble one another very much from about 75' away. (none resemble a Danforth as much as they do each other)

The same can be said of ALL "lightweights". From 75' away you can hardly tell one design from another.

However, From that same 75' away, ANY "plow type", can be distinguished as not being a "lightweight type", and vice versa.

There is very little conversation about mushroom anchors, concrete blocks on a rope, or the weird box shaped designs. In this country, we only use two VERY broad categories... "LIGHTWEIGHTS" or "PLOW TYPES" in the context of what I was talking about.

When the subject is anchor types that lend themselves to being used alone, and anchor types that should be used in opposing pairs, (which was the ONLY subject I was talking about), there are two groups only.

All of the plow types fall in the first category, and all lightweight types fall in the second.

You are either trying to change the way an entire country refers to all anchors, or change the conversation from what I was saying... ("Lightweights" are not trustworthy to be used alone in a reversing current), to another subject, like... the finer points of which of the "other types" is best. I already conceded that the Rocna was.

Regarding the ONLY point I was ever trying to make... I can assure you that if you are forced to put all current popular anchors into two categories... Those that you can use alone, and those that should be used in opposing pairs. Their are only two types in that broad category.

The Rocna falls in the category above that can be used alone, along with the CQR, Bruce, Delta etc. It does not fall in the other category with Danforths, West, Fortress, that have a hinge at the flukes, and have to flop over to re-set.

BTW, I was raised on a horse ranch, and have done my share of plowing, even with the old hand pushed type. They are NOT all concave, but I still called them a plow, because that is what everyone agreed to call that type of tool. A disc plow for example is a series of sharp disc that turns dirt under, rather than cuts a "V" and pushes it aside...

Here, what we call an anchor that in no way resembles a Danforth, is a "plow type", for lack of a better description. When pointing out your anchors superior attributes, I suggest you still lump it in with the type that can be used alone, which regardless of the finer distinctions, if they are not like an old Danforth, we still call it a plow type... M

Right.
Very clear.

Now back to the subject, my Rocna doesn't do well in mud or mud/grass here in Florida. I have had to drop my huge/heavy/unwieldy/storm Danforth twice.
And I don't get to use the boat that much.

Curmudgeon · 29-01-2011, 18:06

My trusty 35 lb. CQR holds my 13,000 lb. cutter well in mud. In fact, when there's a soft mud bottom, I sleep soundly.

Hard sand or weed is another matter, and so are wind shifts, which is why I also carry a Manson Supreme.

The one thing the tests seem to have shown is that bigger is better, regardless of which anchor design one prefers.

s/v 'Faith' · 29-01-2011, 18:08

My Manson Supreme is terrible in mud. I hate it that I have to pull and strain forever to get the darn thing off of the seafloor... it is really inconvenient to have to work so hard to get it back up to the surface... oh, and the terrible burden or removing all that mud from them....

Fortress · 29-01-2011, 18:36

Sorry Mark, gotta disagree with the "pound for pound" comment about Fortress, as they have repeatedly out-performed much heavier steel anchors in independent tests conducted all over the world and in a wide variety of bottom conditions.

Attached is a detailed independent test conducted years ago with many different anchors, and with 90° & 180° veering and so on that you might find to be of interest.

Sorry also to sound like a commercial, because that is obviously not what these forums are supposed to be about, which is sharing experiences, knowledge and worthwhile information with fellow boaters.

Bash, after 20+ years in business, our days of making claims are long over. Claims are often made from new companies who trying to get a foothold in the marketplace. Fortunately, we have been around long enough to back up anything we say with facts from independent experts and our own customers.

We know the strengths & weaknesses of all anchors, including ours, which we are glad to share. Boater safety is always first.

Take care,
Brian Sheehan

Fortress Marine Anchors

cfarrar · 29-01-2011, 19:10

If you haven't used a Rocna, Spade, Manson or similar, you owe it to yourself to try one. If you do, you'll agree that a Bruce or CQR will not outperform a new generation anchor in mud or any other bottom type.

If anchoring in very soft mud (inland estuaries like some part of the Chesapeake), you have a couple of choices. Break out your Fortress - that's why you bought it. Or use the new generation anchor that's sitting on your bow roller, let it settle into the mud, back down properly, and put out plenty of scope.