Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-19-2012, 05:14 AM   #21
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,515
Most of us just want an anchor to drop and forget after we take a minimal amount of time to set it correctly.

1/5 the boats weight in steel should come close.

We haven't tried our new 80 KILOGRAM UK Bruce yet ,
but expect it to come close to the dream of drop and forget.

FF
__________________
Advertisement

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2012, 08:49 AM   #22
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
Do you guys believe the tests?

Sure , the tester found a bottom where his product works and the competition doesnt.

I was sent a DVD where the "test" showed a std CQR just sliding on hard sand ,
but the companies look alike dug right in.

" Nothing in the hand , nothing up the sleive" keep your eye in the walnut shell.

FF
Oh, so you did get it FF. You might at least have said when I asked. Well you've asked for this. You might at least be honest and admit the CQR bounced across the surface and failed to set because of that hinged shank, unique to that type, and its main weakness. Whereas the manufacturers 'look-alike', as you put it, is nothing like it, except for the convex fluke shape, no hinge in the shank, and buried immediately in minimal distance in exactly the same substrate. Explain how that is sleight of hand.
__________________

Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2012, 03:02 PM   #23
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
I have found in my downloads an anchor test that tested the West Marine's Danforth Deep Set II above the Rocna. The Danforth even weighed about 5 lbs less. But I've probably been a little too hard on the Rocna and it's design because I detest that Smith guy so much. I will take my Manson w me when we go south. I'm anxious to hear Larry's continued evaluation.
Peter has anybody ever welded the joint together on the CQR to see if the anchor works without it? I think it would be even worse in that the long heavy shank would prolly tip the fluke tip up where it could'nt engage the bottom. Never have liked those things anyway.
Reflecting on some of my latest posts I see quite a lot of subjectivity. Shame on me. I think it's better coming from me though.
FF, "1/5 the boats weight in steel should come close."A concrete pier block would do. That would be a 3000# anchor for Willy. Yup should work.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2012, 03:36 PM   #24
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Reflecting on some of my latest posts I see quite a lot of subjectivity. Shame on me.
EVERYTHING to do with boats (and cars and planes and horses and....) is subjective. From the hull shape you choose to the kind of engine you install to the type of anchor you like. Sure, there are all sorts of numbers and formulas and test results that can assist you in your decisions and there are some rules of physics and hydrodymanics and aerodynamics that are foolish to break, but in the end it all comes down to what YOU like.

The 787 as originally conceived was a gorgeous airplane. I don't have a picture handy to illustrate what the 7E7 as it was called then was going to look like but it was spectacular to say the least. The closest thing I can use to describe the shape of the plane is a dolphin. I built a whole marketing film for the plane around this analogy. That shape is what the marketing people and the sales people and anyone with a creative bone in their body wanted. It would have been a brand manager's dream come true. Everyone on the planet would have recognized it instantly and wanted to fly on it just because of the way it was going to look.

But it was a very subjective design.

Then the engineers got involved and they were subjective, too, from their perspective. One by one they tossed out all the beautiful stuff and substituted really boring stuff (but for good engineering reasons). So today, with the exception of the wings, the 787 is a just another ho-hum jet design, sort of like a Honda is like a BMW is like a Lexus is like a Ford is like a.....

If subjectivity wasn't a factor in your beliefs, opinions, and statements, Eric, I'd be worried about you. You'd be robot-man. Anyone who thinks design engineers aren't subjective, opinionated, creative people, think again. I once had a long conversation about this very thing with Alan Mulally when he was the chief engineer of Boeing Commercial Airplanes before he became CEO of that division. And that was our conclusion--- that design engineers are every bit as creative as artists, musicians, and writers. They express their creativity in ways that might seem the very antithesis to what other people think defines creativity, but they are very creative nevertheless. And subjective. If they weren't Alan said, they'd be lousy engineers and he wouldn't want them on his team.

So don't apologize for your subjectivity, Eric. It's what makes you unique and what makes your posts, complete with their opinions and philosophies, worth reading regardless if I agree with them or not. If you weren't this way, I'd skip over everything you say here.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2012, 11:19 PM   #25
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
OK Marin,
Looks like ther'es hope for me after all. I'll make sure I keep my subjective element alive. And I'm glad you read my posts and I reciprocate.
Marin writes "Anything shaped to move through the earth when pulled doesn't seem like a good solution to me for something that's not suppose to move through the earth when pulled, even if the flukes are shaped to theoretically make it dive deeper and dig in. In the soft stuff I suspect those plow anchors dig something you could plant corn in."
I think the Delta would bury as deep as most any anchor and an anchor buried deep is going to be more effective. here's some possible subjectivity. I like the Delta. It looks like it would bury deep and it has ears just the right size and shape/angle to provide a surface to pull against. But it may need more scope like I think Rocna's do for the same reason. When the anchor is set the shank to fluke angle probably determines the lowest scope the anchor will perform at. Make the angle wider and short scope is good but since the anchor is dependent on being on it's side while setting it's setting performance requires a narrower S/F angle. Imagine a Delta on it's side being dragged along w a narrow S/F angle. It seems to me it should set very quickly as the angle of the fluke should be more parallel to the direction of travel over the bottom while being dragged (set). If the S/F angle is wide the fluke will be moving across the bottom closer to sideways and closer to being at right angles to the travel of the fluke over the bottom. Moving more sideways should make the anchor more reluctant to set. For a roll bar anchor I like the Supreme in that I think it has a wider F/S angle and better short scope performance. And I think it's short scope performance should be better w the rode attached to the slot ...not the round hole. This should give a little greater S/F angle. But the anchor probably does not set as well there due to a higher S/F angle. But if it sets good and dependently there (hooked to the slot end) I'll keep using it there. If any Supreme owners/users has any experience to bear this out I'd like to know what has been observed. For or because of the shank angle dilemma described above I am a bit sceptical of the desirability of designing anchors that need to set laying on their side. One simply can't optimize the shank to fluke angle for both setting and holding power over a wide range of scope ratios.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 02:00 AM   #26
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Eric--- If you look at a rollbar anchor from the side--- and I can only relate to the Rocna on this since that's what we have--- the fluke is at quite an angle to the shank, much more so than on our previous Bruce or anchors like the CQR or Danforth. So I would think this would encourage the anchor to dig in deep, which is what it seems to do based on the videos and photos I've seen.

So even though it starts out on its side, once the fluke has knifed down into the bottom and begins to turn to present the whole face of the fluke toward the direction of pull, that fluke to shank angle is going to encourage it to head down at a much sharper angle than, say, our Bruce.

I assume this is why when we set the Rocna it stops the boat's rearward movement with not a jolt but a definite positive stop that's firm enough most of the time to yaw the boat around a bit. I had read about this characteristic before we bought the anchor and it seems that the people describing it were right.

I would assume the same is true of the other rollbar anchors if their fluke to shank angles are as large as the Rocna's.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 05:54 AM   #27
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,515
Well you've asked for this. You might at least be honest and admit the CQR bounced across the surface and failed to set because of that hinged shank, unique to that type, and its main weakness. Whereas the manufacturers 'look-alike', as you put it, is nothing like it, except for the convex fluke shape, no hinge in the shank, and buried immediately in minimal distance in exactly the same substrate. Explain how that is sleight of hand."

sleight of hand." or selected setting field.?

AS CQR are highly regarded , round the world for decades, and is NOT known for not setting , My guess is the flat hard bottom and tiny scope does not allow the antique CQR to do what it normally does , set.

Anyone that wants to see this video, I will pass on the advertising special via Snail mail.

FF
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 07:10 AM   #28
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Yes, please FF - do pass it on. Eric, I suggest you PM FF with your postal address and have him send it to you. I honestly think you would find it interesting, and about as fair a comparative anchor testing method as it is possible to get. I'll gladly send you a spare from here if someone else has nabbed it from FF before you get in line, and he has sent it to someone else. Although done on wet tidal flat to make it doable, I do think the results would translate pretty closely to real live seabed conditions. Pivotting the draw bar centrally, with the test anchors lead from each opposite end, does surely comprise as accurate a direct comparison of setting distance, character and depth and hold as one could get. Anybody else wants one, PM me. Eric, I think you'd be intrigued - I suggest you PM FF your address now. I would really appreciate your 'subjective' assessment on its merits so I can see if my impression is a balanced one or whether I have missed some catch and am deluded...?
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 07:25 AM   #29
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
Yes, please FF - do pass it on. Eric, I suggest you PM FF with your postal address and have him send it to you. I honestly think you would find it interesting, and about as fair a comparative anchor testing method as it is possible to get. I'll gladly send you a spare from here if someone else has nabbed it from FF before you get in line, and he has sent it to someone else. Although done on wet tidal flat to make it doable, I do think the results would translate pretty closely to real live seabed conditions. Pivotting the draw bar centrally, with the test anchors lead from each opposite end, does surely comprise as accurate a direct comparison of setting distance, character and depth and hold as one could get. Anybody else wants one, PM me. Eric, I think you'd be intrigued - I suggest you PM FF your address now. I would really appreciate your 'subjective' assessment on its merits so I can see if my impression is a balanced one or whether I have missed some catch and am deluded...?
Wet..or was a layer of water covering the flat?

Wet and underwater are 2 totally different animals.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 11:48 AM   #30
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
psneeld,
I agree w you completely. Drag'in anchors around on beaches serves no objective purpose whatever ....just interesting to watch. And pulling anchors FROM the beach in the water is done at a scope that almost no anchoring situation can duplicate so not much learned there either Too many variables. Anchors probably float to some degree and sand/mud probably reacts differently under water than in the air on a beach.
Also the CQR anchor is an anchor that I have almost no interest in at all and I can't even say why. I'll PM Fred and ask him what this is all about. Ther'es a retired fisherman here in Thorne Bay that has a big CQR and a hydraulic reel winch. Never talked to him about anchors. Re the CQR it dos'nt even occur to me to say anything. If you-all can imagine me in such a state. For all I know the CQR could be a decent anchor but I subjectively think the odds of that being true is about 500-1. I don't think I've ever said anything about them before.
Peter wrote " Although done on wet tidal flat to make it doable, I do think the results would translate pretty closely to real live seabed conditions." I think "real live sea bed conditions" aren't that difficult to arrange so why hold much stock in "simulations".
FF wrote "AS CQR are highly regarded , round the world for decades, and is NOT known for not setting , My guess is the flat hard bottom and tiny scope does not allow the antique CQR to do what it normally does , set." Sounds like something I'd say about a Danforth or claw. I suspect that newer anchors are actually better than old anchors as Marin has said jillions of times but I think how much better and in what way is way out of focus in this present spot of time. Kinda like the wood boat thing. Some people think if they buy a wood boat and step aboard they'll fall through it and into the sea. Seems to me that if you've got the right balance between fiction and fact a close resemblance of objectivity may result. Is anybody objective? Of course not. Is anybody subjective? Of course. All of us are are. Wer'e subject to the human brain always and facts are always before us so we all exist in a state of subjectivity and objectivity always so in my quest to be more objective I'll PM Fred and see what he's got.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 12:23 PM   #31
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,707
Marin wrote:
"Eric--- If you look at a rollbar anchor from the side--- and I can only relate to the Rocna on this since that's what we have--- the fluke is at quite an angle to the shank, much more so than on our previous Bruce or anchors like the CQR or Danforth. So I would think this would encourage the anchor to dig in deep, which is what it seems to do based on the videos and photos I've seen." If I read "quite an angle" to mean wide or higher numerically I personally perceive that this wider angle would inhibit the anchor's ability to set for somewhat complicated reasons I talked about in my previous post. Once the anchor is set and upright a shallower F/S angle (like I think the Rocna and Delta have) would tend to allow the rode to turn the fluke upward at a shallower scope angle as the rode is set for less and less scope. Then the fluke is levered up and out by the shank. The wider F/S angle would permit the anchor to hold at a steeper rode angle ...shorter scope. Visually from the pictures it looks like the Rocna has a fluke that is closer to being parallel to the shank than the Manson and I attribute that feature to be responsible for the alleged tendency for the Rocna to have a bit better holding power at long scope and for the Manson to work better at short scope.
The sudden setting you describe is a feature of my older XYZ. There's no doubt about when it sets but the Manson (in my limited experience) seems to be the opposite. Frequently I'm not sure if it's set. I'll work with it on the way down. Slow setting may not be an indication that the anchor is inferior or would have less holding power. But there are many more things that are more important than holding power in an anchor but it still must hold. So I have renewed interest in my Manson Supreme.
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 01:50 PM   #32
Guru
 
Anode's Avatar


 
City: Missourah
Country: USA
Vessel Name: M/V Scout
Vessel Model: Sundowner Tug 30'
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 645
Attached Images
 
__________________
Chip

Deliveries & Yacht Services
www.captainchip.com
Anode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 01:52 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Larry H's Avatar
 
City: Pacific Northwest
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Jacari Maru
Vessel Model: 2014 Ranger Tug R-27
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 359
My perception of anchoring is that it is an 'art' not a 'science'. Those that like a CQR most likely have perfected the 'art' of using one. I have seen boats drag a CQR long distances and not get a set. I tried one way back on my sailboat, and never got a good set. I gave up and used my stern anchor, a Danforth, to anchor that night. I finally gave the CQR to a guy that no one liked. I don't know if he got it to work or not!

Practicing with the anchor you have, until you can get a good reliable result, may be the best choice.
__________________
Larry H
Cruising the Pacific Northwest
Larry H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2012, 03:27 PM   #34
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Eric--- Here is the closest thing I have to a photo of our anchor from the side. (I have since made and installed a taller pulpit bail so the anchor does not sit with the end of the shank in the air anymore.) But the fluke angles down more in relation to the shank than the center fluke of the Bruce that we had previously. I have not measured the angles, I'm just comparing them from seeing both anchors on the same pulpit.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	P1000462.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	98.5 KB
ID:	11023  
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2012, 06:40 AM   #35
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry H View Post
My perception of anchoring is that it is an 'art' not a 'science'. Those that like a CQR most likely have perfected the 'art' of using one. I have seen boats drag a CQR long distances and not get a set. I tried one way back on my sailboat, and never got a good set. I gave up and used my stern anchor, a Danforth, to anchor that night. I finally gave the CQR to a guy that no one liked. I don't know if he got it to work or not!

Practicing with the anchor you have, until you can get a good reliable result, may be the best choice.
Larry, I think that's why the search for a better anchor, in terms of quick and reliable setting went on. No-one had got it quite right the bulk of the time, and what we want when we anchor for a night, and we want to sleep, is we do want it to be a scientifically proven anchor that works, by setting quickly and holding. We don't want to to be a damned art which we may or may not have got quite right that night - because Murphy's law says, that's the night it will blow up....
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 06:10 AM   #36
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,515
"I think that's why the search for a better anchor, in terms of quick and reliable setting went on."

Nice but the sales price of what amounts to a couple of pounds of welded or cast steel is the REAL temptation .

$15.00+ a pound for steel, WOW!

FF
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2012, 09:50 AM   #37
TF Site Team
 
Peter B's Avatar
 
City: Brisbane
Country: Australia
Vessel Name: Lotus
Vessel Model: Clipper (CHB) 34 Sedan/Europa style
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,669
Send a message via Skype™ to Peter B
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"I think that's why the search for a better anchor, in terms of quick and reliable setting went on."

Nice but the sales price of what amounts to a couple of pounds of welded or cast steel is the REAL temptation .

$15.00+ a pound for steel, WOW!

FF
I wasn't going to bother responding to that FF, but it's such arrant nonsense I couldn't let it go. I don't know of anyone but you who maintains the absolute peak of anchor technology has already been achieved....especially by a Danforth, Fortress, CQR, or whatever. Everything on this earth made by man gets improved over time. But if you want to continue maintaining that with anchors this is not the case, and that all people who develop better gear are interested in is money, then fine...hold to that, but you might find it a rather lonely position over time.
Peter B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 05:46 PM   #38
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,515
I don't know of anyone but you who maintains the absolute peak of anchor technology has already been achieved....especially by a Danforth, Fortress, CQR, or whatever. Everything on this earth made by man gets improved over time.

The last improvement was DANFORTH , with his light weight anchors during WWII.

Since then , no one has come as far in reducing weight with the required holding power . Since most folks do not match the anchor to the usual conditions , "Gee I can use a really great 5.6lb anchor tonight) ,and simply drop what is on their bow pulpit, 35, 45 or 60 as carried "efficient" is BS as most are total overkill , but work as planned to simply stop for the night.

I hardly care about some claim of "efficiency" in a blow a pair of 60lbs forward and a 3rd 60 aft takes care of my desire to sleep thru the night.

There are times when "size does count" , especially in heavy surge conditions.

Good luck with "improved" anchors at Boeing prices per pound , please just never anchor up wind when a blow is on the way.

FF
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2012, 07:48 PM   #39
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post

The last improvement was DANFORTH , with his light weight anchors during WWII.

Since then , no one has come as far in reducing weight with the required holding power .

FF
I think the Fortress proves you wrong here. In anchor tests--- which I realize can be biased to a desired outcome--- the Fortress is consistently near or at the top of the list in terms of holding power. Granted the design is Danforth but the weight is way, way less for equal or better holding power.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2012, 05:56 AM   #40
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,515
Granted the design is Danforth but the weight is way, way less for equal or better holding power.

But then there is the problem with a bit of grass in the anchorage.

Perhaps as the price of titanium keeps going down , and robot welding gets cheaper , the new kid on the block will be a titanium Danforth knock off, with snap on lead to aid setting as required??

I would gladly swop my old 100 lb Herrishoff folding steel anchor for a titanium knock off.

Might even be worth aircraft fabricator pricing !

FF
__________________

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012