Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Therapy

Plus there is some sort of swivel thing too. (don't know what it is supposed to do because every time, and I mean every time I have lifted the anchor it has come up backwards and has to be manually "spun" to come aboard. ) Bet that ain't worth many lbs.

And the cleat!

Seen test in YM - the swivel goes first (and too early), then the shackle, then the chain. But a HQ shackle will outrun the chain.

The cleat is an interesting point - ours is supposed to take up to 12000 working load. And it is bolted thru and with a huge 1'' marine ply pad then 4mm SS pad, then super-dupy washers. So far no issuee, but we never anchored in more than 64 knots of wind or more than 6' swell.

b.

[Eric ROGUE]

Evans, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Your remarks have contributed greatly to my decision making.

Your strong sense that skipper actions are more important than anchor design is disconcerting. I have a boat that will perform well when I do not. I want an anchor that will perform well when I do not, or can not. I hope others reading this forum heed your comment "and a decent anchor weight".

I don't understand the discrepancies between experience and testing either. Thinking that the variable test results I remembered for the claw might be based upon anchor weight I just reviewed some of the test results. In one a 22 lb Bruce set well and 22 lb Lewmar claw slightly less well, while in another a 36 lb Lewmar Claw performed very poorly. Choosing would be simpler if weight were the sole factor. The Delta performs superbly in some tests and fails to set in others. Even the CQR came out tops in one test. The new anchors have had less testing and this may be the reason they have not yet shown the variable results the older designs have shown. Average results are far more important than superior results in one test or another. For this reason the experience of sailors like yourself, who have a lot of experience anchoring with several types of anchors, and experienc anchoring on as many different bottom conditions as any sailor is likely to encounter, is of tremendous value to the rest of us; whether you consider yourself an anchoring expert or not.

ROGUE has no anchor windless. There is a rope winch on the foremast which can be used to bring in an anchor rope rode. I have chain hooks on ropes which can be, one after the other, hooked onto the chain to winch the chain rode in, but I consider this merely a means of dealing with a stuck anchor, or dealing with a situation where I have dragged into deep water and have all of my chain and storm anchor to haul straight up (happened to someone who couldn't deal with it).

As for cruising areas I am likely to experience: The Great Lakes and on out the St Lawrence River to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia (emulating cruises my father did on his 25' Ariel). I am most familiar with Lake Onterio and the Thousand Islands. Lake Huron's North Channel appears to be like the Thousand Islands, but more so and wilder. East Coast of the US, Maine to the Chesapeake. Bahamas (ROGUE's element. ROGUE floats in 1', sails well in 3' 30 knot wind). Caribbean. So, anchoring conditions I am likely to anchor in include: sand, glacial moraine, kelp? and other interesting weed (and rock?) in the Canadian Maritime and Maine (I will be interested in Maine Sail's comments), and sand over coral.

Sailing around the world? ROGUE while smaller than I would prefer is seaworthy enough for the dream to be made real if I choose.

As for sailing engineless, that has been a matter of poor design. Had I carried out my original design the prop would have sucked air. However, going engineless while I considered what sort of auxiliar power would suit me best has not been troubling. ROGUE was designed to be a sailboat with auxiliary power an after thought. I never intended to rely on an engine. I learned to sail with an unreliable engine. Dad never used the engine when control was important. We sailed into the marinas, to pick up moorings, and on and off the hook. We couldn't rely on the engine so we seldom used it. I don't expect marinas would allow us to do that any more. Dad replaced the original engine with a reliable diesel and I got sloppy sailing Dad's boat while I built ROGUE. Not having an engine is forcing me to learn how to sail again. ROGUE is not so nimble as Dad's Ariel, but will sail itself for long periods of time, and can be stopped and backed up under control. Learning the full capabilities of one's boat and learning to accomplish all tasks under sail is not just satisfying, it creates a justifiable confidence and knowledge base that will keep boat and crew safe.

[Extemporaneous]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

This is an interesting photo. I took photos of a Bruce, Rocna, Spade, CQR & Super Max. I then highlighted the angle of attack or "set angle" as these anchors usually orient when landing on the bottom.

The Rocna and Spade have the next steepest angle of attack but the least distance to roll upright into "perfect set". The CQR has a very low angle of attack on the bottom and is probably why it tends to "skip and hop" along the bottom rather than punch through penetrate it. The Super Max has a terrible angle of attack and in my own use of this anchor it set no better than a CQR in hard bottoms so all next gens are not created equal.

Main Sail,
A Super Max came with my boat when I bought it. It was the PO's primary anchor and what I have been using since I got the boat. I don't have much sailing experience and to date have generally anchored in fairly soft bottoms. It has held very well and consistently but hasn't been put to any big tests. I have since bought a 25kg Rocna which I plan to use as my primary and with my experience so far with the Super Max, thought it would compliment the Rocna fairly well. You don't seam to be a fan but your reference was hard bottom. Can you tell me more about your experience with the Super Max (other than hard bottom I suppose) and what setting you adjusted the the shank to and what you found with different settings of the shank? I can see where it would not be a good hard bottom anchor, but would you know if there is a bottom where this anchor excels? I also have a delta.
To date my plan has been to keep the Super Max (over a CQR I also have and will retire), but perhaps I need to rethink. However I don't think any rethink will include keeping the CQR.
My boat is a Corbin 39 and is approximately 12 tons.

I certainly be interested in what you have to say.

Regards,
Extemp.

[lancelot9898]

I've just returned from a couple of nights anchored here on the Cheaspeake and wanted to say that the Supreme did a fine job again. One night there was 25 knots of wind and I purposely anchored so that we were somewhat exposed(maybe a 1/2 mile fetch) and with somewhat short scope(5 to 1 on 3/8 BBB) to see how well the anchor would do.(Tayana 37 with a design weight of 22.5 but more likely 30K) I swore that we had drug since the lee shore looked plenty close at 4 am in the morning, but according to the chart plotter we did not. Plus the effort to bring the anchor up next morning confirmed that it was well set. Last year I anchored in full gale force winds with the same anchor and it did well too. I'm often trying to improve performance and this time it was no exception when I tried using a different bridle. I'll start a new thread to discuss the bridle and would appreciate it to get some comments espically from Maine Sail and Evans.

One other comment about anchors and the angle of attack that Maine posted. Granted that the CQR has a low level of attack and that is the reason that it may be difficult to set, but imagine rather than a straingt pull that you very the pull from side to side. At a given instant the angle of attack become very steep and that may account for getting it set. Years ago a little 35 lb CQR held my brand new Tayana in a Cat 1 hurricane and while there has been trouble setting it in soft mud(it plows through the stuff) it has been a good anchor thoughout the years even though I now use a 45 lb Supreme. Also the Supreme rides well on the Tayana bow pulpit. The anchor roller is at the end of the pulpit and the roll bar fits nicely under the rail where it is tied off at a couple of points. The larger sizes would not fit, but the 45 does well.

Need to eat breakfast and I'll come back and start a new thread on bridles in a couple of hours.

[RaySea Lady]

My mistake and My apologies, My anchor is a 35LB CQR and not a delta as previously mentioned. Just noticed and would not want to give Delta a bad rep as I know nothing about their product. Now, I feel that I should buy a Delta just to make up for this.

My boat weighs 27 tons with fuel etc. and I have a 3500 lb. windlass

Originally Posted by RaySea Lady

QuicklineUSA - Ultra Anchor

I currently have a Delta plow 35lbs with 200 ft of 3/8 chain rode, but the delta simply does not grab all that well and takes several attempts, although I have only anchored three times with it. It Seems to act like the cqr mentioned above.

Right now I am debating between the Rocna above and this Ultra Anchor. Both seem to recomend around 100lbs ..

[speedoo]

Originally Posted by lancelot9898

I've just returned from a couple of nights anchored here on the Cheaspeake and wanted to say that the Supreme did a fine job again. One night there was 25 knots of wind and I purposely anchored so that we were somewhat exposed(maybe a 1/2 mile fetch) and with somewhat short scope(5 to 1 on 3/8 BBB) to see how well the anchor would do.(Tayana 37 with a design weight of 22.5 but more likely 30K) I swore that we had drug since the lee shore looked plenty close at 4 am in the morning, but according to the chart plotter we did not. Plus the effort to bring the anchor up next morning confirmed that it was well set. Last year I anchored in full gale force winds with the same anchor and it did well too. I'm often trying to improve performance and this time it was no exception when I tried using a different bridle. I'll start a new thread to discuss the bridle and would appreciate it to get some comments espically from Maine Sail and Evans.

One other comment about anchors and the angle of attack that Maine posted. Granted that the CQR has a low level of attack and that is the reason that it may be difficult to set, but imagine rather than a straingt pull that you very the pull from side to side. At a given instant the angle of attack become very steep and that may account for getting it set. Years ago a little 35 lb CQR held my brand new Tayana in a Cat 1 hurricane and while there has been trouble setting it in soft mud(it plows through the stuff) it has been a good anchor thoughout the years even though I now use a 45 lb Supreme. Also the Supreme rides well on the Tayana bow pulpit. The anchor roller is at the end of the pulpit and the roll bar fits nicely under the rail where it is tied off at a couple of points. The larger sizes would not fit, but the 45 does well.

Need to eat breakfast and I'll come back and start a new thread on bridles in a couple of hours.

Thanks very much for the real life test. Great info.

[Eric ROGUE]

sailingharry started this thread and one of his concerns was weight of his anchoring system because he does not have a windless. My situation as well. Additionally, on my small boat I have weight distribution and storage concerns. Having again been stimulated to seriously rethink my ultimate anchoring solutions for ROGUE I can't seem to stop.

I used to think highly of the backed (tandem) anchoring system for safety in storm conditions. A danforth type at the end would have infinite scope. With a non-burrowing type like a yachtsman or Northhill I still think it has merit. However, it seems like backing a burrowing type anchor would simply prevent it from digging in as far as it might otherwise, even if it did not in any other way interfere with the anchor's ability to set well. My thought experiments aside, this excellent article discusses tandem anchoring thoroughly and with experiential data Two to Tandem: Maximizing Holding Power by Tandem Anchoring Interesting that while for the most part dismissing tandem anchoring as a bad idea the Rocna is specifically designed to be able to employ a tandem anchor. I do not agree with the argument that one should put all the weight you would put in tandem anchors into one anchor. Even a small boat like mine should carry several anchors. There will be a second anchor aboard. However, I am much less enchanted with the idea of tandem anchors than I once was.

Three Danforth types set 120* apart has great theoretical appeal, and I would be happy to carry three Fortress anchors to manage this, but then there is the matter of chain, and the matter of setting the whole thing up. How much chain would be needed in real life to be able to set each anchor far enough away from the others, but still close enough to end up at a shackle in the middle of the three anchors? The weight of chain is a real consideration on my boat, and that chain needs to be heavy enough to make use of the anchor's holding power. As for setting the whole thing up, I have read plenty of theory about how one sets it up (mostly cute diagrams in perfect symmetry), but not read one account of someone actually setting it up. Nor have I read one account of how such a system actually performs in the real world. It is a way of getting one anchor that does not perform well in wind shifts to perform well by making it three anchors. And away from boat, three anchors, all set well, would provide relief from worrying about an anchor not resetting during a wind shift. However, multiple anchors hold less well than either of the anchors singly for the same reason that pulling on the halyard above the winch helps winch it home. For the same reason a kellet improves scope.

Perhaps kellets would help. Kellets or Anchor Angels / Sentinels: Uses and Applications is an excellent article. (Thanks Rocna for two articles that include and surpass other information I have read.) While I agree that carrying extra weight to be a kellet makes little sense unless it has another primary function, such as movable ballast, kellets can help, and I can add several to my anchor rode with little extra to stow and little trouble.

Heavy plastic buckets with sturdy lids used to ship plaster and food are available for free. These buckets can be reinforced top and bottom with plywood disks, an eyebolt through the center allows attachment to the rode. That might not work with rock so I think I would use four threaded rods around the outside. Weight to be provided by sand, rock, or whatever is handy and heavy as possible. I have one bucket aboard already. I can use others to store things, or simply stack the one inside the others. They stack well.

Now back to deciding about the main anchor. A storm anchor in the bilge, and the above solutions all assume ability to anticipate the approach of a storm. Not always possible.

[colemj]

The problem with kellets are getting enough weight so that they are useful means getting one that is unwieldy. I think their main purpose is to make the owner feel better. The attached pic is of a kellet in 12kts of wind.

Mark

[Hiracer]

Evans,

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.

I have a 44# Spade right now and I'm very happy with it (and a 66# Spade in the lazarette). Prior experience is with the CQR, Super Max, and cheap Bruce copy.

The Spade performs the same as the other 'new generation' anchors you reference in your website. That is, it works great so long as the bottom is some type of deposited 'soil.' In rocky bottoms it's just as terrible as most anchors. I view this failure to work in a rocky bottom as a positive thing because I then know when to move elsewhere. The San Juans Islands and areas north offers fairly benign anchoring, and there's always someplace else to bailout to.

But my limited experience in Alaska (three years mainly in Kenai Fjords) tells me that having an anchor that can provide some service in rocky bottoms can be a real asset when an entire region offers nothing but iffy bottoms. I left the Great North 9 years ago, but back then the Bruce absolutely dominated the anchoring scene up there. It's the regions where the glaciers have receded in recent history that pose the problem. There just hasn't been enought time for any type of soil to form and be transmitted to the bottom of the bays.

I don't like the risk of fouling that comes with the fisherman types, so by default I keep thinking about picking up an old used Bruce or, if none, springing for a Ray.

Avoiding rocky bottoms is obviously the best solution, but sometimes that solution is just not offered unless one sticks to the middle latitudes.

Thanks again.

Does anybody know what is the next size above 44# for the Bruce? I might start looking for one, although the shank width might pose a problem for my particular boat.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Hiracer,

The short answer I suspect 44lbs would be just fine for 'normal' locations. I would think about a size larger for Chile and the rest of the south. We got RTW never dragging with a 44lber on Silk.

The long answer - I don't know

We don't have that much experience with our Ray yet to know if it is a good Bruce copy or not - we suspect it is but can't say with certainty yet.

I also don't know how much of our (or any-one's) anchoring experience is due to the captain rather than the anchor - I suspect a lot, but can't say with certainty. I am VERY careful picking my anchoring spot - looking for the best protection and the best bottom in a harbour. I am VERY aware if my anchor is well set or not (usually diving on it in the tropics and backing on it in the cold water) and will leave if the weather becomes unsettles and the set is suspect. When its possible, we really enjoy sailing on and off our anchor, and that creates an incentive toward a good setting design (although I might add that lin/larry also obviously do this, and quite successfully, with a CQR). I am VERY careful to create an exit plan for any anchorage that does not have 360 protection, so I can leave at night if the wind shifts to the unprotected quarter. A lot of cruising boats will try to sit that out, but we leave and go to sea. I use quite short scope (down to 2:1) in many situations (but quite long scope in bad conditions) and that probably affects my anchor choice and sizing. We do not use two anchors very frequently, preferring one large anchor and if it is not big enough for any particular harbour/situation we go elsewhere. If I have to make a trade-off, I prefer to have more weight in the anchor and less in the chain/rode (but not less than 75' chain in coral). We do explore the more remote corners of the world and do probably see great bottom variety and more wind than most.

This is all pretty distinctive technique and I could probably add another dozen points if I thought about it more. I am sure they dramatically affect our anchoring experience and selection and sizing.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

I think you've got your vector line in the wrong place for the Super Max. Look how you did the Bruce. The Max is similar to the Bruce.

In the case of the Max, the prongs have been filled in a bit compared to the Bruce. That filled in area will offer more surface area and, therefore, more holding power in soft bottoms, but less propensity to grap rock and kelp in difficult bottoms. Which leads to my next post . . .

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I don't completely understand the cause of the disconnect/inconsistency, except that for us setting ability in difficult bottoms is much more important than holding power in good bottoms and the tests generally focus on holding power.

Bingo.

It's hard to appreciate the significance of this statement until you get to areas that simply do not offer much in the way of good bottoms.

[speedoo]

Originally Posted by colemj

The problem with kellets are getting enough weight so that they are useful means getting one that is unwieldy. I think their main purpose is to make the owner feel better. The attached pic is of a kellet in 12kts of wind.

Mark

My guess is that kellet is very light. Do you know its weight?

[Keegan]

I found a fail-safe anchor. Just set it and forget it.

[Hiracer]

I just looked at the price difference between the Manson and Lewmar clones of the Bruce.

My goodness. It's got to be the metal.

[barnakiel]

Doubt it. Just that Lewmar makes theirs in huge amounts in China, while Manson and Rocna (and perhaps Spade) may be doing theirs locally (NZ?) where labour is more expensive. Then shipment costs, marketing ...

Anyway, the "Bruce" from Lewmar look like cheap knock-offs - have a look at any original Bruce and you will be shocked to see the difference.

b.