WASI Anchor

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Diving on a lot of anchors I can see no evidence of this.

The best setting anchors are invariably the Rocna, Manson Supreme and Spade. Two of these are roll bar anchors. The Bugal is also very good

If the roll bar does reduce diving the thin sharp toe (compared with the Spade) makes up for the difference.

The general praise from owners and the good results in anchor tests supports the deep diving of the roll bar anchors.

No question that 3rd gen hoop anchors hold very well, but there is nothing controversial about the idea that a hoop has to present an impediment to deeply burying compared to an equivalently shaped anchor without. Again, the laws of physics makes this a simple fact. Put another way, if you had two identical Rocnas in identical seabeds, one without a hoop and the other with, it is unreasonable to state that the hooped version would dive as easily, or as deeply as the Rocna without the hoop.

A hoop also presents another issue in that it will provide resistance to rotation in wind shifts, putting greater strain on the shank. Which, by the way, is probably why Peter Smith thought the use of Bisalloy 80 was essential to his design, even if the new owners do not. Further, a hoop creates the potential to act as a backboard, trapping grass and sometimes rocks since same has to compress to move through the hoop rather than simply pass by. As common as praise for Rocnas/Mansons is, are comments that when they don't set it's because grass balls up against the hoop, causing the tip to rotate up and then dragging.

Does that mean that your Rocna, or Bazzer's Wasi or anyone's Manson is not a good anchor? Of course not. They are fine anchors. But the observation that the hoop has downsides is simple physics.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Put another way, if you had two identical Rocnas in identical seabeds, one without a hoop and the other with, it is unreasonable to state that the hooped version would dive as easily, or as deeply as the Rocna without the hoop.

I think this is probably the future of anchor design if the problems can be worked out. Eliminating the roll bar means the anchor will fit all boat designs which is a great marketing advantage.

Unfortunately anchors with a thin sharp toe and no roll bar have not done well. The Sword, Oceane and Raya have all failed.
The Manson Boss is the new player with this sort of design, but the jury is still out.

The Spade is a very successful design without a roll bar, but it needs a heavily ballasted and therefore thick toe. We could of course say that this thick toe inhibits diving.

Its physics

Unfortunately if we eliminate this thick toe the anchor would not work.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I think this is probably the future of anchor design if the problems can be worked out. Eliminating the roll bar means the anchor will fit all boat designs which is a great marketing advantage.

Unfortunately anchors with a thin sharp toe and no roll bar have not done well. The Sword, Oceane and Raya have all failed.
The Manson Boss is the new player with this sort of design, but the jury is still out.

The Spade is a very successful design without a roll bar, but it needs a heavily ballasted and therefore thick toe. We could of course say that this thick toe inhibits diving.

Its physics

Unfortunately if we eliminate this thick toe the anchor would not work.

Fair enough. However, I would also suggest that it should be self evident that the sharp triangular ballasted tip of the Spade, or the thinner downturned ballasted tip of the Ultra would present less impediment to penetration than the few score square inches of sail the hoop of a Rocna or Manson presents.

[bazzer]

My WASI has a very sharp point and the fluke is very thick=heavy and he edges are beveled to presumably aid penetration, sure a roll bar will slow depth that it might penetrate, but it still goes in. Even veering it seems to stay in place. Oh, I do have the WASI swivel as well, but I don't fully understand the need for it. Just for note, the WASI is all stainless and the shank is heavy as well. I think it would be more popular if it wasn't for the silly price.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by bazzer

My WASI has a very sharp point and the fluke is very thick=heavy and he edges are beveled to presumably aid penetration, sure a roll bar will slow depth that it might penetrate, but it still goes in. Even veering it seems to stay in place. Oh, I do have the WASI swivel as well, but I don't fully understand the need for it. Just for note, the WASI is all stainless and the shank is heavy as well. I think it would be more popular if it wasn't for the silly price.

Perhaps the poor reviews explain its lack of popularity? Expensive + poor performance generally is not a really successful combination for a product.

English Version, All Nautictest`s, Anchoring: The Bügel Anchor, or sleepless nights in the Med

[bazzer]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Perhaps the poor reviews explain its lack of popularity? Expensive + poor performance generally is not a really successful combination for a product.

English Version, All Nautictest`s, Anchoring: The Bügel Anchor, or sleepless nights in the Med

Since you seem to only answer questions on the forum and never ask any I assume you must be a expert on all matters especially anchors, so I'll sell my bugellanger and take your advice on which to buy....not

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Hoop style anchors, not so much, because the hoop will interfere with diving.

Is there any data back that up?

Or is it a "stands to reason" thing.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Perhaps the poor reviews explain its lack of popularity?

Why do you say they aren't popular? It is in the top three anchors we see cruising. In some areas, it is the most popular anchor. Maybe not the exact SS Wasi version, but definitely a Buegel.

Mark

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by colemj

Why do you say they aren't popular? It is in the top three anchors we see cruising. In some areas, it is the most popular anchor. Maybe not the exact SS Wasi version, but definitely a Buegel.

Mark

Actually, I didn't say it wasn't popular, although I have never actually seen one on a boat, but maybe that's a west coast thing. Bazzer said he thought it would be more popular if it weren't so expensive. I wondered if it would be more popular if it didn't get reviews like the one posted. Perhaps it is a combination of both, or perhaps the author of the article had poor anchoring technique, or perhaps there is a difference between the steel Buegel and stainless Wasi. Dunno.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Is there any data back that up?

Or is it a "stands to reason" thing.

Yes, Conachair. It does stand to reason that surface area perpendicular to the direction of travel of an anchor through the sea bed will impede that travel. It's why they call them anchors.

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by Delfin

The hoop is perpendicular to the direction of burying. In light sand or mud, you might not notice it, but in most every other substrate, the vertical hoop inhibits burying when compared to an anchor without a hoop. How could it be otherwise, given the laws of physics?

You're discounted the fact that those denser substrates require far less penetration to achieve the same holding strength. Further they inhibit the penetration of the blade itself. Also, you are forgetting that the bar would be going into material that was already disturbed by the blade penetrating the substrate. So the resistance you are concerned about is minimal because you are talking about moving a round bar through a disturbed soil.

Again, based on diving on my anchor, it doesn't penetrate to the point where the hoop would provide any additional resistance in those substrates (I.e. rocky sea floors).

So yes, in theoretical application, sure there may be a concern that the bar would provide additional resistance and prevent the anchor from fully setting. In practical application there is just no evidence of that.

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by Delfin

No question that 3rd gen hoop anchors hold very well, but there is nothing controversial about the idea that a hoop has to present an impediment to deeply burying compared to an equivalently shaped anchor without. Again, the laws of physics makes this a simple fact. Put another way, if you had two identical Rocnas in identical seabeds, one without a hoop and the other with, it is unreasonable to state that the hooped version would dive as easily, or as deeply as the Rocna without the hoop.

Nope. You are wrong here. The hoop serve a purpose of righting the anchor so it will set by digging in on its point. Without the hoop the anchor would drag on its side.

A hoop also presents another issue in that it will provide resistance to rotation in wind shifts, putting greater strain on the shank. Which, by the way, is probably why Peter Smith thought the use of Bisalloy 80 was essential to his design, even if the new owners do not. Further, a hoop creates the potential to act as a backboard, trapping grass and sometimes rocks since same has to compress to move through the hoop rather than simply pass by. As common as praise for Rocnas/Mansons is, are comments that when they don't set it's because grass balls up against the hoop, causing the tip to rotate up and then dragging.

Please support this with some evidence. I read many reviews prior to purchasing a Supreme and never once saw this as a concern raised by anyone.

Also, you are in consistent in you argument here. Digging in further would present as much if not more resistance to rotation. If it didn't every swing on your anchor would just loosen the anchor from the sea bed.

Does that mean that your Rocna, or Bazzer's Wasi or anyone's Manson is not a good anchor? Of course not. They are fine anchors. But the observation that the hoop has downsides is simple physics.

Doesn't mean the observation is correct, support by data or significant to the performance of the anchor. There are valid reasons, supported by physics and engineering, that the hoop was included in the design and improves the anchor.

[colemj]

I agree that in certain bottoms the hoop will theoretically impede holding. However, we have both a Spade and a Rocna and have not observed that in practice.

The only times we have had trouble with our hoop anchor was in extremely thick weed and in rubble bottoms. We also have trouble with our Spade in these bottoms.

The weed roots never allow the anchor to get underneath them into solid bottom, and the rubble is, well, rubble.

Both anchors set well in eel grass, hard bottoms (but not shelf), thinner weeds, etc.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

There are valid reasons, supported by physics and engineering, that the hoop was included in the design and improves the anchor.

Hmmm. Not too many. I think the hoop was added to the Buegel because it was necessary, but added to the Rocna and Supreme mostly because of patent issues with the Spade.

Mark

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by colemj

I agree that in certain bottoms the hoop will theoretically impede holding. However, we have both a Spade and a Rocna and have not observed that in practice.

The only times we have had trouble with our hoop anchor was in extremely thick weed and in rubble bottoms. We also have trouble with our Spade in these bottoms.

The weed roots never allow the anchor to get underneath them into solid bottom, and the rubble is, well, rubble.

Both anchors set well in eel grass, hard bottoms (but not shelf), thinner weeds, etc.

Mark

Thanks Mark. Getting accurate apples to apples comparisons of different anchors is pretty tough, but my point was pretty simple. If you have two identical anchors in identical bottoms, one with a hoop and one without, when both start to dig in the one without the hoop will more easily dig in than the one with the hoop presenting resistance. I would imagine that the resistance to burying of a hoop style is a benefit in some bottoms where sand, mud, etc. overlays an impenetrable sub surface. The stuff that piles up against the hoop may increase holding power over a diving anchor which can't dive because of the substrate. However, in other substrates, different story. Bottom line, 3rd gen anchors all seem to be improvements over earlier generation anchors from which they were derived - like the Delta for diving anchors or the Buegel for hoop style.

As stated, my preference is for a diving anchor since the conditions under which diving has no benefit are not as common as those where it is a benefit. But 98% of the time, the difference between the two styles is going to be hard to measure. Tsunamis excepted, of course.