Vulcan Anchors by Canada Metal Products

[hpeer]

Spade anchors are pretty expensive per pound.

Some of that is due to the more complicated shape, including the three part welded shank and the lead poured into the tip. More complicated manufacturing, more steps, more different materials to handle.

But also, until the Vulcan, they were the only next gen anchor that would fit through a bow sprit apature. So you tend to see them on boats with big sprits.

So part of the price differential is because of manufacturing, and part is because its unique shape allowed a premium. I suspect that Vulcan is exploiting that cost differential. It I'll be interesting to see if Vulcan catches on and if Spade drops prices as a result.

As to the Chessie mud tests, I think this shows that IN THOSE MUD CONDITIONS the Danforth worked best, ignoring reversing wind and current. I would restate the test results this way........

When in loose mud or other unconsolidated bottoms the quality of the anchor or performance in other bottoms is less important than sheer fluke size.

What I have NOT seen was anyone calculating holding power per square inch of fluke size or anchor surface area. My strong suppression is that in that case it would be a near constant.

We went from a 45lb CQR ( a joke really) to a 66lb spade. The Spade worked well except in one case where I was in notoriously bad mud. The Spade was a PITA to lower as the little wings would catch on the bob stay. I would always have to reach over and clear it with a boat hook.


When I rebuilt the sprit I redesigned the roller location to be forward (can use a roll bar anchor) and outboard (to clear the bobstay) and I added a snubber attachment point at the cut water to lower the vertical rode angle. I also got a huge Mantus, not so much for the weight, but for the fluke surface area.

You can see the old apaturew, they have some SS around them as the chain was digging them up.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by rwidman

I have my answer, thank you. Manufacturers have figured out that if they charge more for a product, consumers will buy it because they figure it must be better.

I've been reading in PassageMaker magazine about the Fortress anchor tests last summer. It seems the dansforth and Fortress anchors performed better than all the "new gen" anchors at far less cost. In the December issue, Nigel Calder takes issue with these findings but all he has to add is anecdotal experience.

I still don't understand this. I posted actual prices showing CQR being almost twice as much as Rocna - and people are not buying very many CQR's anymore.

The equivalent Fortress and Rocna anchors are the same price.

The ONLY anchor that comes out cheaper is the Lewmar cast Claw from China. There is a reason for this, but if you are happy with yours, that is fine with me (I used to own one).

In smaller anchors, there are tons of cheaper ones and strange designs, but not many that I would hook up with.

Mark

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by hpeer

As to the Chessie mud tests, I think this shows that IN THOSE MUD CONDITIONS the Danforth worked best, ignoring reversing wind and current. I would restate the test results this way........

When in loose mud or other unconsolidated bottoms the quality of the anchor or performance in other bottoms is less important than sheer fluke size.

What I have NOT seen was anyone calculating holding power per square inch of fluke size or anchor surface area. My strong suppression is that in that case it would be a near constant.

Hpeer, I can speak to your comments because I attended the Chesapeake Bay soft mud tests:

• Several of the anchors did not engage the bottom and develop much resistance during straight line pulls when they should have performed optimally, and obviously in those cases the performance would not have improved during off-center tests that would have simulated wind or tidal shifts.

• While surface area is an important component to anchor performance, we learned firsthand during these tests that the "effective fluke angle," which is the angle of attack that the fluke takes into the sea bottom, is vitally important as well.

One of the newest of the "new generation" anchors tested (there were 6 total) had a massive surface area compared to the others, and in turn, there was a high expectation aboard the 81-ft test boat that this anchor would perform extraordinarily well.

However, as pointed out by our consultant Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert, the relatively flat fluke did not aggressively orient downward into the soft mud, and the anchor just basically slide on the bottom as it was being slowly pulled along, with minimal engagement.

Brian

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by zboss

While not always true... it is often true that more money equates to a better product. The relation is often correct.

Many, many years ago I had a friend who made his living placing condom machines in bars and selling condoms (yes, really). Sales were slow on the cheaper condoms so he doubled the price. Sales went up, not down. Same condom. People thought a 50 cent condom was better than a 25 cent condom.

Regardless, if someone's anchor does everything they ask of it, how can another anchor be "better"?

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Regardless, if someone's anchor does everything they ask of it, how can another anchor be "better"?

I understand your point, but what if you changed the statement to "Regardless, if someone's anchor does everything they ask of it 99% of the time, how can another anchor be "better"? The the answer becomes obvious. It's because of that 1% difference.

Your claw may continue to perform flawlessly for the rest of your boating life, or it may not. I'm just saying that a new gen anchor that has consistently been shown to outperform the claw in independent testing would be more likely to keep you off the beach.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Regardless, if someone's anchor does everything they ask of it, how can another anchor be "better"?

Well, I suppose that might appear logical to someone who may not have "asked much" of their choice of an anchor to begin with, and is supremely confident that anything more, or different, will EVER be demanded of it in the future...

:-)

[colemj]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Sales were slow on the cheaper condoms so he doubled the price. Sales went up, not down. Same condom. People thought a 50 cent condom was better than a 25 cent condom.

By this logic, people should be flocking to new CQR's in droves.

They are not.

Mark

[zboss]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Many, many years ago I had a friend who made his living placing condom machines in bars and selling condoms (yes, really). Sales were slow on the cheaper condoms so he doubled the price. Sales went up, not down. Same condom. People thought a 50 cent condom was better than a 25 cent condom.

Regardless, if someone's anchor does everything they ask of it, how can another anchor be "better"?

I'm talking hookers here not condoms!

[Stonefloat]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Many, many years ago I had a friend who made his living placing condom machines in bars and selling condoms (yes, really). Sales were slow on the cheaper condoms so he doubled the price. Sales went up, not down. Same condom. People thought a 50 cent condom was better than a 25 cent condom.

Regardless, if someone's anchor does everything they ask of it, how can another anchor be "better"?

I too am usually guilty of the "top shelf" syndrome. And last year after rowing back out to Avalon on a particularly blustery eve with a needed bottle of expensive wine I still woke up with a hangover, but my spade kept me in the same spot.
Cheers , Avalon

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Fortress

Hpeer, I can speak to your comments because I attended the Chesapeake Bay soft mud tests:

• Several of the anchors did not engage the bottom and develop much resistance during straight line pulls when they should have performed optimally, and obviously in those cases the performance would not have improved during off-center tests that would have simulated wind or tidal shifts.

• While surface area is an important component to anchor performance, we learned firsthand during these tests that the "effective fluke angle," which is the angle of attack that the fluke takes into the sea bottom, is vitally important as well.

One of the newest of the "new generation" anchors tested (there were 6 total) had a massive surface area compared to the others, and in turn, there was a high expectation aboard the 81-ft test boat that this anchor would perform extraordinarily well.

However, as pointed out by our consultant Bob Taylor, a retired US Navy soil mechanics and anchor design expert, the relatively flat fluke did not aggressively orient downward into the soft mud, and the anchor just basically slide on the bottom as it was being slowly pulled along, with minimal engagement.

Brian

Brian,

I see your point and was thinking of the angle effect myself after I made the above post.

But what is one to do? If you are limited In your cruising range to the Chessie or like or like conditions then there is one best solution.

If you spend the majority of your time on rocky shores, or about coral reefs the answer may be different for each situation.

If you're travel between all the above, then what? Have a multitude of anchors?

My answer has been to go BIG! And pray the windlass holds up!

No doubt the Danforth type anchors are an excellent choice in Chessie mud, which is all most folks will ever know. I carry one on each boat, just not as the primary.

[avb3]

I find it interesting that Canadian Metal Products, owners of Rocna, are not marketing the Vulcan as a Rocna brand, but creating a whole new brand in its stead.

Most anchor manufacturers stay with their brand names, and make different models. Apparently CMP is going the old General Motors way, having various brands. I'm not sure how wise that is.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by avb3

I find it interesting that Canadian Metal Products, owners of Rocna, are not marketing the Vulcan as a Rocna brand, but creating a whole new brand in its stead.

Most anchor manufacturers stay with their brand names, and make different models. Apparently CMP is going the old General Motors way, having various brands. I'm not sure how wise that is.

As you likely remember, there was a lot of ill will generated in Rocna's earlier life with the shoddy steel shank shenanigans. Some of us still remember those days with some distaste. PErhaps they realize this and are trying to distance themselves from those memories.

I hope they are successful!

Jim

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

I find it interesting that Canadian Metal Products, owners of Rocna, are not marketing the Vulcan as a Rocna brand, but creating a whole new brand in its stead.

Most anchor manufacturers stay with their brand names, and make different models. Apparently CMP is going the old General Motors way, having various brands. I'm not sure how wise that is.

I thought "Rocna" was the anchor model. Are there other models (ie different type of anchor) with that name?

Fortress does the same with Guardian.

At one point, Spade also made the Oceane and another model type which name I forget (Ray?).

Manson goes the other way - one name, many model types. So does Sarca, but their naming is highly confusing with three anchors with "Sarca" in their name in different places - and two using a superlative.

Mark

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by rwidman

A lot of money for a hunk of metal. I often wonder how the price is set on anchors, especially the more expensive ones. Does it really cost several hundred dollars to cast a hunk of metal and polish it? Or is the cost in the research and development? Do we pay for a brand name or advertising?

I'm just thinking that this hunk of metal (and others like it) sell for more than a computer or TV set.

Yes I know, peace of mind, but are these anchors three times as good as an equivalent claw anchor? Or any of the other traditional designs? Isn't this a glorified plow anchor at twice the price?

The volumes sold are relatively small to offset the costs of R&D, setting up a business and manufacturing commercial volumes at a decent quality. Liability insurance is probably not cheap for a mission critical / safety component like an anchor.

Looking forward to the feedback from early adopters.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[zboss]

Why don't we simply ask Rocna?

Rocna: why are you working on a second brand?