Raya Anchor

[Wotname]

I never realized the BS part stood for Big Stupid until now , I have been wrong for all this time....

[MechMan]

It's an interesting thread you've kicked off here Gmac..

I've had a 25 LB Trevco plow that came with the Farr 1020 since I've owned it (12 years) and have always felt a little uncomfortable sitting through those blows you get at the Great Barrier every Xmas. These days I want a bit more security, but don't want anything much heavier because hauling it up by hand up is how I work off the rums.

The Manson and the Rocna of similar weight won't fit in the locker because of the roll bar and I'm not happy about pulling up seabed. The Spade is tempting, but the Rayna looks to have a better area to weight ratio.

I might just hang fire until you've done some of your sientific testing. Anyway Xmas still looks a long way off.

Cam

[Marinheiro]

I think judgement on the Raya not bringing up bottom should wait until tested in some places some of us know like Islington Bay and especially Coromandel harbour. By the way the Spade is quite well known for its excavating efforts and it does not have a hoop.
Snr AL- voce, o senhor mesmo pode introduzir?? (sorry about the rough Portugese) - is there a Kiwi named Adrian associated with your business?

[Keegan]

Originally Posted by GMac

Don't you just love that 'BSH' Nice name AL.

And what's more I've been saying the same thing for a while. The BSH's do cause many issues, mostly fitting to boats and they just aren't a plus for setting performance. One of the ones here does seem to suffer more 'muck grabbing' than the other and 90% of that is BSH related.

BSH, did I mention I love that name Heard it called all sorts of things but that's the best by a long way. Many think it is just a carrying handle to make it easier to move to the boat.

In ten years we will look back at our photos and see our BSHs hangin off the bow and say "those were the days, back when anchors had a nice handle on them..."

[svh2obo]

They have a "Tempest" model that disassembles. Unlike the Spade, it uses a trapezoidally shaped shank - nice idea. I have ordered one to use as the primary anchor on my Corbin 39. It will take a while for them to ship it to Canada, so I won't be able to report soon on its quality and performance. I like the claimed holding power; "setability"; light weight versus my 60# plow; reasonable cost; it will stow on my bowsprit; and it comes apart for passage making. I hope it is not too good to be true.

[GMac]

Marinehero, I think Adrian is off on a big cruise. I'm guessing you're talking Adrian F.......
Issy bay is one test spot we use a lot due to it's dodgy anchoring reputation. What a small world.

svh2obo, that Tempest does look like a good bit of kit.

[Marinheiro]

the Raya anchor appears to have Spade written all over it.
We are talking the same Adrian - I may have it all wrong but there are a few clues that lead me to my conclusion.
I note that the Florianopolis region (where Raya give their address) is one of Brasil's premier cruising grounds (have a look on Google Earth) and would be a very nice place to park a yacht for a while.

[GMac]

Originally Posted by Marinheiro

the Raya anchor appears to have Spade written all over it.

Or does it? I found this interesting shot.

[CarlF]

I think the Raya anchor is really clever. I especially like the alternate attachment point for mud conditions. This is far more important to me than the slot in the Manson for rocky conditions. If would be great if the mud attachment works as well as the Fortress mud fluke angle without having to take the anchor apart.

I can't wait to see some real world reports. Does anyone have an opinion about how far the shank is set forward on the blade? This aspect looks very much like the Sword. Rocna, Manson - and certainly Bruce! - set the shank much farther back. Does this cause troubles on less than 7:1 scope? What experiences have people had with the Sword that might be relevant to the Raya?

Carl

[Ancora Latina]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Does anyone have an opinion about how far the shank is set forward on the blade?
Carl

Thanks CarlF for your comments

« How far the shank is set forward on the blade? »


I hope this photo will answer your question? You can see that the two pulling angles (32° & 40°) are measured between the attachment point of the chain and... the center of gravity of the anchor.

The point where the shank is set doesn’t mater for holding – Why we have fixed the shank forward??

Many reasons: I will give you two of them;

- The Raya is a very lightweight anchor, size for size, it’s about half the weight of conventional anchors, but with a huge surface area (= Holding) But weight at the tip is important for the first step of penetration (static penetration). With the design we have chosen and the fixation of the shank forward, compared to other anchors, we have one of the heaviest ballasted tip (usually between 35 and 37% of the total weight of the anchor)... (Without ballast)

- the second reason doesn’t have a relation with the holding, but more with how the anchor set on the bow roller, mostly for boats with a very vertical bow (see drawing)



João NODARI

[GMac]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I think the Raya anchor is really clever.

I agree, it does solve a few common problems we have with the other new designs. And the couple of extra features can only be good.

I'm looking forward to giving the mud setting a good work-out in a couple of our notoriously bad muddy bottom anchorages.

[cat man do]

Just an observation from me, but I still "Feel " that the shank position does no "Look" right and also "Feel" that it appears to look unsupported in the back half.

It would "Look and Feel" right to me if the shank was taken out to where I have draen it.

I realise it would add a few dollars to your end cost, but I wonder if, like me, there are people who would second think this feeling there is a potential loss of "something" ?

Not meant as a dig at all (or a pun), just my thoughts. I would "feel" happier seeing the shank continued and I wonder if prospective clients feel the same.

Dave

[Ancora Latina]

Originally Posted by cat man do

I would "feel" happier seeing the shank continued
Dave

Yes Dave, I know!

You are used to see other anchors with the shank attached more backward, and this unusual setting gives you a « bad » feeling...

But be sure that it will not add any dollars to the manufacturing costs to chance the place where to fix the shank.

Be sure also that we have made and tested prototypes with the shank in the « usual » position, and many others alternatives.

We do not try to duplicate existing anchors but to use all possible (including unusual) designs to improve the performances of our anchor

[Steve Pope]

Gmac, given that this is a minamalist anchor in construction terms how will it compare with the Supreme and Rocna in price in NZ??

[GMac]

Don't really know Steve. The Rocna is about as simple as you can get of all 4 (Raya, Rocna, Supreme, Spade) so it should be cheaper than the Supreme or all of them really. Obviously the Spade has a huge labour content so does cost the most. I'd say the Supreme and Raya would be similar in cost but that is only a semi-educated guess.

Just checking NZ pricing against the Raya US$ prices (website) converted to NZ$ and including local sales tax of 12.5% -
25lb Supreme has a nice edge with the 800 Raya a bit below the 10kg Rocna.
The 1600 Raya has a small edge on the Supreme 80lber who has a small edge on the 33 Rocna.

It looks like Supreme wins at the smaller end and as you get up to the big beasts Raya looks to have a small edge. Rocna isn't that far away but still the most expensive.

In Australia Raya and Supreme appears to be pretty much the same and as Rocna has only just got someone over there who knows but guessing at the most expensive.

In the US it looks like Raya followed by Supreme and up a bit more for Rocna.

All depends on who's dropping their pants price wise at the retail end at the time. I see Defender is doing hell deals on Supremes at the moment and word is they are rocketing out the door a lot faster than they can be replaced.

Here, Burnsco is prone to dropping their pants so they have dragged the price down to about as low as you can go with the Supreme. They often pretty much give them away.

No-one in NZ makes money selling anchors. Rocna must do looking at the pricing, mind you they are one of these 'new age' outfits which doesn't do anything themselves, out source everything and just load it on the price. Also you're not allowed to advertise any Rocna price lower than retail, it 'de-values' the product apparently. That price fixing thing is something I don't like personally and it is hurting their sales.

Manson must make some bucks but they do build many 10 of 1000's and I doubt they make much off the smaller end ones. I would tend to think Manson would have the edge overall purely as they make them and do so in large numbers. Economies of scale is all in their favour. You would be surprised, I think, to know how many anchors each year Manson does actually make, it's big and growing. It's all just part of the 'Westie Plan for World Domination'. In a year or 3 they plan to have the entire world driving black Holdens down to their boats to drop off their Supremes and then celabrate with a big bottle of Lion Red (local joke there incase any offshore viewers are suddenly confused)

NOTE: I'm comparing 'size for size' rather than weight for weight. If anyone wants to re-calculate (in a sneaky fashion but preferably not) for that and in doing so create anchors which don't actually exist (as one company has in the recent past) feel free but don't expect to be taken seriously.

At the end of it all, they are all very similar in size so have the same metal content and aren't that different from a construction angle, hence they should all be reasonably similar.

That's about all I can tell you Steve.