Anchor choices

[No Ice]

I new to this forum and looking for some advice.
My boat is a Grabd Banks 42 2003. I have a 30 KG Bruce anchor which is good if the bottom is right but drags over hard ground and weed.
Im thinking of changing to a Rocna 40 KG, does anyone know if it will fit into a GB 42 bow roller system?
I appreciate any advice you can give me
Brian

 

[markpierce]

Have you considered the fisherman's anchor for hard ground and weed?

Anchors

 

[Giggitoni]

I new to this forum and looking for some advice.
My boat is a Grabd Banks 42 2003. I have a 30 KG Bruce anchor which is good if the bottom is right but drags over hard ground and weed.
Im thinking of changing to a Rocna 40 KG, does anyone know if it will fit into a GB 42 bow roller system?
I appreciate any advice you can give me
Brian

Brian, it's been a while since I visited the Rocna website. If I recall, Rocna gives the dimensions of their various sized anchors. One could then "mock up" an anchor on paper and see if it fits on their particular sprit and roller system. They also have testimonials from customers. However, keep in mind that GB used different sprit and roller configurations from time to time. You'll have to make sure that your system is the same as others, etc. For example, I have a double roller and a friend has a single... Good luck! Welcome to our forums!

 

[markpierce]

... I have a double roller ...

 

[N4712]

Here's a picture of a friends. Please note these are not my pictures.

 

[Giggitoni]

The first photo is my GB42 and the second photo is a GB46 with a Rocna 40. The space in front of the slot in the bowsprit is similar (or the same) in both the GB42 and the GB46. Yours may vary.

Edit: I don't remember where I captured the second photo of the GB46. It may be from the Rocna website, www.rocna.com.

 

[FF]

No one anchor will do.

Different bottoms require different Styles.

The CQR , plow buries , good in weeds grass
The Danforth or Bruce dig in but seldom bury (unless the mud is really soft).

No one anchor can do it all, UNLESS its at least 10 lbs per foot of vessel , when a fisherman or Herrishoff will do fine.

 

[No Ice]

Anchor Choices

Hi and thanks to those who offered advice and very useful pictures.
It looks to me that the Rocna 40 fits the GB 42 roller system. This forum seems to be a wealth of experience.
Thanks Brian, No Ice

 

[hmason]

FYI on my Grand Banks 46' I have a 45# CQR and a 60# Manson Supreme and they fit fine. The Manson is on the "self launching" roller set.

 

[No Ice]

Thanks hmason.
im not familiar with a Manson anchor, i will look it up.
How do you find it, what are its advantages and disadvantages?
Thanks again.
Brian

No Ice

 

[Nomad Willy]

There's no downside for the Manson Supreme except for being good at bringing up mud. All roll bar types share that fault but no other roll bar anchor does everything else near perfectly except perhaps the SARCA if you can get your hands on one. If you like to work your anchor on the bow that should'nt be an issue. Most any anchor holds well but being able to perform very well in a very wide range of conditions is IMO most important.

 

[hmason]

I've used the Manson Supreme anchor for two years and have anchored up and down the east coast from CT to FL. It's the best anchor I've ever used and my CQR hasn't even gotten wet since I bought the Manson. I'd estimate that I have anchored at least 100 times, perhaps more.

The Manson Supreme is much like the Rocna. Awhile back, Rocna experienced some issues with the quality of the steel used to make the anchor. I'm,sure others on this forum will know more about that. That's the main reason I bought the Manson as I was unsure if the steel issue was resolved. The Manson is also a bit less expensive.

I have not regretted my choice. Hope this helps with your decision as confidence in your anchor results in a good night's sleep.

 

[Nomad Willy]

And they are available at WM.

 

[jclays]

Have an original Bruce on my boat. For The mix of bottoms here in So California my Bruce is my main. I have a West Marine Performance (Danforth style) and a Second But one size smaller original Bruce as back ups.

 

[Nomad Willy]

jclays,
How does that WM Performance anchor work? That's a Danforth type right?

 

[Peter B]

No one anchor will do.

Different bottoms require different Styles.

The CQR , plow buries , good in weeds grass
The Danforth or Bruce dig in but seldom bury (unless the mud is really soft).

No one anchor can do it all, UNLESS its at least 10 lbs per foot of vessel , when a fisherman or Herrishoff will do fine.

Sorry FF, but you are just flat out wrong there. That is just your experience. You have no experience with the more modern multipurpose anchors, so you really should be a bit more circumspect before just dismissing the fact that there are anchors now out there that are suitable for virtually every bottom. However, only members who have owned and used these are really able to confirm it. Let's hear from any of the owners of these new generation anchors if they would ever go back to one of the anchors you continue to tout. I'm waiting…. ok, the anchor scene has been bit dull lately, and he asked for it…

 

[FF]

Looking at the posted photo it would seem to have about half the burring surface area of a WWII Danforth.

LESS surface for better anchoring in a blow , Hard to believe!

YRMV

 

[Peter B]

Looking at the posted photo it would seem to have about half the burring surface area of a WWII Danforth.

LESS surface for better anchoring in a blow , Hard to believe!

YRMV

The secret is how fast and how deep she digs in FF. Has to be seen to be believed. I sent you a DVD showing it - you chose not to believe...

 

[psneeld]

I don't think there's much true argument that a fully dug in Danforth/Fortress style anchor leads in ultimate holding power in some bottom types...I can't prove or disprove this...just the results of every respectable anchoring test I've read. Hard to argue fluke surface with reasonable dig profile just as FF suggests.

and I would own one if I was a long range cruiser and thought I might be somewhere hit by a hurricane/typhoon...

....but I don't have a Danforth on board except a tiny dingy anchor because in my experience...getting one to set or temporarily hold when you really need it is a crapshoot.

So while I agree new gen anchors might have incorporated most of the good points and lessened the bad points of former anchors...I don't think they have the best or worst of any anchor and are great as a primary anchor for all around use.

I know NONE of the new gen anchors are a suitable "wreck" anchor (well they are - ONCE)..and there are specifically designed "wreck" anchors....so I think if you buy an "old style" anchor that IS best for every bottom type and situation...you would be in a camp that I know of only one other TF member resides in...

 

[jclays]

jclays,
How does that WM Performance anchor work? That's a Danforth type right?

The West Marine performance anchor (Danforth type) works well. I just prefer the original Bruce. sets fast and holds great. The marinas by me have plenty commercial, and serious fishing boats. The majority use a Bruce or Bruce copy anchor. I believe anchors are a matter of choice and experience. What lets you sleep at night?
Cheers
Jim

 

[Nomad Willy]

Secrets Peter? You're telling FF he's wrong because of secrets?

No secrets Peter .... Some mysteries though.

But I think you're right that most recently designed (I refuse to use the cutesy vogue buzz word) anchors are better at accommodating various bottom conditions and/or types. But there's no anchor that will work on all bottom types. Just work better. No anchor is good in mud for example and many don't set dependably or consistently. So you're both right to some degree.

And relative to surface area there are other variables like depth of penetration, bottom type, throat angle, shape of flukes, scope, rode weight and shank resistance. Shanks tend to lift the anchors as they move fwd and some like Danforths and Forfjords do a lot of that and impeded penetration. Many anchors penetrate quite a ways before the shank starts to lift like a CQR and a Claw. most newer designs have a hooked shank that allows some penetration before the lifting force of the shank starts. Claws have no lifting force until they have penetrated 6 or 8" (depending on size) because their shank is vertical up to that point.

But you (Peter) are wrong in that no anchor is good in soft mud or large rocks. One of the reasons the expression "bigger is better" has validity is that in the worst conditions bigger IS better. What you've said Peter is that design can overcome any obstacle .. and that's not so. Remember that the bottom IS the greatest variable.

FF has been saying no one anchor is good enough for 7 years. Why call him out on it now. I kinda have gotten used to it. And of course I agree to a certain extent. So you're both half right IMO.

 

[Conrad]

I know NONE of the new gen anchors are a suitable "wreck" anchor (well they are - ONCE)..and there are specifically designed "wreck" anchors....so I think if you buy an "old style" anchor that IS best for every bottom type and situation...you would be in a camp that I know of only one other TF member resides in...

I'm intrigued...what is a "wreck" anchor?

 

[Nomad Willy]

I am the other TF member of course and I too have no idea what a wreck anchor is.

And I don't have many anchors to suit various anchoring situations. I'm kinda doing my own anchor test and analysis.

 

[psneeld]

While I don't use one and would argue against their use for lot's of reasons....lot's of people use them for anchoring on wrecks...

The home made ones are rebar bent though a length of pipe usually...

 

[MVNoPlans]

Eric: I use a WM Performance here in South and Central Puget Sound where the bottom tends to be mud. Even with the 10-16 foot tidal swings it has held and pulls up thick quantities of mud as she comes up.

 

[Chrisjs]

Seems to me that whenever these threads show up they are focused on the anchor rather than anchoring. While I do think that the Rocna and similar anchors are great for most conditions, and to an extent I agree with Fred that "bigger is better" (though not 470lbs for my trawler!!), I think most threads miss the real point that the anchor itself is often far less important than how much scope, line vs. chain, and anchoring technique. I often see vessels "anchored" with minimal scope (sailboats, especially with line) that are accidents just waiting to happen. I strongly recommend Earl Hinz's "Complete Book of Anchoring & Mooring".

 

[Nomad Willy]

MvNoPlans,
Thank you. It was a total flop on an anchor test and I could'nt see why. That's why I tend to read between the lines on anchor tests. They often seem totally bent on making older design anchors look useless and the new ones look like miracles.

Speaking of miracles Chrisjs post puts more real world thoughts up front. Once you get a good bottom and good seamanship almost any anchor at all will hold fine in good weather and bad ... But very often not in extreme weather. I can pass cars well w my VW and could do it w a Corvette but as long as I can pass gracefully and safely w my VW I'll not need the Corvette. I'd rather buy a boat w all that money.

MVNoPlans what kayak is that? Looks like mine .. A Necky Kyook.

 

[BruceK]

Chrisjs is right, there are many variables in anchoring, making comparison difficult. Every set has its own circumstances.
I will say that a newer design type, like PeterB`s, gives me noticeably better results than its plough predecessor. But maybe the plough was a little small...comparisons are tough.

 

[FF]

I received an advertising video that was so rigged that it showed a std CQR not being able to set on a sand beach!!!!!!

With 5 or 6 decades of world cruisers experience using CQR , the video had to be a masterpiece of FRAUD.

OR all those decades and thousands of satisfied users would be on the beach.

>What you've said Peter is that design can overcome any obstacle<

Peter is right good design can overcome ant obstacle ,,,,BUT NOT with a single anchor style !

IN rocky bottoms only the old style Herrishoff fisherman can grab enough for a good nights sleep.

Every one of the flyweight watch fobs simply bounce off the stones, and do not dig in.

I am told its similar in heavy kelp , but 20 - 40ft of kelp is uncommon on the east coast.

 

[Peter B]

Secrets Peter? You're telling FF he's wrong because of secrets?
I never mentioned secrets…you did
No secrets Peter .... Some mysteries though.
But I think you're right that most recently designed (I refuse to use the cutesy vogue buzz word) anchors are better at accommodating various bottom conditions and/or types. But there's no anchor that will work on all bottom types. Just work better. No anchor is good in mud for example and many don't set dependably or consistently. So you're both right to some degree...But you (Peter) are wrong in that no anchor is good in soft mud or large rocks. I never said that either….
One of the reasons the expression "bigger is better" has validity is that in the worst conditions bigger IS better. What you've said Peter is that design can overcome any obstacle ...No, I never said that…you did, but to some extent it's true... and that's not so. Remember that the bottom IS the greatest variable.

FF has been saying no one anchor is good enough for 7 years. Why call him out on it now. Because he's also been wrong for 7 years...I kinda have gotten used to it. And of course I agree to a certain extent. So you're both half right IMO.

Sorry Eric, you've lost me - I never said any of those things and I totally accept that there are some bottoms that one should never try to anchor on, because they just pull out, if it is very soft, or never really set, if rocky or solid. However all I actually said is, and I quote…

"so you really should be a bit more circumspect before just dismissing the fact that there are anchors now out there that are suitable for virtually every bottom."