Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

[Bash]

The "people are generally suckers" theory, posted above, is fairly easy to debunk. I've been using a Rocna for a year now, and never yet has it failed to set the first time. My guess is that I've set the anchor at least 50 times in the last year, thanks largely to our year-round sailing season. Previous anchors (eight years with a Bruce, two years with a Delta, both on the same all-chain rode that the Rocna currently occupies) failed to set numerous times every year. Additionally, I've never yet had the Rocna drag during a blow. Admittedly, I've not anchored in more than 35 knots of wind during the past year, but the Delta that came with our boat would never have held position in that sort of breeze. Even if it wouldn't break free, it would slowly plow to leeward. Finally, my windlass was always able to retrieve the Bruce or Delta without trouble. That same windlass sometimes struggles with the Rocna because of how deeply the anchor buries. After a windy night we'll sometimes reduce scope to 1-to-1 where the chain is vertical, and it still won't break free. We have to use the engine to power the anchor out of the mud. That just didn't happen with previous generation anchors.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Are you saying that you don't see this? Or are you saying that you buy into the idea foisted by the marketers that by taking a plow anchor and welding a circular bar on top of it (or cutting out the middle of the plow blade) and then recommending that buyers go heavier than their previous style of anchor, that the large amount of money being charged is actually purchasing a 'better' anchor?

I never said that. What you are saying may be completely true. You just made it sound as if this was a recurring thing in the anchor marketing world and I just couldn't remember any of the others that were supposed to be better and were purchased by a bunch of boaters and then were found to not be so good and fell out of favor. If it happened in the past I just wanted to know when and what the anchors were.
An alternative to your proposition is that the modifications are actually improvements and have made the anchors better. We certainly have improved on the old "fishermans" anchor with the current group of anchors. It is possible that the "next generation" as they are called could make similar improvements to the CQR and Bruce that they made to what we now consider "old" anchors. Only time and experience will tell and it appears from this thread that "some" of the experience is that they indeed are making an improvement so I am less likely to discount it then you until I see something that refutes those observations.

Jim

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by Bash

The "people are generally suckers" theory, posted above, is fairly easy to debunk. I've been using a Rocna for a year now, and never yet has it failed to set the first time. My guess is that I've set the anchor at least 50 times in the last year, thanks largely to our year-round sailing season. Previous anchors (eight years with a Bruce, two years with a Delta, both on the same all-chain rode that the Rocna currently occupies) failed to set numerous times every year. Additionally, I've never yet had the Rocna drag during a blow. Admittedly, I've not anchored in more than 35 knots of wind during the past year, but the Delta that came with our boat would never have held position in that sort of breeze. Even if it wouldn't break free, it would slowly plow to leeward. Finally, my windlass was always able to retrieve the Bruce or Delta without trouble. That same windlass sometimes struggles with the Rocna because of how deeply the anchor buries. After a windy night we'll sometimes reduce scope to 1-to-1 where the chain is vertical, and it still won't break free. We have to use the engine to power the anchor out of the mud. That just didn't happen with previous generation anchors.

No, as another poster pointed out way back in the first page, the reason that your Rocna doesn't drag is because the recommended size is substantially larger than it's predecessor, and not because its 'better' per se (its a plow anchor with a circular bar welded on top, and regular old plow anchors already have notoriously good holding power). So what you've essentially purchased is a heavy plow anchor. Put a nice length of heavy chain on it and no wonder its 'never failed'. Neither would a regular plow anchor that size and with that amount of chain attached.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by jkleins

I never said that. What you are saying may be completely true. You just made it sound as if this was a recurring thing in the anchor marketing world and I just couldn't remember any of the others that were supposed to be better and were purchased by a bunch of boaters and then were found to not be so good and fell out of favor. If it happened in the past I just wanted to know when and what the anchors were.
An alternative to your proposition is that the modifications are actually improvements and have made the anchors better. We certainly have improved on the old "fishermans" anchor with the current group of anchors. It is possible that the "next generation" as they are called could make similar improvements to the CQR and Bruce that they made to what we now consider "old" anchors. Only time and experience will tell and it appears from this thread that "some" of the experience is that they indeed are making an improvement so I am less likely to discount it then you until I see something that refutes those observations.

Jim

Your paragraph in and of itself is proof enough of the phenomenon. If it wasn't then people wouldn't be abandoning their old 'better' anchors and shelling out big bucks for the newer 'better' anchors.

Again, I would posit that a jagged triangular piece of concrete of the same weight with a chain strategically attached to a throughbolted eye to replicate the plow design would hold just as well. Maybe better. But it's awful hard to polish up a chunk of jagged concrete with a throughbolt eye and sell it it for $300 - $2000.

[jkleins]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Again, I would posit that a jagged triangular piece of concrete of the same weight with a chain strategically attached to a throughbolted eye to replicate the plow design would hold just as well. Maybe better. But it's awful hard to polish up a chunk of jagged concrete with a throughbolt eye and sell it it for $300 - $2000.

That is where we differ. I actually suspect that engineering and testing may be able to refine that piece of concrete. If you don't think that possible then I can see you may not want to buy an anchor at all as the concrete thing should be fairly easy and cheap.

Jim

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by Not Sure

....Now, if an anchor is being marketed that has the holding power of a 50lb anchor in a 5lb anchor size, then they may actually have something 'better'. Until such time, however, its just snake oil.....

You might consider actually basing your posts on experience rather then conjecture. I know that such is virtually unheard of on the internet, but might be worth looking into.

My Manson Supreme replaced the EXACT SAME WEIGHT of genuine CQR. It grabs and holds MUCH more reliably then the CQR did. It drags up half the bottom with it when it comes aboard. I rode through a hurricane on my boat at anchor with the Manson Supreme (actually measured winds of 74 mph on my hand held wind meter)... and did not drag. Not at all.

I have had the Manson for approximately 4 years now, and had the CQR for longer than that. I had good luck with the CQR, but would never set it and forget it like I now do the Manson Supreme.

On our last long cruise we anchored most every night with the Manson, and never one time did it drag. It is a real improvement.

Again, sorry to cast doubt on theory with some experience, but I thought it might clear things up a bit.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

You might consider actually basing your posts on experience rather then conjecture. I know that such is virtually unheard of on the internet, but might be worth looking into.

My Manson Supreme replaced the EXACT SAME WEIGHT of genuine CQR. It grabs and holds MUCH more reliably then the CQR did. It drags up half the bottom with it when it comes aboard. I rode through a hurricane on my boat at anchor with the Manson Supreme (actually measured winds of 74 mph on my hand held wind meter)... and did not drag. Not at all.

I have had the Manson for approximately 4 years now, and had the CQR for longer than that. I had good luck with the CQR, but would never set it and forget it like I now do the Manson Supreme.

On our last long cruise we anchored most every night with the Manson, and never one time did it drag. It is a real improvement.

Again, sorry to cast doubt on theory with some experience, but I thought it might clear things up a bit.

The only way that your 'experience' would have any merit whatsoever other than as an apparent shill for the Manson Supreme company would be if a similar boat next to you had a CQR deployed in the same exact circumstances. Even then it would require the addition of a 'control' (the aforementioned chunk of concrete) in the same 'test' to even begin to approach something remotely resembling anything other than an anecdote. For all you know an underwater object that your Manson hooked could be responsible for it's purported 'superior' holding power....every time. Or maybe it's simply wishful thinking to prevent having to accept the notion that possibly, just possibly, you were sold an expensive bill of goods.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by jkleins

That is where we differ. I actually suspect that engineering and testing may be able to refine that piece of concrete. If you don't think that possible then I can see you may not want to buy an anchor at all as the concrete thing should be fairly easy and cheap.

Jim

Good point. You'd think. And if so, the testing should be prominently displayed right on the manufacturer's website or sales literature of their 'better' anchor for all prospective purchasers to see. Do you have any links to such tests? And if their are such tests, were the tests actually conducted in a scientific and unbiased manner using recognized scientific methods? And absent such scientific testing verifying the marketing claims that the anchor is indeed 'better', one must ask themselves ....'why not'?

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

No, as another poster pointed out way back in the first page, the reason that your Rocna doesn't drag is because the recommended size is substantially larger than it's predecessor, and not because its 'better' per se (its a plow anchor with a circular bar welded on top, and regular old plow anchors already have notoriously good holding power). So what you've essentially purchased is a heavy plow anchor. Put a nice length of heavy chain on it and no wonder its 'never failed'. Neither would a regular plow anchor that size and with that amount of chain attached.

First, all of the anchors I've described have weighed within a few kgs of each other. Weight doesn't come close to accounting for the difference in performance. Second, all of the anchors used the exact same rode, so it's not possible that this could account for the difference in performance.

I'm an active diver (retired PADI and NAUI instructor) and I often dive on my anchor to check the set. The Delta, a plow type, would stay near the surface of the substrate and move when the surge put pressure on the rode. You could sit there and watch it move six inches with each swell, and then come back at the end of a dive and note that it had moved several meters over the course of an hour, never setting any deeper during the process. This doesn't happen with the Rocna. The more pressure applied, the deeper it dives. When it sets in mud, it's completely submerged. Even the roll bar vanishes.

The big difference is in weighing anchor. The Rocna is much more difficult to break loose from the bottom, sometimes even when the chain is vertical and all scope has been removed. That just didn't happen with the Bruce or the Delta.

The other difference, and this is significant, is that the Rocna seems to set instantly. This means that there is much less chance for it to foul on a vegetated bottom, something that was a distinct problem with the Bruce. What this meant, in the past, was that I needed to carry two anchors, using the Delta in vegetation, where the Bruce was weak, and using the Bruce in mud/silt, where the Delta was virtually worthless. The Rocna excells in both areas without showing a weakness in the other. Ultimately, this is the biggest difference over the previous anchors I've used.

I still carry two Guardian anchors, the smaller of which I use as a stern anchor, the larger of which I keep as a storm/backup anchor but have never yet used. But I sold the Bruce with my previous boat and I traded the Delta away for a good bottle of wine, a deal that I'm certain favored me rather than the poor sap that got stuck with a Delta.

[Not Sure]

Heck, this is downright funny. Even Manson Supreme and Rocna can't seem to agree on who's basically exact same design is 'better', with the Manson Supreme allegedly being an inferior ripoff of the Rocna. LOL!

About the Manson Supreme Anchor

Also look at the 'test' at the bottom. Not much information there on the methodology used. Note that the generic 'spade' anchor almost outperformed the Rocna in the test, and the apparent complete absence of a generic plow anchor, the most similar type of anchor to the Manson and Rocna. That's just a 'coincidence', eh? LOL!

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by Bash

First, all of the anchors I've described have weighed within a few kgs of each other. Weight doesn't come close to accounting for the difference in performance. Second, all of the anchors used the exact same rode, so it's not possible that this could account for the difference in performance.

I'm an active diver (retired PADI and NAUI instructor) and I often dive on my anchor to check the set. The Delta, a plow type, would stay near the surface of the substrate and move when the surge put pressure on the rode. You could sit there and watch it move six inches with each swell, and then come back at the end of a dive and note that it had moved several meters over the course of an hour, never setting any deeper during the process. This doesn't happen with the Rocna. The more pressure applied, the deeper it dives. When it sets in mud, it's completely submerged. Even the roll bar vanishes.

The big difference is in weighing anchor. The Rocna is much more difficult to break loose from the bottom, sometimes even when the chain is vertical and all scope has been removed. That just didn't happen with the Bruce or the Delta.

The other difference, and this is significant, is that the Rocna seems to set instantly. This means that there is much less chance for it to foul on a vegetated bottom, something that was a distinct problem with the Bruce. What this meant, in the past, was that I needed to carry two anchors, using the Delta in vegetation, where the Bruce was weak, and using the Bruce in mud/silt, where the Delta was virtually worthless. The Rocna excells in both areas without showing a weakness in the other. Ultimately, this is the biggest difference over the previous anchors I've used.

I still carry two Guardian anchors, the smaller of which I use as a stern anchor, the larger of which I keep as a storm/backup anchor but have never yet used. But I sold the Bruce with my previous boat and I traded the Delta away for a good bottle of wine, a deal that I'm certain favored me rather than the poor sap that got stuck with a Delta.

Clearly the problem with the Delta is that the plow is turned horizontal and instead relies on the rectangular side wings to replace the holding power lost by rotating the plow. Yet many people swear by the Delta, and it too almost outperformed the Rocna.

[Not Sure]

In this test from 2003 the SUPER MAX 17 Pivoting Arm anchor won out (but it certainly didn't seem to be an apples to apples test with one pull of various weight anchors). Still, one wonders where the SuperMax anchor is today and why isn't it included in the above West Marine-sponsored test?
SOFT MUD BOTTOM ANCHOR TEST

Once again, although a generic spade anchor was included in the test, a generic plow anchor was not included. In either case, pound for pound the 16.5lb generic spade anchor, although it didn't set, pulled at a comparative 409lbs.

Clearly the indication in these two tests is that dollar for dollar and pound for pound, a generic spade or plow anchor is the best value for the money.

[roverhi]

I hear the black helocopters hovering over my Manson. The convex plough anchors originated by the Spade and copied by the Rocna, Manson, etc. are not better because of the roll bar or lack there of. The concave nature of the anchor blade makes them way more efficient at resisting the pull of the rode especially at steep angles. From my personal experience and the tests that I've seen, they also set faster. Though setting may not be because of the concave/convex nature of the anchor blade.

The original CQR ploughs and their derivatives concave blades don't hold as well. After all, the design idea comes from the agricultural plough that was designed to turn up the bottom not bury itself in the bottom. The Delta types are simplifications of the articulating CQR which makes them cheaper to manufacture and less susceptible to build errors. There is also some speculation that they set more quickly than the CQR but not as quickly the Spade types.

When I started sailing, the light weight anchor choice was Danforth or Danforth. The CQR, when it migrated to our shores, was a big improvement for overall anchoring conditions resetability. In some conditions, soft mud, it was inferior to the Danforth but overall a great improvement. The Convex Spade types are an improvement over the CQR. None of these anchors work as well as the Danforth in mud but they are a big improvement over the CQR in holding power in all condtions.

None of the changes in anchor design have been radical. After all, the anchors all work the same. The dig into the bottom and hold against a mostly horizontal pull. There just aren't that many possible variations on the theme. I wouldn't throw away any anchor that has worked for me. Do think that there have been improvements to anchors that are to be used in a variety of conditions.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by roverhi

I hear the black helocopters hovering over my Manson. The convex plough anchors originated by the Spade and copied by the Rocna, Manson, etc. are not better because of the roll bar or lack there of. The concave nature of the anchor blade makes them way more efficient at resisting the pull of the rode especially at steep angles. From my personal experience and the tests that I've seen, they also set faster. Though setting may not be because of the concave/convex nature of the anchor blade.

The original CQR ploughs and their derivatives concave blades don't hold as well. After all, the design idea comes from the agricultural plough that was designed to turn up the bottom not bury itself in the bottom. The Delta types are simplifications of the articulating CQR which makes them cheaper to manufacture and less susceptible to build errors. There is also some speculation that they set more quickly than the CQR but not as quickly the Spade types.

When I started sailing, the light weight anchor choice was Danforth or Danforth. The CQR, when it migrated to our shores, was a big improvement for overall anchoring conditions resetability. In some conditions, soft mud, it was inferior to the Danforth but overall a great improvement. The Convex Spade types are an improvement over the CQR. None of these anchors work as well as the Danforth in mud but they are a big improvement over the CQR in holding power in all condtions.

None of the changes in anchor design have been radical. After all, the anchors all work the same. The dig into the bottom and hold against a mostly horizontal pull. There just aren't that many possible variations on the theme. I wouldn't throw away any anchor that has worked for me. Do think that there have been improvements to anchors that are to be used in a variety of conditions.

According to the tests referenced above, in mud is where the spade and plow anchor variants (Manson, Rocna) beat out the Danforth variants (although granted not by much). It is in sand (and also loose silt one would assume) that the Danforth/Fortress variants reign supreme.

[Eric ROGUE]

Not Sure,

I'm not sure what you base your opinions on or what it might take to convince you otherwise. Though you are dismissive of the people who have responded to you with their experiences using older and new generation anchors, I am very greatful that your provocative posts caused them to respond. Their posted experiences are important to my own decision making about what anchors to equip my boat with. I hope more people respond.

I would suggest you could vastly increase your understanding about the differences and strengths and weaknesses of various anchor types by doing as I have done. Read this thread from beginning to end and explore the links to further information contained within various posts. Also, google and read the anchor tests which fairly compare anchors. Evan, and others, feel that their experience differs from the conclusions of the anchor tests, so I feel it is also critical to listen to the extensive experience of Evan, and others who have extensive experience. Engineless, the safety of my boat and crew depends upon sails and sailing skill, and upon having the most reliable anchor available: reliably sets in diverse bottom conditions, reliably holds once set, and reliably resets if it does pull out of the bottom. Even small improvements in performance of one anchor over another are important to me. Perhaps you do not have such powerful motivations influencing your views on anchors.

As for cement block anchors:
A properly constructed cement mooring block has a 1:2 holding ratio. That is, a 1800 lb block of cement has, at best, 900 lbs holding power, which is less than the holding power of a 14 lb standard galvanized steel Danforth anchor. Even allowing that you were deliberately exaggerating to make your point, you are way off base with your thinking regards cement anchors. Consider that your other views about anchoring may be just as far off base.

Since I brought up Danforth anchors I'll take the opportunity to defend the type. Someone in this thread stated the shortcomings of the Danforth type and said they would not have a Danforth type on board their boat. Danforths are superb at doing what they were designed to do: work at large scope, in sand, and allow a landing craft to pull itself off a beach. In applications where the anchor can be well set, is not expected to reset itself, and there is opportunity for adequate scope, it is superb. Given how comparatively inexpensive, light, and easy to store Danforth types are for a given holding power, it is foolish not to carry a couple to use in situations where the Danforth's strengths can be made use of: Bahamian moor, 3 anchor mooring, kedge, outer anchor when tandem anchoring, etc..