Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

[osirissail]

>>bobfnbw - "Most drags can be assumed to be operator error, that is anchoring in the wrong place with the wrong anchor. Which is why cruisers carry more than one type. Usually 3 or 4 for different types of bottoms."<<

I think you have hit on the core answer to anchoring - choosing the proper anchor type for the sea bottom - before you anchor - makes the difference between "never had a problem" and "dragged everywhere." And most world cruisers carry at least two mounted on the bow and a total of 4 to 5 anchors, 2 or 3 of them are spares stored away in a locker or some place.
- - The spares are generally there because sometimes you cannot retreive your anchor due to it getting stuck in water too deep to dive, or you have to "cut it loose" in an emergency.
- - Whatever particular brand you like, I always hang off the bow two anchors: one is as heavy a weight anchor that I can afford on all chain rode; and the other is a flat blade type anchor like the Fortress or Danforth on a 50ft of chain and 300 feet of nylon rode. Three other anchors are stored away. In shallow sand, soft mud, or large rock I use the blade anchor set for the type of soft material. In stiffer sand, mud, grass or very deep anchorages I use the "heavy" anchor on lots of chain. Chain can make a very good anchor of itself as it wraps around heavy seafloor objects.
- - If you never go anywhere that has a very different sea floor then one type anchor will always work fine and you don't need others (except for a spare in case you lose the anchor). Otherwise, have a variety of types.

[chala]

Originally Posted by GMac

The Australians have (Oh crap I hope I get this right) 6 States. Until very recently all the States had differing Rules and Regs from the one next door, to a point. Just recently they decided to pull all under one National body whose the name escapes me at the moment. Sounds like a good idea.

This new body has been tasked with standardised the country and other smart things like that. It is also tasked with checking out and Certifying assorted marine gear, one being anchors. As they have had a few issues this body wants to have all anchors sold there up to a certain standard. As I understand it they have chatted with Lloyds and will be following very similar rules and procedures, again a smart move.

GMac you must be a bit of a dreamer to think that some good may come out of OZ, they have some of the worse Standards in the world.

Originally Posted by GMac

almost too smart for Aussies but that's a whole different story of wind-up

Keep up with your first impression until they join the CE.

[Highlander40]

When a CQR sets, if it sets, it will hold quite well untill the wind does a 180. One weekend in particular, I was amazed to see 6 or 8 boats drag with CQR's in this exact way. No not drag, pop out and run free.

The Idea of a different anchor for each type of bottom.. Sounds like a bunch of poor anchors.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by bobfnbw

Well, steve Dashew used the Bruce for many years on all his boats,

And now he doesnt

[Bash]

Originally Posted by bobfnbw

Well, steve Dashew used the Bruce for many years on all his boats, deerfoots, sundeers, the beowolf series... It was the primary anchor. I figure that that man knows boats.

Here's a shot of Dashew's new boat. Note that the anchor on the bow is NOT a Bruce.

[CAELESTIS]

Dashew-----Rocna owner

Steve was once a proponent of Bruce anchors, or claw-types. His general anchoring philosophy is to use an oversized anchor with less focus placed on the rode, meaning reduced scope may be used if necessary. This explains the use of the oversized Rocna 115 on Wind Horse instead of the Rocna 70 we recommended, an approach that seems to work: "Setting and holding are better than any anchor we have used in the past, keeping in mind that we are often setting on 2.5 to one scope and then shortening down to 2:1 due to tight swinging room and/or water depth."

And compared to the Bruce? "The Rocna anchor continues to please us. It has worked well in all the bottoms in which we've used it, and we now think the claim that it has significantly better holding than the Bruce to be valid... I feel the Rocna is a better all around anchor than the Bruce type. We sold the Bruce after getting comfortable with the Rocna."

[Roy M]

Choose a Rocna or don't. You are all adults. Take responsibility for your untried and rejected assumptions. Rocnas ROCK!

[bobfnbw]

I guess I can assume that the last 4 posters either do not read well, or just run to the conclusion that fits their sense of reality.

What I said, is that the Bruce anchor has been used for many years by dashew and others, and that used properly, is a good anchor. I also said that their are newer anchors that are better.

When thinking about ground tackle, it is a poor decision IMO, to spit hairs on such a important, maybe the most important decision.

I have a cqr and a bruce, but will change to a Ray and a supreme or rocna ( to me not much difference) and a Luke

A

ll good anchors. The bruce, cqr and fortress all have been used sucessfully in millions of anchorages.
The newer designs imo are a better choice though. Set quicker, resets faster if it looses hold, although most do not lose hold.

Well, steve Dashew used the Bruce for many years on all his boats, deerfoots, sundeers, the beowolf series... It was the primary anchor. I figure that that man knows boats.
Most drags can be assumed to be operator error, that is anchoring in the wrong place with the wrong anchor. Which is why cruisers carry more than one type. Usually 3 or 4 for different types of bottoms.
Evens Starzinger has used the bruce as well, and never dragged. A lot of it seems to be technique, including what rode, what scope, what bottom... etc.

But then the rocna people have to jump in and declare their love...
Read the post before jumping to conclusions.... geeze.
Nothing wrong with anyone changing anchors, or anything based on new technology. Doesn't mean the old one was crap. Just that the new one is better. Maybe not better in every way. For some, the cost may not justify changing out the anchor. In my marina I see a lot of anchors. Predominantly bruce and cqrs, with a few fortresses thrown in. Doesn't mean they suck. Alot of sailors have used nothing but those anchors, and successfully. And many have had problems with them.
Frankly I think the new gen anchors are great. And when I can, I will be getting a manson supreme and a manson ray. The rocna is ok as well.

But it would be nice to read what people say before you jump on their posts.
Thank you.
Bob

[highseas]

Mine and many other boats have swung a 180 at anchor and not popped anchor,that is due to not setting PROPERLY! in the first place.I see many boats drop anchor and not back down on it properly.I believe in the slightly oversize philosophy also,I use a 50lb. Manson plow on 5/16 G4,and have never had it budge at all.Just sailed from Canada to Mexico,anchoring many many times(and yes, spinning many 180's).The boat came with a 33lb. Bruce and would slip all over the bay when trying to set,and usually drag after being set.The plow sets almost instantly.Endured 50 knot winds for 2 days,many others around me dragged,we didn't move at all.I also use a swivel to eliminate chain twist,(which I inspect regularly with magnifying glass for cracks,having had one crack before).

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Highlander40

Cruisers use CQR anchors because they just don't know any better or will not spend the money to upgrade.

Kinda like going from mono to cat.

Hehehehehe

running now...................

[sabray]

I certainly don't know any better. I like an odd number of hulls 1 or 3. 2 doesn't work for me. I am sure rocnas and mansins are fine anchors they are highly applauded. If 50 percent of the boats have mansons I'll bet the stories of not setting start traveling. When using cqr anchors in a bottom other then mud I have rarely had an issue. There is technique and a feel that says yep this hook is set or not. The Bruce has done well up the east coast and stood up to some nasty blows. There was a spot on the choptank that sounded and felt like hard pan the Bruce didn't do well there. I didn't drag all over the place because I knew I didn't have a good set.
Watch folk try to set a Danforth off the naval academy breakwater. The pull them along most realize that's not the right anchor for that spot. Danforth or fortress is a great anchor in the right spot. That's not one of them.
If I were unlimited in funds or loose an anchor I would look real hard at a Manson rocna. I don't feal negligent because I'm not running out and buying the latest hook. I have tried and tested ground tackle that I am confident in when used correctly.
I did recently discover an anchor I had but didn't realize it as such. For years I have been rowing around with the thing clamped to my dink. I have seem many people with similar arrangments. I unclamp the thing and place it on the stern rail. When I want to go ashore I put it back on the dink and row. I have no idea why I have been doing this for so many years without questioning it's purpose. It dawned on me just moments ago this thing is a stern anchor and can be used on the dink as well as the mother. It has a handy bracket in which to attach the road the stock is significantly weighted right by the attachment point. It has 4 flukes which are mounted to a pivot so that once set and the boat swings the stock rotates around the fluke without disturbing the set. Friggin brilliant.
I think it was made by the notsuhotsu anchor compay and is labeled with a 4 which I guess is a size 4 on some scale. Anyone ever use one of these.

[LennyR]

Does anyone know what the name Rocna stands for or means?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by LennyR

Does anyone know what the name Rocna stands for or means?

Anchor spelled backwards (without the h)

[Eric ROGUE]

Having just received my Rocna anchor, I sure am glad a lot more thought went into the design and production of the anchor than went into the naming.

Bottom line: Rocna anchors made in China are well made, if mine is a representative example.

Upon receiving my Rocna 10, my first impression was, the anchor was very well built. Upon seeing the "Made in China" sticker, I did a far more critical inspection. I could find almost nothing to be in any way critical of. All welds were very smooth and even. Obviously the work of a skilled welder. Not perfect however. One side slightly higher than the other at the critical shank/blade juncture. At that juncture, the welding process etched into the shank at the weld edge, but not at the blade. These very slight imperfections did not concern me, but before posting to this forum I got an expert's opinion. I took it to Justin, a boatbuilder friend who is so skilful as a welder that one day when I was was visiting his boat shop, another welder closely inspecting a welded joint on a water tank Justin had welded asked, "How did you bend this?". He did not recognise the three foot long welded stainless steel corner as a weld. Justin acknowledged the slight imperfections my Rocna had, and pronounced the anchor sound.

The other imperfection was caused by the unskilled laborer whose job it was to grind off excess zinc after galvanization. He was using too course sandpaper on a grinder that he was not deft at handling. He ground to bare metal where the zinc had built up at the breather hole for galvanizing, at the underside of the top of the rollbar, leaving grind grooves in the metal. Very hard to see because there is hardly any color difference between the ground metal and the galvanization. I probably wouldn't have noticed if it were not for the grind grooves. It doesn't surprise me that it got past an inspection process, though the grind process and inspection process should both be improved to eliminate this problem. I will buy cold galvanizing paint to protect the metal. Knowing the problem is there, it is easy to inspect and ensure it does not rust. This is actually a blessing in disguise. Now that I have to buy cold galvanizing paint anyway, I will paint, and repaint, the sharp edges and other wear points so that paint, and not galvanizing material, is worn off by the seabed. I expect this will significantly extend the life of the original galvanization. Any reason why I should not do this? I ask because I am not aware of this being a standard way of treating an anchor, and realise as I write this, there may be a good reason it is not standard practice.

I just reinspected the bare metal to make sure I had correctly analyzed the situation. The area was not rusty when I unwrapped the anchor from the bubble wrap it was shipped in. In the three days I have had the anchor, rust has started to form. Perhaps the grinding took place after the manufacturing process. I cannot imagine the area would not have rusted while crossing an ocean in a shipping container. Surely they don't ship anchors by air!!! Or perhaps tape holding the bubble wrap on the roll bar protected the area. (Would it?) I don't remember where tape was, only that it took some effort to unwrap the anchor.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Eric ROGUE

... Now that I have to buy cold galvanizing paint anyway, I will paint, and repaint, the sharp edges and other wear points so that paint, and not galvanizing material, is worn off by the seabed. I expect this will significantly extend the life of the original galvanization. Any reason why I should not do this? I ask because I am not aware of this being a standard way of treating an anchor, and realise as I write this, there may be a good reason it is not standard practice ...

Zinc-Rich Paints* are commonly used to touch-up or repair hot-dip galvanized steel. It’s easy, in-field application, makes it a very suitable repair material, that’s approved for use according to:
ASTM A780 “Standard Practice for Repair of Damaged and Uncoated Areas of Hot-Dip Galvanized Coatings”.

* “Cold Galvanizing” is a misnomer, as the term galvanizing (by definition) means there is a metallurgical reaction between steel and zinc, which does not take place when zinc-rich paints are applied to steel.