Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-05-2011, 09:53   #376
Senior Cruiser
 
hpeer's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Between Caribbean and Canada
Boat: Murray 33-Chouette & Pape Steelmaid-44-Safara-both steel cutters
Posts: 6,993
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

I finally bit the bullet on the anchor decision. I have to make a decision and move on, get over it.

I ordered a Spade S-160, steel 77lbs. That is supposed to be good for 75' and 50,700 lbs. We are 44' and 44,000lbs. so it is a bit overkill. the 77lb S-160 was about $100 more than a S-140 so I stepped up. I have once or twice made mistakes when dog tired. It is really, really embarassing and disorienting to wake up on the other side of the harbor.

Evan at Spade USA was very helpful in answering my questions.

The reason I went with the Spade, despite its cost, was that the bow modifications would have cost me nearly as much and maybe more.

This will be a HUGE step up from our 45lb CQR.
hpeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 10:55   #377
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,475
Images: 3
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
As the OP some many hundreds of posts ago, I get the right to chime in now and again! Your post on "ranking" of anchors was my original question. For my 34 sailboat, Spade recommends a 33lb unit. I currently sleep very well with a 20lb Danforth. While I'm sure a 33 lb Spade would be very secure, a similar weight Danforth would be massive overkill.

Which gets to my original question -- if the recommended weights for the new anchors are so much heavier than the old anchors, is it really fair to say they are better? If I replace my 20 lb Danforth with a 2,000 pound cinder block, it is guaranteed to work. Never drag, never pull out, never foul, never capsize, never tangle -- and never be lifted by hand like my Danforth. Would it then be even better than a Spade?

The previous paragraph is slightly tongue in cheek, of course, but it is a touch confusing to see that I can anchor in moderate safety with an older technology anchor that I can pull by hand, or I can get a "better" anchor that, along with being "better" must be 50% heavier.
I dont think youre correct here, Weight per say, is not the primary defense of modern anchors against dragging, its sometimes used, if designed correctly to improve the ability to set such an anchor. Once set, its fluke diemensions and orientation that have most effect.

BTW looking at the size tables, I would get for normal crusing conditions 16 lbs for Darnforth and 22 lbs for spade. Not a big difference. ( and its been commented that the Darnforth table is specified for winds less then 20kts and tends to under specify)

Dave
__________________
Interested in smart boat technology, networking and all things tech
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2011, 05:03   #378
Marine Service Provider
 
Maine Sail's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maine
Boat: CS-36T - Cupecoy
Posts: 3,131
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post

BTW looking at the size tables, I would get for normal crusing conditions 16 lbs for Darnforth and 22 lbs for spade. Not a big difference. ( and its been commented that the Darnforth table is specified for winds less then 20kts and tends to under specify)

Dave
Spot on. Most old gen anchors are sized at 30 knots or less. Some new gens, like the Rocna for example, are sized for 50 knots, associated surge/waves and a soft or poor holding bottom. Hard to compare an anchor sized for less than 30 knots to one sized for 50 knots and also accounting for wave and poor holding.

Size just about any of the old gen anchors for the standard to which Rocna does and you'll nearly always see a heavier anchor unless using a Fortress.

To compare apples to apples, using the same testing organization, the old gen CQR is only Lloyds approved for HHP/High Holding Power and the Manson Supreme for example earns the SHHP badge or Super High Holding Power. What that generally means is that a smaller Manson Supreme will do what a larger does.

Most new gens are much more conservatively sized eg: 50 knots vs. less than 30 knots so you can't compare one manufacturers sizing chart to another and expect the same outcome.

I would much rather see ALL manufacturers size their anchors to a "standard" such as 50 knots, surge and poor holding but they all rate them differently and many do not even publish what their sizing guide is made up of in terms of wind, wave and holding ground..
__________________
Marine How To Articles
Maine Sail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 19:23   #379
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Annapolis, MD
Boat: Sabre 34-1 (sold) and Saga 43
Posts: 591
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post
I dont think youre correct here, Weight per say, is not the primary defense of modern anchors against dragging, its sometimes used, if designed correctly to improve the ability to set such an anchor. Once set, its fluke diemensions and orientation that have most effect.

BTW looking at the size tables, I would get for normal crusing conditions 16 lbs for Darnforth and 22 lbs for spade. Not a big difference. ( and its been commented that the Darnforth table is specified for winds less then 20kts and tends to under specify)

Dave
Dave,

Actually, that is EXACTLY my question -- if a Spade is a better anchor, why does it have to be 50% heavier? And, while it is obvious that a 22lb Spade is better than a 16 lb Danforth, is it better than a 22lb Danforth? I currently have a 20lb Danforth DeepSet on my bow roller, picked up second hand for $60. My frustration is that the comparisons of "next generation" to "old school" are never done on nominally comparable weights.
sailingharry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 20:09   #380
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,272
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

I replaced my 45lb danforth with a 45lb manson I really like the danforth. The only thing the mason does better is reset after a tide change The danforth has let me down several times with a 180* tide change The danforth is better in heavy grass
motion30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 20:14   #381
Registered User
 
capnorv's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bainbridge Island Washington on the Salish Sea
Boat: Hardin 45 Voyager Alice B., Gig Harbor 10, Orca 7 1/2 sloop, 16' sea kayak
Posts: 420
Images: 1
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post
I dont agree, whiel such tests have a degree of subjectivity and and difficult to cross compare, you can extract overall results. Its is clear that the common and successful next-gen anchors are better then older variants I would out it as ( spade, rocna, manson), ( delta) , ( fortress) ( then CQR, etc) ( and bruce).

Dave
It's good to know I've used your least desirable anchor without fail by it (though once by me) for the last 18 years. But then I usually only anchor 30-60 days a year. Maybe part of anchoring success can be sholdered by the skipper? Just a thought. Before that I used a Danforth for 15 years, and knew there must be something that would give me peace of mind. But as I've said before, those Rocna sure look pretty, and that's important to consumerman!
capnorv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 20:26   #382
Registered User
 
capnorv's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bainbridge Island Washington on the Salish Sea
Boat: Hardin 45 Voyager Alice B., Gig Harbor 10, Orca 7 1/2 sloop, 16' sea kayak
Posts: 420
Images: 1
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
I'll be sticking with a Bruce-like.

Say it isn't so! There are two boats on the West Coast using Bruce type anchors? Sacrilege, we need to modernize!
capnorv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 22:02   #383
Registered User
 
osirissail's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: A real life Zombie from FL
Boat: Gulfstar 53 - Osiris
Posts: 5,416
Images: 2
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

All in all, I would go with estarzinger but add in that there is no - one best - anchor. There is always the best choice of anchor for a particular sea floor/boat/wind situation, but that choice would have to change if the conditions change around it.
- - This is where multiple anchors come into the picture. If you read your (and I hope you have one) library of sailing/cruising books on the subject of anchors you will find a vast assortment of combinations and responsiveness to changing or different challenges a sea floor will present to you. Just like the professional angler who chooses different lures along his fishing line up underwater, so should the prudent cruising sailor consider the dynamics of changing bottom conditions when a boat swings at anchor by wind or current reversals.
- - A deep water anchorage with mighty current or wind swinging potential has me putting out my heaviest anchor on all chain rode that has been mightily dug in during setting.
- - A lunch time short term anchoring situation has me using a lighter Fortress type plenty of scope. Long term anchoring will see a primary anchor out for the predominant wind current direction and a secondary lighter anchor out at 90 degree or more set for protecting the primary from being dragged/rolled free due to short duration anomalies. I can straighten out the rode wrapping later.
- - I firmly believe that two 125 girlfriends are better than one 250 lb girlfriend.
osirissail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 23:09   #384
Moderator
 
roverhi's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kona, Hawaii, Carlsbad, CA
Boat: 1969 Pearson 35 #108 & 1976 Sabre 28
Posts: 7,410
Send a message via Yahoo to roverhi
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Anchors cannot be compared weight for weight. You are comparing apples and oranges. A Danforth pattern anchor is all about area of flukes. For a given weight, you get a larger fluke area. They work great in mud, sand and other bottoms where they can dig in and hold. There achilles heels are they don't always dig in and since they have low weight are virtually no better than putting out just chain without an anchor if they don't bury themselves. They also have a tendency to skid along the bottom when a tidal or wind change changes the direction of pull on the anchor. They are a fine anchor but there is no way I'd use one as my primary anchor for anchoring in all conditions. FWIW, I've gotten a 20h Danforth on a 13,000 pound boat so dug in that two of us on two Lewmar 40 winches in tandem couldn't get it out of the bottom in Chesapeake mud. Had to dive down and physically dig down to it and pull it out backward. On the other hand, nearly went aground when the anchor wouldn't dig into a hard bottom on the West Coast. They are good kedge anchors in many conditions, a lunch hook, or an additional anchor in survival conditions. Don't like any hinged anchor because they are finger pinchers and hard to handle because they flop around.

The older designs like the Bruce and CQR work in a variety of bottoms but there design doesn't make optimum use of the weight. They won't always set and can drag even if they bury in. FWIW, Used a 45# CQR on my 20,000# boat in SoPac for more than a year of 24/7/365 anchoring and never had a problem. That included a near hurricane on Moorea, FP.

The new generation anchors make better use of fluke area because of their inverted plough design. They will dig in in most bottoms and hold better than the plough type or Bruce of comparable weight. They don't have the fluke area of a comparable weight Danforth Pattern but don't have the reset or penetrating problems.

The Northhill/Fisherman style are all about weight as they have crappy fluke area to weight ratio. They will work in Grass bottoms where their weight allows them to penetrate through the grass. They are also great in bottoms where you have to hook onto something to get a hold. They need to be very heavy to be effective, however. Probably 1 1/2 to 2 times the weight of the primary anchor.

A variety of anchors is the only way to be sure that you have the right anchor for most conditions. The problem is how are you going to stow and deploy a boatload of different style anchors. For a typical cruiser, I'd use a suitably sized new gen. anchor as my primary always ready on the anchor roller. I'd have a couple of Danforth pattern anchors of different weights for Lunch Hook/Stern/Kedge/Emergency use. Like the Fortress for this anchor as they breake down and stow in a very small area. If stowage wasn't an issue, the steel variety are dirt cheap used and available used everywhere. For a last type, would get a heavy Northhill/Fisherman style for grass or bottoms where your going to have to hook onto something to hold. Would go with a Northhill for this anchor because they break down into a compact size for storage. If I was wealthy would buy a bronze Luke Fisherman because it also breaks down into an easily stowed size. Actually, I'd just like to have one because they are a thing of beauty.
__________________
Peter O.
'Ae'a, Pearson 35
'Ms American Pie', Sabre 28 Mark II
roverhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 23:22   #385
Registered User
 
markpierce's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Central California
Boat: M/V Carquinez Coot
Posts: 3,756
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by motion30 View Post
I replaced my 45lb danforth with a 45lb manson I really like the danforth. The only thing the mason does better is reset after a tide change The danforth has let me down several times with a 180* tide change The danforth is better in heavy grass
When the tide changes several times a day like here on the US west coast, I'd say that an anchor's ability to reset readily/reliabily, is very important.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 23:29   #386
Registered User
 
markpierce's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Central California
Boat: M/V Carquinez Coot
Posts: 3,756
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by capnorv View Post
Say it isn't so! There are two boats on the West Coast using Bruce type anchors? Sacrilege, we need to modernize!
So, is that just you and me? ... Still, I've not been convinced of the need to "modernize."
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 04:37   #387
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,475
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by capnorv
It's good to know I've used your least desirable anchor without fail by it (though once by me) for the last 18 years. But then I usually only anchor 30-60 days a year. Maybe part of anchoring success can be sholdered by the skipper? Just a thought. Before that I used a Danforth for 15 years, and knew there must be something that would give me peace of mind. But as I've said before, those Rocna sure look pretty, and that's important to consumerman!
From my own experiences the Bruce has been an appalling performer for me. Then I looked at some test results and can see why. It always fairs very poorly I'm holding power. The other issue I found it that it tends to lie on it's side and just two flukes dig in.

I find danforths to be very good as is the spade. In fact the fact sets so fast it like hitting a rock.

Dave
__________________
Interested in smart boat technology, networking and all things tech
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 04:38   #388
Nearly an old salt
 
goboatingnow's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,475
Images: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailingharry
Dave,

Actually, that is EXACTLY my question -- if a Spade is a better anchor, why does it have to be 50% heavier? And, while it is obvious that a 22lb Spade is better than a 16 lb Danforth, is it better than a 22lb Danforth? I currently have a 20lb Danforth DeepSet on my bow roller, picked up second hand for $60. My frustration is that the comparisons of "next generation" to "old school" are never done on nominally comparable weights.
Because modern anchors tend to specified higher winds and poorer holding.
__________________
Interested in smart boat technology, networking and all things tech
goboatingnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 08:46   #389
Registered User
 
capnorv's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bainbridge Island Washington on the Salish Sea
Boat: Hardin 45 Voyager Alice B., Gig Harbor 10, Orca 7 1/2 sloop, 16' sea kayak
Posts: 420
Images: 1
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
So, is that just you and me? ... Still, I've not been convinced of the need to "modernize."
Just you and me and 25% of other West coast sailers and motormen. If I was a lower East coaster, I'm sure I'd find faults, but I don't go there, or probably ever will. I too have not been convinced to modernize, I need a mizzen replacement, not a 4th anchor on board. I rarely use more than my primary Bruce. Resetting is important here, you never know how the wind will change, 10-20 ft tidal changes, current eddys, we have them all. Luckily not hurricanes, though we clocked 137 mph a couple years ago on the coast, thats getting close.
capnorv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2011, 14:10   #390
Registered User
 
S/V Alchemy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Nova Scotia until Spring 2021
Boat: Custom 41' Steel Pilothouse Cutter
Posts: 4,973
Re: Why Are Next-Gen Anchors Considered 'Better' ?

Maybe the concept of one and one only primary anchor is what should be abandoned. By all means, have a "preferred" anchor, old or new, but have a backup that is best (and probably of a contrasting design) in holding and weather conditions where the "preferred" anchor tends to do less well.

Does this pertain to the occasional anchorer? No, because that's usually fair weather sailing and the holding ground is known because it's likely local or easily discoverable. Does this pertain to the constant, marina-avoiding (or marina absent!) anchorer in exposed roadsteads in places where the forecast is variable to missing (Tap that barometer!).

Hell, yes. Such a cruiser is not going to object to having two or more anchors aboard, and will be prepared to plan accodingly with the means to change rodes, change shackles, and deploy snubbers and bridles as needed.

So perhaps it's not apples and oranges to anchors so much as it's apples and oranges to anchoring situations. The Bruce and CQR models are favoured in mostly low-current, non-tidal Lake Ontario because the holding here is known and predictable and if you don't come loose in a summertime squall line (they tend not to last long), you are unlikely to experience wind strong enough, for long enough, to bust them out.

At the pointy end of South America, or a winter gale in the English Channel, or a Pacific lagoon during a near miss with a cyclone, it would be a different story.
S/V Alchemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
anchor

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Has Anyone Considered Spray Foam ? otherthan Liveaboard's Forum 37 03-01-2011 08:11
Is the cockpit space considered vented? Zach Engines and Propulsion Systems 7 20-08-2008 20:47
My noncommercial post are being considered commercial Radio University Marine Electronics 20 15-01-2007 15:35

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 00:29.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.