Anchors - Bigger is Better ?

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Since the Rocna we have had, Supreme, Boss, Mantus, Excel, XYZ, Tern, Ultra (any more?) some of which have firm adherents which suggests they have positive attributes. Design does not, should not, stand still.

Johnathan I agree completely. We are in for an exciting time in anchor development. I hope we can we can enjoy better anchors in the future.

[noelex 77]

Rex you have highlighted yet another of my concerns with certification.
As a reasonably informed anchor consumer I still have no idea what models have been tested.
The classification societies should clamp down when an anchor manufacturer claims certification that is bogus (or perhaps part of the tests have been completed ), but they seem to totally ignore blatant misrepresentation. Often forums such as CF are the only way such problems are exposed.

I think anchor manufacturers don't help because they are concerned that when the consumer understands some of the details of certification we will be less impressed with the the sticker that says Super High Holding Power than we would be if the whole process was shrouded in mystery. Hence basic questions like " who selects the location" get fobbed off.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Whether the wedge is on top, or underneath or both - does not effect the compression ahead of the anchor.



Jonathan

Bingo.

I doubt the convex underside of an Ultra much comes into play unless the anchor begins to move, but because it wants to dive, compression below the fluke should generate material resistance. With a Rocna type, the relative thinness of the fluke and the nearly flat angle would create little to no such compression. Add to that the inhibition to diving the hoop presents and you have the reason why many aren't interested in owning a hoop style anchor. There are simply better designs to be had.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Whether the wedge is on top, or underneath or both - does not effect the compression ahead of the anchor.

So concave and convex surfaces generate the same resistance?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

So concave and convex surfaces generate the same resistance?

Of course, that is not what JonJo said. All anchors provide holding through compression of the sea bed. Ultimate holding is a function of design. A Rocna type anchor will develop no compression of the sea bed from what is going on under the fluke, while an Ultra and a Spade will. By design.

[Delancey]

Tomorrow my wife and I will sail our Bermudian rigged house down to Sandy Hook one last time before the winter cover goes on. It should be sunny but cold, if there is wind we will use it to make our house go where we want.

To do this I will observe the behavior of tell tales mounted near the leading edge of my headsail. If they are streaming back that means the sails are properly trimmed for the course I am steering and I have attached flow. If they are bouncing all over the place, that means my driving sucks or my sails are not trimmed properly and as a result, I am stalling the sails, resulting in a loss of efficiency and I will not get to Sandy Hook very quickly.

I will not observe tell tales mounted just aft of the leading edge of my main sail because they are not there, there is a big mast in the way which makes the wind flow sort of messed up. I do have tell tails on the trailing edge which tell me if my main is trimmed properly by letting me know that air disturbed by the mast has reattached after the fact.

When I get to Sandy Hook I will launch the rusty old CQR that came with the boat and it will nestle in the sandy bottom of Horseshoe Cove. If the and blows up, my CQR will drag and I might end up on the beach. If the wind blows up I will either not sleep well or I will bail out and go behind the breakwater at Atlantic Highlands.

The reason my CQR will drag is because it is shaped like a farm implement intended to turn over soil in a field for planting crops in the springtime. It does this because it is not a shape intended to hold something captive like the sails on my boat. It is shape like something intended to push stuff aside like a snow plow. It does not have attached flow on both sides to the fluke and because of this it drags instead of penetrating deeply.

If my anchor had a big weight on the tip it wouldn't have attached flow either because of the weight on the tip sort of messes up the flow. If I had anchor that had a shape that held the soil captive, instead of pushing it aside, and I had good flow on both sides, I probably wouldn't have to bail out and go to Atlantic Highlands because all of the energy of the boat pulling on it would be directed at making the anchor bury more deeply.

Cuz when you think about it, the soil at the bottom of the sea is really a fluid medium, isn't it?

[Cotemar]

Originally Posted by JonJo

Whether the wedge is on top, or underneath or both - does not effect the compression ahead of the anchor.

Terms like convex and concave are too simplistic and insult the designers

Jonathan

REALLY.

Convex and Concave is a design term and designers take great pride in having one of these two attributes.

Congo uses convex designs, because he likes their self-cleaning abilities. He is proud of his convex designs and promotes this attribute in his advertising.

The Convex Problem Bend on top has a major effect in how the seabed compresses in front of the anchor, because, well it actually cuts the seabed into two pieces and pushes them to the sides stopping any compression. The Problem Bend gives you the false hope of a bite, then slow drag.

The bell curve on Convex designs shows that they are dying breed of anchor. Ten years ago they were on the top of the bell curve and everyone’s go to anchor. Myself included.

The New Generation Concave designs are climbing the bell curve and now have become the go to anchors.

The Flat Fluke Danforth type anchors have stayed at the top of the bell curve as storm anchors, but because of their hit or miss resetting on a wind shift or in weed or rock-lock; they are not favored as the primary bow anchor.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

REALLY.

Convex and Concave is a design term and designers take great pride in having one of these two attributes.

Congo uses convex designs, because he likes their self-cleaning abilities. He is proud of his convex designs and promotes this attribute in his advertising.

The Convex Problem Bend on top has a major effect in how the seabed compresses in front of the anchor, because, well it actually cuts the seabed into two pieces and pushes them to the sides stopping any compression. The Problem Bend gives you the false hope of a bite, then slow drag.

The bell curve on Convex designs shows that they are dying breed of anchor. Ten years ago they were on the top of the bell curve and everyone’s go to anchor. Myself included.

The New Generation Concave designs are climbing the bell curve and now have become the go to anchors.

The Flat fluke anchors have stayed at the top of the bell curve as storm anchors, but because of their hit or miss resetting on a wind shift or in weed or rock; they are not favored as the primary bow anchor.

Notwithstanding the use of colorful enlarged fonts, if what you say were true, then 3rd gen convex anchors would not be able to perform up to the standard of other designs. Since that is empirically not true, repeating the phrase "problem bend" over and over again begins to sound like a delusional fetish.

As has already been pointed out, a farm plow requires a depth wheel to keep the thing on the surface. Otherwise, it will dive out of sight, stop plowing and your tractor will come to a halt. Kind of like your boat when anchored to a properly designed anchor. While the CQR was an improvement at the time, its deficiency is that for whatever reason, it won't dive like a plow without a gauge wheel.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Notwithstanding the use of colorful enlarged fonts, if what you say were true, then 3rd gen convex anchors would not be able to perform up to the standard of other designs. Since that is empirically not true, repeating the phrase "problem bend" over and over again begins to sound like a delusional fetish.

As has already been pointed out, a farm plow requires a depth wheel to keep the thing on the surface. Otherwise, it will dive out of sight, stop plowing and your tractor will come to a halt. Kind of like your boat when anchored to a properly designed anchor. While the CQR was an improvement at the time, its deficiency is that for whatever reason, it won't dive like a plow without a gauge wheel.

Just skimmed through a fairly lengthy and detailed article in Wikipedia. Didn't see a single reference or illustration of this "depth wheel" of which you speak. Just because they exist, clearly not a requirement to prevent the plough from burying too deeply.

Plough - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like short scope is sufficient to prevent that. Go figure.

[Cotemar]

That Convex Plow has a wheel for setting seed depth.

Do you really want your plow anchor making seed rows through and anchorage.

Great way to meet (shock) new friends in the harbor.

Congo should really make you guys a few Convave anchors.
I will guarantee it will work better than any Convex anchor on the market.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Delancey

The reason my CQR will drag is because it is shaped like a farm implement intended to turn over soil in a field for planting crops in the springtime.

True Story.
Our Hudson Force 50 came with a knock off brand of a 45lb CQR ancnor.
Now there is no way I was going to sleep at night with that little thing on the sea floor with a boat as big as ours, so we just stashed it down below. While cruising Mexico, we became good friends with some locals in San Blas, Nayarit and were doing what we could to help them with some donations. Knowing he was good friends with the local fishermen, I asked Marcos if he would like an anchor and he said yes. So we brought it to him and as soon as he saw it he got excited. I figured he knew of a local fisherman that would love the anchor, but when I asked him who he though would want it he told me about his friend, a local farmer, that was plowing his farm with horse and a old wodden plow. My Draq-Q-R...oh...excuse me...CQR anchor is not hitched behind a plow team plowing the farm fields just out of town in San Blas! The next time I'm in San Blas, I sware I am going to go out to the farm and snap a photo!

Speaking of Rocna..do they still roam the Sailing Chat rooms with their Arrogance or has the photos of their anchor failures and shaft bending given them a little does of much needed humility?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Just skimmed through a fairly lengthy and detailed article in Wikipedia. Didn't see a single reference or illustration of this "depth wheel" of which you speak. Just because they exist, clearly not a requirement to prevent the plough from burying too deeply.

Plough - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems like short scope is sufficient to prevent that. Go figure.

Well, that's why I posted a picture of one; you know, for the benefit of those whose education derives from Wikipedia. But I'm guessing that you may have as much experience in plowing as you have in designing anchors, since you seemed to have missed or misunderstood this part of the Wiki article:

"Modern ploughs

Modern ploughs are usually multiple reversible ploughs, mounted on a tractor via a three-point linkage. These commonly have between two and as many as seven mouldboards – and semi-mounted ploughs (the lifting of which is supplemented by a wheel about halfway along their length) can have as many as eighteen mouldboards. The hydraulic system of the tractor is used to lift and reverse the implement, as well as to adjust furrow width and depth. The ploughman still has to set the draughting linkage from the tractor so that the plough is carried at the proper angle in the soil. This angle and depth can be controlled automatically by modern tractors. As a complement to the rear plough a two or three mouldboards-plough can be mounted on the front of the tractor if it is equipped with front three-point linkage."


Without some means of controlling the depth of the plow, they will dig themselves to China if you have a big enough tractor. As I said, because your CQR can't do this is the reason it's now considered a very poor excuse for an anchor.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Cotemar

That Convex Plow has a wheel for setting seed depth.

Do you really want your plow anchor making seed rows through and anchorage.

Great way to meet (shock) new friends in the harbor.

Congo should really make you guys a few Convave anchors.
I will guarantee it will work better than any Convex anchor on the market.

Good grief.

A plow is used to plow, that is, turn soil over to bury weeds, and aerate the soil so that following discing the field can be planted. All plows have some means of preventing the moldboard from digging so deeply you bog down the tractor and have uneven furrow depth. Best steer away from farming analogies, since you know so little about the subject.

A CQR is a crappy anchor. It's why it performs poorly in all tests. A modern burying convex anchor is an excellent hook, which is why it performs so well in tests. Neither one of them is an agricultural plow, but like your problem bend, perhaps some relationship between the two entities exists in your mind.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Well, that's why I posted a picture of one; you know, for the benefit of those whose education derives from Wikipedia. But I'm guessing that you may have as much experience in plowing as you have in designing anchors, since you seemed to have missed or misunderstood this part of the Wiki article:

"Modern ploughs

Modern ploughs are usually multiple reversible ploughs, mounted on a tractor via a three-point linkage. These commonly have between two and as many as seven mouldboards – and semi-mounted ploughs (the lifting of which is supplemented by a wheel about halfway along their length) can have as many as eighteen mouldboards. The hydraulic system of the tractor is used to lift and reverse the implement, as well as to adjust furrow width and depth. The ploughman still has to set the draughting linkage from the tractor so that the plough is carried at the proper angle in the soil. This angle and depth can be controlled automatically by modern tractors. As a complement to the rear plough a two or three mouldboards-plough can be mounted on the front of the tractor if it is equipped with front three-point linkage."


Without some means of controlling the depth of the plow, they will dig themselves to China if you have a big enough tractor. As I said, because your CQR can't do this is the reason it's now considered a very poor excuse for an anchor.

Nice try, too bad your modern plough is connected with a three point linkage, NOT chain or cable. Can't push on a rope, maybe you missed that day in design school. That three point linkage controls the angle of attack, try that with a chain. But seriously, good effort! Nice try.

[Delancey]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

True Story.
Our Hudson Force 50 came with a knock off brand of a 45lb CQR ancnor.
Now there is no way I was going to sleep at night with that little thing on the sea floor with a boat as big as ours, so we just stashed it down below. While cruising Mexico, we became good friends with some locals in San Blas, Nayarit and were doing what we could to help them with some donations. Knowing he was good friends with the local fishermen, I asked Marcos if he would like an anchor and he said yes. So we brought it to him and as soon as he saw it he got excited. I figured he knew of a local fisherman that would love the anchor, but when I asked him who he though would want it he told me about his friend, a local farmer, that was plowing his farm with horse and a old wodden plow. My Draq-Q-R...oh...excuse me...CQR anchor is not hitched behind a plow team plowing the farm fields just out of town in San Blas! The next time I'm in San Blas, I sware I am going to go out to the farm and snap a photo!

Ha ha ha ha!!!!